What Religion are you?

[Zosi]

I hate to break this to you Plow, but that post that you claim meant I "got" it was intentionally constructed to be full of shit to prove your argument wrong, and it did a rather good job. Cadsuane pretty much nailed it, you seem to be going for a sort of scientific nihilism - the only way you can defend the validity of the "word of God" is by trying to deny that there is any kind of objective true or false in the world, which would make both axiomatic mathematics and your flights of fantasy involving the man in the sky equally valid.

[Plow]

First off, I find it hilarious that your idiotic aggrandizing of the physical sciences (which we use, anyway) leads you to believe that I "accidentally" argued a slight variation of exactly what I said.


Secondly, I find it even more hilarious that people still haven't figured out that I am not arguing the existence of God. I could do that if, you know, I actually believed it (well, I can argue it without believing regardless, I suppose), but as of right now, I literally have not, ever.

All I have done is stated that there *are* arguments, and that claiming "victory" in said arguments, for either side, is foolish, and given examples as to why.


Now, as to the point at hand:

Apparently I somehow have not said this clearly enough: math uses math (among other tactics, such as raw exemplification, i.e. counting beans) to prove math is correct. 2 pages later, you guys have finally accepted this claim. (kind of...)

Religion attempts to use religion (among other things, such as-- gasp-- logical deduction) to prove religion is correct.


People draw lines at where which parts of that become "acceptably" proven. Different people will make different choices on where those lines are, and that is their right as human beings. Some will trust others, some will occasionally trust some others, some will only believe what they can personally experience.



Hey, check this out:

An object can not bring itself into existence. If it does not exist, there is no method, nor any "thing" there to perform the act of bringing it into existence.

Matter can neither be created, nor destroyed.

Therefore in order for anything to exist, something has to be able to break one or the other of those fundamental, logical truths.

Insert God here.

(also, insert neo with his 1 man band ensemble jumping around playing his harmonica banging on his bass drum with GOD OF THE GAPS in huge letters on the side)

What's that? A logical argument for God? Unpossible.


And no, I did not just argue for the existence of God, I showed you an example of a logical argument that can be made for the existence of God.


And guess what? There's other ones, too.

[Zosi]

Congratulations, you've discovered the same centuries-old "proofs" of God's existence that have been discredited for nearly as long as they've existed.

For your specific "proof"... if something has to be created in order to exist, who or what created God? Hint: your first "truth" is neither fundamental nor logical, it's simply an expression of your own God-believing bias towards believing that the world requires God to exist.

[Plow]

The law of conservation of energy as modernly understood has barely, if even, been accepted for 1 century.


If you wanna be neo, that's fine too, just don't try to pretend you're not.

[Cadsuane]

Okay, you didn't seem to understand. I'm okay with that, because you're an idiot.

Logic uses logic to prove logic, which makes logic about circular logic circular logic and... wait, logic must be in the same boat religion is. Psst, this is where you're supposed to realize what a twat you are.

What I find hilarious is that you demonstrated this proof for the existence of the causality removed god with a straight face. What you've pointed out is the paradox of the unmoved mover (god), which is as old as Aristotle:

Everything has a cause, something does not come from nothing.

Therefore there must have been a first cause, which caused everything.

The first cause being the first cause, does not itself have a cause.

You can say god is the first cause, and end up shrugging your shoulders when someone asks what caused god. Or you can approach God mystically and take it as an excuse to stop thinking rationally. He's god, silly things like being logically consistent must be beneath him. At any rate, this is better characterized as a failure of logic so really, your whole position that rigour ("provability") is relative continues to be totally absurd and I repeat, characteristic of a clueless english major.

[zoobernut]

Plow you realize that you are doing the exact same things over and over again that you constantly accuse Neo of doing right?

[Plow]

Okay, you didn't seem to understand. I'm okay with that, because you're an idiot.

Logic uses logic to prove logic, which makes logic about circular logic circular logic and... wait, logic must be in the same boat religion is. Psst, this is where you're supposed to realize what a twat you are.

What I find hilarious is that you demonstrated this proof for the existence of the causality removed god with a straight face. What you've pointed out is the paradox of the unmoved mover (god), which is as old as Aristotle:

Everything has a cause, something does not come from nothing.

Therefore there must have been a first cause, which caused everything.

The first cause being the first cause, does not itself have a cause.

You can say god is the first cause, and end up shrugging your shoulders when someone asks what caused god. Or you can approach God mystically and take it as an excuse to stop thinking rationally. He's god, silly things like being logically consistent must be beneath him. At any rate, this is better characterized as a failure of logic so really, your whole position that rigour ("provability") is relative continues to be totally absurd and I repeat, characteristic of a clueless english major.

Unless God created those rules for his universes.

Hey look, religion logically supporting a logical argument for religion.



Again, get over the fact that you agree or disagree with the argument itself. I'm not making the argument. I'm showing that these conclusions can be drawn logically.

[Plow]

Plow you realize that you are doing the exact same things over and over again that you constantly accuse Neo of doing right?

