Quote: (04-05-2019 10:47 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 10:07 AM)trickster Wrote:  

God is useless without a family to raise.

Tell that to all the countless people helped by Mother Teresa.

What is it with all the the non sequiturs in this thread? Yes, family is important, but not having a family does not make God useless. In fact, it could be argued that not having a family in your life (as a healthy foundation) makes having God in your life all that much more important -- and that it is an essential step to eventually creating a family.

This observation is not targeted at trixter in particular, but vomiting out a stream-of-consciousness is not any way to engage in a healthy dialogue, especially on a topic as important as the nature of God.

Anyone can argue anything but family is the purpose of life for 99 percent of the world. If you reach a certain age and you want to talk about God or religion but you don't have a family of your own, then you are just engaging in mental masturbation. I do agree that understanding and embracing God is important for young people that don't yet have a family. But that understanding and embrace should all be preamble to starting your own family. Engaging in the minutia of what you think God is or isn't or the stages of coming to Jesus is not what God wants from you. If you've reached the age of 40 in today's world and you aren't raising children, God is not smiling at you, you can believe that.

This observation is not targeted at you, Tail Gunner.

Having families not grounded in anything but self help and consumerism, which is what you see all around the West increasingly, isn't Godly. While I agree that it is preferable to have a family, just look around --- anyone can have "kids" under any number of (less than ideal) scenarios. That's not the goal.

Just having kids without a framework can lead equally to as much suffering (the bad kind) as joy.

Quote: (04-05-2019 08:44 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

The oddity of being an atheist...

If you have any intention of understanding how atheists really feel then visit the Material Pill thread, but serving up boilerplate strawmanning like this isn't getting anyone anywhere useful.

@Infowarrior1

Ah, that’s a doozy of a video, I’ll check it out the next time I’m trapped in LA traffic. So know that this response is dumb to that information presented.

Conceptually, the Four Letters (technically 5, as the tip of the Yod is considered the wellspring from which any creation can, well, spring) are a hermetic vehicle for understanding the cosmos. It is a model of matter (plasma/gas/liquid/solid) as well as the metaphysical universe (void/fire/air/water/earth and their associated spiritual realms Assiah/Briah/Yetzirah/Atziluth). It is very similar to the metaphysical model of Taiji and the 5 Element Theory, as well as the Buddhist Wheel of Dharma.

And of course, it would be blasphemy to speak that name - saying so would be a claim that you are GOD and all things. Though, in a funny way you are.

Now, it’s funny you mention the Hellenistic interpretation of god. Recall, Abram knew the Lord as El Elyon (who is Enlil) the chief deity of the Desert pantheon. Then Moses is let known that it is another god who is the god of Israel:

Ayeh-Asher-Ayeh. I Am-That Is-I Am - pointing to Thatness in all things being a unity. However, this name can be traced back to the Hellenistic conception of god. We know from the archeological record that Desert deities were paired, a male mover and a female sustainer. A consort, and all consorts had the general title of Asherah, or perhaps Asher-H. My Hebrew is rusty, but IIRC the suffix heh or H is used to denote ‘The’, so The Asher.

Looking back at the hidden name of god, and knowing a bit of ancient Sumer mythology, a perplexing conclusion bubbles up. You see, Ea is the elder brother of Enlil who was El Elyon (The Most High) - Ea the Creator, the deity who spared Atrahasis and his House from the great flood.

This is apostasy, by the way, but from my blasphemous understanding the true god of Israel is Ea Asher-i Ea - here Asher with the suffix yod or i implies belonging to. So Ea and His Wife.

This is all the business of gods, though, and not God or GOD to follow my earlier madness. To really get into this you have to go back to the Elohist and Jahwist schism of Ancient Israel, when Judah (the Jahwists) broke away from the greater kingdom. Or dig into the Religion of Adam which Abram practiced, which has been bastardized as modern Kabbalah in a dozen iterations.

@Johnreed

You are exactly right! Well, not exactly, as no one can be exactly right but you catch my meaning.

On the Jealous God, there is an apocryphal (to the Pharises) text known as the Song of Moses, where in Moses explicitly states that there are many gods, that each people in the world has their own god, and while the god of Israel is the most high (something an Israelite would say) all gods have their place. However, this song was silenced after the schism of the kingdoms, where in the Jahwists put forth a monotheistic interpretation of the divine. False idols and false gods and all that.

Let me take it a different way, to follow the idea of Free Will. I very much like your point about open roads. From this we can see that the Divine and this Creation and human capacity for sentience is like a radio reciever - there is so much reality to which we can tune in to, all of it source.

A quick aside, the problem we’re stumbling into is that the source material most of us are using (The Tanakh) was that distilled from ancient mystics after their return from the Stary Palaces to be consumed by the layman. If you find, and delve deeply into, (and return from!) the more esoteric texts and teachings of the time you see that the most illumined of the Desert had a very similar understanding of the cosmos as those ancient Vedic peoples.

So to continue, we humans are given Free Will by The Supreme Personality of the God-Head to explore the entirety of that God-Head. This was known to Abram as the Sephirot (The One True Path, the Narrow Road) and the Qlipphot (The Confusion of Creation). The rub is that the former is sustaining, the latter dissipating- to tie to the East we can say that the former is Yang and the latter is Yin. And just as in Taiji theory, the Sephirot and Qlipphot uphold one another - that Good and Evil are Co-Creating factions. None of this concerns GOD the Demiurgos. It is a human concern! As such, what is apparent jealosy of The Lord I see as exasperation. “No! You stupid monkeys! That way is folly!” And yet time and time again we hurl ourseves into darkness, like lemmings from a cliff.

This has manifested as a different understanding of Yeshua and his Great Sacrifice, as I do not believe in the current conception of how the Original Sin has been absolved. A disclaimer, these are the ramblings of a madman.

Let’s personify GOD for sake of this argument. The Most High sits above the rest of the Host, his will and machinations Law, they cannot be interfered with by any other god.

He has his creation, and he has given it the freedom to choose. So a test is in order, to see exactly what he has created, and in turn know himself - for we are his image, a fractal projection from higher realms into this one.

Take a people of the world. Any people would do. Just choose one group of people - a chosen people, if you will.

Then, through prophecy and dreams let them know, for thousands of years, that if they follow the Narrow Path they will reach perfection. Show them the path, take a few of them in hand to the Hekelot, let them see what they could be if they would only choose to be so.

Tell them you’re coming - in flesh and blood. To see what happens when you do. To see what Man is made of.

Well, we all know how that ended. Dangling from a dead tree. Is it no wonder that the mouth of prophecy was sown shut after that SNAFU?

That the original sin was absolved through comic, cosmic tragedy.

Blessedly, the way is still open - narrow as ever. And if you wish to walk it? Good luck!

Quote: (04-05-2019 11:48 AM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

Having families not grounded in anything but self help and consumerism, which is what you see all around the West increasingly, isn't Godly. While I agree that it is preferable to have a family, just look around --- anyone can have "kids" under any number of (less than ideal) scenarios. That's not the goal.

Just having kids without a framework can lead equally to as much suffering (the bad kind) as joy.

Of course. But we are talking about living according to Godly principles. Even that won't help some people, who are just plain idiots. But be fruitful and multiply. That is how God wants us to carry out his mission. To raise the next generations up right so that his plan is carried out. You can't have good communities without good families. A man or woman without family, once they are past a certain age, is a selfish and godless act. Naturally I am not talking about those that can't have children for whatever reason. And if a simpleton or a corrupt person wants to end their bloodline or can't find someone to procreate with, all the better. But for the men of this forum? God demands children. It's a spiritual imperative.

Quote: (04-05-2019 02:57 AM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2019 10:28 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2019 10:15 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

Quote: (04-03-2019 05:14 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

What I've come to understand is that God makes himself known by the Faculty of Reason, rather than Emotion.

I used to argue with Atheists online for hours and hours about evidence for God. It was a total waste of time and I doubt I convinced anyone.

There are only two options: God or absurdity.

My question to the Atheist is "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" to which they reply "I reasoned it".