Really? I'm being a massive douchebag and insulting other people's beliefs?


this is the 2nd or 3rd time in the last page someone has responded with a 1 line post, which I've responded with the exact same level of effort, and then they've edited in more shit after

[Cadsuane]

I'm trying to show you that taking a paradox for a conclusion is not logical.

[zoobernut]

I won't edit more shit in but I will say that yes, honestly and not because I disagree with you, you are being a massive douchebag with respect to the math thing.

I really respect what you are trying to do in these discussions but I just felt like it was necessary to call you out on it when you start doing something that you were calling out someone else for doing. I am not referring to when you called Neo out for insulting others beliefs, I am talking about when you called him out for the whole sig thing and you said

"Fuck no, that would be admitting a mistake, which in your eyes would be tantamount to admitting defeat, and, well, you can't have that."

[Plow]

Because nothing that's been pointed out to me as mistaken has been the point I was addressing.


Math proves math. This is not false. Its very nature is to explain concepts, and yet it is concepts in and of itself. Scientists take peer review, and accept or dismiss it. Historians do the same. Religion proves religion. Theologians take peer review.

These are similar approaches. That's *all* I'm saying.

Well, that and that different people's choices on what is acceptable evidence varies. It *has* to, because different fields have different methodologies, and are exploring different concepts.

I just do not see what is so hard about this.



Maybe I should have given the examples of the point where logic can lead one to the point of "That's why he's God-- the idea that he is a being above universal existence substantiates the claim that he can break the rules, which goes back to support the concept that God is what made the rules in the first place, which further substantiates the idea that he could break the rules," etc. in a big circle, first?

[Effluo]

God is kinda like Chaos, he just was

[zoobernut]

No Math doesn't prove math. Basic observable existing properties of the universe lay down the foundation for math. Only higher up math is proven by math.

And if you play that card how do you know that

"Because nothing that's been pointed out to me as mistaken has been the point I was addressing. "

Isn't equally true of the points that Neo was making that you called him out on?

If your point was lost and everyone responded based on what they thought your point was then it was not well conveyed. It doesn't automatically mean everyone else is retarded.

[Cadsuane]

Then god would be breaking the rules that you're using to explain the necessity of a god. You can't undermine deduction and use it in the same breath.

Go back and read my post at the top of this page. There is a large difference between principles which are discovered and principles which are invented. Math is proven because it correlates experience; it corresponds with reality, and it's falsifiable. If you want to compare it to religion you have to make the leap of faith in asserting that religion was discovered by man instead of invented.

[Cadsuane]

The law of conservation of energy as modernly understood has barely, if even, been accepted for 1 century.


If you wanna be neo, that's fine too, just don't try to pretend you're not.

Just thought I'd point out that modern conservation laws have changed in less time than that, that conservation laws themselves are as old as philosophy, and that what you're probably referring to is called the conservation of mass-energy.

[Max™]

No, sorry, you didn't. Physics doesn't prove the psychological impact of religion, and it's quite clear you have not studied the sociology or psychology behind it at all.

Keep telling yourself that, though, it's totally different from a religious person going "Look at those poor, Godless, Russian heathens, a lack of religion makes for a terrible world."

You moron, you don't get to question that.

I didn't say I learned this from physics. I said I learned this from studying religion, what it is, what it does to people, what it has done to the world.

[Plow]

No Math doesn't prove math... Only higher up math is proven by math.

Math doesn't prove all math... math just proves math sometimes...

Could that be... a similarity?

If it's not, that's a hell of a contradiction to make 1 sentence apart from each other

Basic observable existing properties of the universe lay down the foundation for math.

Basic observable existing properties of the universe lay down the foundation for religion, as well.

Remember, just because you don't believe someone, doesn't mean they're not providing their perception of their observations on reality. Be it in the historical sense of this or that happened, or the logical processes, one of which I've laid out thoroughly in the last page.

This goes back to the Descartes stuff, too. The only real reality is existence, everything else we can only decipher through perception, perception is provably flawed, etc. (his ideas, not mine)

And if you play that card how do you know that

"Because nothing that's been pointed out to me as mistaken has been the point I was addressing. "

Isn't equally true of the points that Neo was making that you called him out on?

Mostly because I've interacted with his mindset extensively, and also because he hasn't effectively displayed a more thorough example of his points. He largely hasn't even suggested that people missed points, he just replies that people are wrong because he says so, and then throws in some insults to attempt to make himself appear more credible than the other side.

If your point was lost and everyone responded based on what they thought your point was then it was not well conveyed. It doesn't automatically mean everyone else is retarded.

I never said everyone else is retarded... I attempted to convey my point better. Maybe stop with the snap judgements? I know seeing neo insult everyone he disagrees with, and me randomly getting bored and flinging the poo that landed next to me back at him (or the fact that pretty much everyone talking right now has resorted to name calling with me...) could lead you to the assumption that I'm just tossing out random insults the same way he is, but I'm really not.

Yeah, people that try to act like they're superior in all knowledge because they study math or physics are going to get it thrown back in their faces, sorry if that offends you. Just look at how these people flipped out when I didn't even challenge anyone's knowledge of physical science, I simply challenged neo to test me when he proclaimed that I couldn't grasp any physical concepts, and made fun of his utter inability to communicate in the process.