Rationality, reasoning, logic, knowledge, truth - All facets of God.

"The rational atheist" is an oxymoron. Not because Atheists are not rational but because God is a prerequisite for rationality and they are created in His image.
This is why the bible says they "hold truth in unrighteousness" and "that which may be known of God is manifest in them".

LOGOS RISING

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

I keep pointing this out. Ah, well.

You do keep pointing this out, and I would really like an explanation of how this implies the existence of God. My understanding (admittedly from a relatively dull lecture in Theory of Computation) is that it's simply a proof that there must exist statements which are true but not provable, and thus denies any sort of algorithm for say proving all of math.

If it's just that you then must have faith that math exists and works correctly sure I have faith, but that seems pretty disconnected from moral prescriptions against masturbation and freemasonry.

What is math? It's the underlying pattern of the universe. Our formulation of it - order of operators, base ten, et cetera - are merely our ways of conceptualizing something that is fundamentally present in all things.

Let's abstract for a moment: that human beings beget human beings, and dogs beget dogs, implies that the apple seed contains the pattern of the entire tree. This conclusion was reached millennia ago; and in recent years we have discovered the nature of the blue print: DNA. Everything that makes you you is combined in that primordial coding which happened when your parents exchanged gametes.

Actually, yes - it is more complex than that - more like baking a cake than assembling Ikea furniture - but the fundamental point I'm driving at is that everything that turns genes into a person can be delineated and - hypothetically - understood. It may take us a very, very long time to understand it (as is the case for the length of time between understanding that something like DNA must exist, and eventually discovering it) - and we might not be smart enough to understand it - but at no point does the human being require an injection of Unobtanium - or a spark of magic - to turn the wooden boy alive. We are physical beings with physical explanations.

(The soul is another matter, beyond the present scope.)

So what is math? If it is merely the patterning of reality, then - like the apple seed - it should be completable. We might never understand all of it, but in principle it should be complete. Instead, we find the opposite: that there are truths which cannot be proven.

This means that math is not of nature; it dictates the patterns that nature adheres to, but it is not part of nature. It is higher than nature. It is Super Natural.

Math is a supernatural entity that is 'larger' than the universe and unknowable in its completeness to beings limited by physicality.

The supernatural - by its very nature - cannot be known to creatures limited by nature. However, its necessary existence can be demonstrated. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is one such example (though it can also be answered with "Nothing exists, embrace social justice, rape, and suicide.") If you believe that math is true, then you believe that supernatural entities exist. And if supernatural entities exist... that certainly starts suggesting that God exists.

Ala Arthur C Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Point being that having a gap in scientific knowledge should not be interpreted as "supernatural". (This is actually a very primitive concept, hence explaining natural phenomenon like lightning with Thor or Zeus and what not.) Even though science becomes ever more esoteric, it still follows natural laws. The discovery of the Higgs boson, gravity waves, or the charm quark only fill in more and more gaps. Then you have the positively blooming field of extrasolar planet discovery, with more and more earthlike planets being found, all suggesting that the earth is not necessarily as much of a one-off as we'd like to think it is.

Also, the presence of supernatural does not necessarily validate traditional religious dogma. There are quite a few people out there with only the vaguest conception of a godhead but who vehemently reject organized religion with all of its baggage and internal contradictions.

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

You'll have to ask such questions in another thread. Us atheists get warnings for posting in this one.

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Ala Arthur C Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

While I am admittedly partial to his Science Fiction, I don't think that pederast knew what he was talking about.

Imagine if you and I went back to Ancient Greece, and showed an Aristotle a smart phone. Would he immediately declare that it was magic? Or would he begin investigating how it worked, building relationships in his head? I'm fairly confident that he'd conclude that it was a machine of some sort, obeying the same sort of principles as the machines of his time obeyed - but of amazing craftsmanship.

Even monkeys don't worship technology as 'magic' - they try an understand touch-screens to the extent of their ability.

Quote:Quote:

Point being that having a gap in scientific knowledge should not be interpreted as "supernatural".

I skipped over this part - Bortimus Prime understood the difference.

A Scientific proof is nothing but a tentative hypothesis. Techinically speaking, there is no such thing as a Scientific proof - only Scientific disproof. Science is the accumulation of observations, and the development of theoretical models that fit those observations. So long as the models continue to make acurate predictions, the theory is not disproven. Until one day it is.

The Earth-centric model of the solar system produced near-perfect predictions of planetary motions for centuries (and still does!; the Helio-centric model eventually superseded it because of its simplicity. These days we have evidence that the Earth-centric model fails to produce predictions for how the solar system looks from other planets - but the theory still works from planet Earth.

Put simply: a Scientific proof is simply the statement that: "We have no reason to believe this is false... yet."

A Mathematical proof is something else entirely. When you understand a mathematical proof it becomes impossible for you to believe otherwise. The question "Are there infinite Prime Numbers?" for instance - which I cover in this video - once you know the answer, there is zero doubt in your mind, no matter how much of a Bayesian Conspirator you are.

Quote:Quote:

(This is actually a very primitive concept, hence explaining natural phenomenon like lightning with Thor or Zeus and what not.)

I don't think anybody ever seriously believed this, beyond the 'ominous portents' level. I'm pretty sure our ancestors considered these to be ways that the gods communicated with us through natural phenomenon - not literally some beardy man hurling thunderbolts.

If you want an example of this, look at the chain that was used to bind Fenrir:

The sound of a cat’s footfall
The beard of a woman
The roots of a mountain
The sinews of a bear
The breath of a fish
The spittle of a bird

That's poetry and metaphor; our ancestors weren't stupid.

Quote:Quote:

Even though science becomes ever more esoteric, it still follows natural laws. The discovery of the Higgs boson, gravity waves, or the charm quark only fill in more and more gaps. Then you have the positively blooming field of extrasolar planet discovery, with more and more earthlike planets being found, all suggesting that the earth is not necessarily as much of a one-off as we'd like to think it is.

But Science will never create a complete set of mathematics. That has been perfectly - per fectum - thoroughly done. This knowledge will never be available to us.

Quote:Quote:

Also, the presence of supernatural does not necessarily validate traditional religious dogma. There are quite a few people out there with only the vaguest conception of a godhead but who vehemently reject organized religion with all of its baggage and internal contradictions.

Yes - that's obvious! I merely said that it proved the existence of a supernatural entities; and since science is the study of the natural world, these entities are beyond its ken. My argument for Catholicism* and Christ are entirely separate; the theology of the Church is something I'd been convinced of as an atheist for entirely separate reasons, but it wasn't until I ran into Godel's theorem that my atheism fell off of me and allowed me to have faith.

Also worth noting: I just ran into this silly comic that tries to capture free will into a silly logical syllogism. If something as basic as mathematics is fundamentally unknowable to us, is suggests that there are many other things that are equally unknowable to us. These are what the Church refers to when it uses the term "The Mystery of Faith."

Protestants ignore this, and follow John Calvin. Murder and communism follow shortly thereafter.

*Eastern Orthodoxy is fine too.

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:15 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

You'll have to ask such questions in another thread. Us atheists get warnings for posting in this one.

I dont bother.

You will say in a round about way "I reasoned it". To which I'll reply "how do you know your reasoning is valid". And you will say "I used my reasoning to determine that my reasoning is valid".

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:40 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:15 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

You'll have to ask such questions in another thread. Us atheists get warnings for posting in this one.

I dont bother.

You will say in a round about way "I reasoned it". To which I'll reply "how do you know your reasoning is valid". And you will say "I used my reasoning to determine that my reasoning is valid".

...while Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that the question of whether reasoning can be trusted or not is unknowable. It must be premised upon faith in the supernatural.

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:53 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:40 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:15 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

You'll have to ask such questions in another thread. Us atheists get warnings for posting in this one.

I dont bother.

You will say in a round about way "I reasoned it". To which I'll reply "how do you know your reasoning is valid". And you will say "I used my reasoning to determine that my reasoning is valid".

...while Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that the question of whether reasoning can be trusted or not is unknowable. It must be premised upon faith in the supernatural.