Just thought I'd point out that modern conservation laws have changed in less time than that, that conservation laws themselves are as old as philosophy, and that what you're probably referring to is called the conservation of mass-energy.

Yes, it is. (that's what I'm referring to)

Then god would be breaking the rules that you're using to explain the necessity of a god. You can't undermine deduction and use it in the same breath.

Something had to be able to break the rules. Be it a phase of matter which allows creation, or a cognitive being, there's no argument that at some point, there was something these rules did not apply to.

I can get into different (albeit similar) logical processes used to attempt proof of what it was, if you really want.

Like I said, I'm not arguing that these are *correct* claims. Simply that they can be applied logically.

Go back and read my post at the top of this page. There is a large difference between principles which are discovered and principles which are invented. Math is proven because it correlates experience; it corresponds with reality, and it's falsifiable. If you want to compare it to religion you have to make the leap of faith in asserting that religion was discovered by man instead of invented.

Religion correlates experience as well. It's used to decipher reality, and rather certain claims of certain religions are true or not, the idea that something exists or existed on a level capable of creating does not just correspond with reality, it *is* reality.

As far as falsifiability, all of these concepts are as well, we simply don't have the capability to do so yet.

[Plow]

You moron, you don't get to question that.

I didn't say I learned this from physics. I said I learned this from studying religion, what it is, what it does to people, what it has done to the world.

suddenly neo2, er, max, wants to reply to my comments?

If you did study it, you chose to ignore the positives entirely, proclaiming them independent of religion, while attributing the bad to it entirely.

What made me so hateful towards religion, Firas?

Logic, having the unfortunate timing to live in America during these last few years, having seen the bloody history of our world, which was undeniably made bloodier BY faith and religion, in a way which nothing else could have done.

Realizing that the sheepbrained majority are holding back our advancement as a species, by clinging to their stupid goddamn fairy tales, and their stupid fucking dreams of an afterlife.

Being able to simply extrapolate where we could go as a species if not for the hobble that religion has put on us.... all of these things made me HATE this stupid infection of the mind.

Not a damn bit of this points to actual study of the fields, this is kneejerk reaction to people "getting in the way" of your scientific ideals.

[Max™]

A couple decades ago I began investigating it from a neutral position.

I had no faith forced on me, no predetermined church that I would be attending.

I had access to a library up the street, encyclopedia brittanica in my bedroom, and lots and lots of churchgoing folk to talk with.

First I went looking for answers, I could figure out how, when, where, what, from science... I couldn't find a why.

I turned to religion to find a why, and while I found lots and lots of halfhearted answers, nothing quite sated my curious nature the same way grasping a mathematical proof did.

So I began reading into the origins of religion, studying a wide range of them, I wouldn't say I am a scholar on them, but I've learned enough to understand where they differ from one another, and where they are the same.


Had I began studying religion and found one singular faith existed, I may have been much quicker to accept that this was the one true religion.


But no, I found that there were too many religions to name, that every group claimed they were the one true way, and that very few were open to the possibility that there may be multiple paths "to God".


I found the bloody history of what happens when two groups claim they have "the way", and noted that predictable outcome.

I looked around to see if there were exceptions, if perhaps there were times when groups could have gone to war over these ideas without actually doing so... I didn't have much luck.


Above all, I never found proof, I never found evidence, I never found the direction marked out where I could point and say 'that's God over there'.

I never found the equation I could solve and prove god, I never found ANYTHING but belief, and hope, and promises.

This is before I had made any hard decision on it, years later, after having to watch this shit reach such a central position during the "Dubya" administration, I grew to hate it, to fucking despise anyone who lets themselves become willful pawns of a fucking idea.


Then I get people like you, people so goddamn uneducated they actually try to question math?

You must be trolling, or else you're proving my point, that the only people who really cling on to the coattails of faith, are ignorant mouthbreathers who add nothing to the sum of human accomplishment.


So no, you're not qualified to judge my religious education, nor to judge my reasons for hating this shit.

On the other hand, as I have an actual understanding of both sides, I am qualified to call you a retard for seriously placing math on similar grounds.

[Zosi]

For fuck's sake, stop saying "math proves math". It's a linguistic abuse at best, and it makes you look like a moron. Absolutely nothing in mathematics asserts its own correctness - everything is logically derived from something else except for the axioms, and the axioms don't say "Hurr durr I'm an axiom so I'm right". They're simple statements about the world that are acknowledged to be unprovable within the system, only empirically. There is also nothing in mathematics that asserts "Mathematics as a system is always right". Statements of that type (and the self-supporting ones I gave examples of earlier) are logical nonsense - they're words that sound like logical assertions, but they're completely empty of the meaning that gives a real logical argument its legs.

The equivalent situation to your "word of God" example would be if there was a mathematical text that said "Everything contained in this text is unquestionably true", and it proceeded to give a series of completely unproven statements that couldn't be verified empirically. Know what mathematicians would do if they ran into a text that said that? They'd laugh and discard it, which is precisely what anyone with an IQ over 50 does with your posts.