There's a book called Godel, Escher and Bach. I probaby spelled that wrong. Let me google it. There ya go: Gödel, Escher, Bach.

I started reading it around the time I was getting in to Daniel Dennett's
'consciousness explained'.

One of them didn't make much sense, but the other one made even less sense.

We are just small men. Little men.

Quote: (04-05-2019 05:26 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:53 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:40 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:15 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)Sooth Wrote:  

In short, the nature of math and logic is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

The nature of God is immortal, immaterial, universal and unchanging.

How does the atheist account for math and logic?

You'll have to ask such questions in another thread. Us atheists get warnings for posting in this one.

I dont bother.

You will say in a round about way "I reasoned it". To which I'll reply "how do you know your reasoning is valid". And you will say "I used my reasoning to determine that my reasoning is valid".

...while Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that the question of whether reasoning can be trusted or not is unknowable. It must be premised upon faith in the supernatural.

We are just small men. Little men.

And God, the creator of everything, loved you so much that he sent his only Son to die as a sacrificial lamb so that when you turn up to the gates of heaven and the bouncer says you are not dressed apropriately, Jesus grabs you and says "Its good, hes with me".

Quote: (04-05-2019 12:20 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

If you have any intention of understanding how atheists really feel then visit the Material Pill thread, but serving up boilerplate strawmanning like this isn't getting anyone anywhere useful.

Just a long held observation that while many, many atheists claim as such. Really, they're simply angry at what they perceive 'God' to be.
So they're not in fact atheists.

Quote: (04-05-2019 02:29 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

What is math? It's the underlying pattern of the universe. Our formulation of it - order of operators, base ten, et cetera - are merely our ways of conceptualizing something that is fundamentally present in all things.

One of my favorite directors, Darren Aronofsky, in his directorial debut, made a film about a 216-digit number that represented the unspeakable name of God. It is a very interesting film that is notable for covering of an array of themes including religion, mysticism, and the relationship of the universe to mathematics.

Quote: (04-05-2019 02:29 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

So what is math? If it is merely the patterning of reality, then - like the apple seed - it should be completable. We might never understand all of it, but in principle it should be complete. Instead, we find the opposite: that there are truths which cannot be proven.

This means that math is not of nature; it dictates the patterns that nature adheres to, but it is not part of nature. It is higher than nature. It is Super Natural.

Math is a supernatural entity that is 'larger' than the universe and unknowable in its completeness to beings limited by physicality.

The supernatural - by its very nature - cannot be known to creatures limited by nature. However, its necessary existence can be demonstrated. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is one such example (though it can also be answered with "Nothing exists, embrace social justice, rape, and suicide.") If you believe that math is true, then you believe that supernatural entities exist. And if supernatural entities exist... that certainly starts suggesting that God exists.

I was actually thinking along these same lines the other day about the difference between things that exist physically versus conceptually, and things that couldn't even exist conceptually like another integer between 3 and 4 (without redefining 3 or 4).

To me though this would imply more of a immutable machine God than a personal God, like an anthropomorphism of all the logical rules to which reality is bound. I can't make a silent request to Math for a girl to spill out of her blouse when she bends over.

Quote: (04-05-2019 03:04 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Ala Arthur C Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Point being that having a gap in scientific knowledge should not be interpreted as "supernatural". (This is actually a very primitive concept, hence explaining natural phenomenon like lightning with Thor or Zeus and what not.) Even though science becomes ever more esoteric, it still follows natural laws. The discovery of the Higgs boson, gravity waves, or the charm quark only fill in more and more gaps. Then you have the positively blooming field of extrasolar planet discovery, with more and more earthlike planets being found, all suggesting that the earth is not necessarily as much of a one-off as we'd like to think it is.

Also, the presence of supernatural does not necessarily validate traditional religious dogma. There are quite a few people out there with only the vaguest conception of a godhead but who vehemently reject organized religion with all of its baggage and internal contradictions.

If you're going to restate the God of the Gaps fallacy, it seems somewhat ironic that you immediately originate and fall for an atheistic version of it by implicitly arguing "Science can't explain everything that happens in the universe, but one day it will," as you did in your first paragraph.

If you want an understanding of why inductive reasoning of that variety is bad and why Karl Popper's the greatest philosopher of science because he confines science solely to that which can be disproven, read some Nassim Taleb, especially his articles on what he thinks religion is for.

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:53 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

...while Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that the question of whether reasoning can be trusted or not is unknowable. It must be premised upon faith in the supernatural.

Seems like you're playing semantical games here. Human cognition is based on fuzzy logic which is by nature probabilistic, not just binary logic gates. Whenever you make a decision of any kind (including determining abstractly whether something is true or false) it is in some way a hunch, even if it seems beyond a shadow of a doubt. This process does not require a belief in a deity. Even lower animals who are trained by conditioning ala Pavlov's Dog behave this way.

Also, seemingly mystical concepts like quantum states or what happened before the big bang or whether there's a multiverse or other dimensions do not by themselves validate the existence of a deity. It's possible for there to be unknowables without a god or an afterlife.

And calling for some nebulous and undefined God is one thing but when you get down to brass tacks of deconstructing religious texts behind established religions, then there are a lot of problems.

How do the Christians on this forum justify their womanizing?

Quote: (04-06-2019 12:28 AM)flyinghorse Wrote:  

How do the Christians on this forum justify their womanizing?

Read post number 1.

Quote: (04-05-2019 05:26 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

There's a book called Godel, Escher and Bach. I probaby spelled that wrong. Let me google it. There ya go: Gödel, Escher, Bach.

I started reading it around the time I was getting in to Daniel Dennett's
'consciousness explained'.

One of them didn't make much sense, but the other one made even less sense.

We are just small men. Little men.

I first encountered that book as a young child; only read the parables. They may have affected me deeply.

Since then, the book keeps disappearing on me. I've owned three copies, and they keep vanishing. I'm halfway through the fourth. In about two weeks I'll be done my data analysis course, and be able to focus entirely on Clausewitz and GEB.

Quote: (04-05-2019 11:56 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 04:53 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

...while Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that the question of whether reasoning can be trusted or not is unknowable. It must be premised upon faith in the supernatural.

Seems like you're playing semantical games here. Human cognition is based on fuzzy logic which is by nature probabilistic, not just binary logic gates. Whenever you make a decision of any kind (including determining abstractly whether something is true or false) it is in some way a hunch, even if it seems beyond a shadow of a doubt. This process does not require a belief in a deity. Even lower animals who are trained by conditioning ala Pavlov's Dog behave this way.

Also, seemingly mystical concepts like quantum states or what happened before the big bang or whether there's a multiverse or other dimensions do not by themselves validate the existence of a deity. It's possible for there to be unknowables without a god or an afterlife.

And calling for some nebulous and undefined God is one thing but when you get down to brass tacks of deconstructing religious texts behind established religions, then there are a lot of problems.

*sigh*

Please read my original post. Nonetheless, I shall address this.

1) I am a Bayesian Conspirator. The Frequentists must be eliminated in Holy Jihad!

2) Despite the fuzzy nature of probabilistic, Bayesian knowledge, in this particular case (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) I am *not* using probabilistic knowledge, I am using the most hard, the most fundamental, the most inarguable of logics to argue my point. Go build an electric circuit - your boolean logic there was premised upon my philosophical logic, and is functionally indistinguishable.

My argument cut through probabilistic knowledge, and hit upon absolutes. 2+2=4; this electric circuit does thus; math is unknowable. That is not 'fuzzy human logic' - that is the hardest of machine algebra.

Quote: (04-05-2019 05:46 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2019 02:29 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

What is math? It's the underlying pattern of the universe. Our formulation of it - order of operators, base ten, et cetera - are merely our ways of conceptualizing something that is fundamentally present in all things.

One of my favorite directors, Darren Aronofsky, in his directorial debut, made a film about a 216-digit number that represented the unspeakable name of God. It is a very interesting film that is notable for covering of an array of themes including religion, mysticism, and the relationship of the universe to mathematics.

I read about that when it came out - I've always wanted to see it.

Great film. It's basically kabbalah the film.