What Religion are you?

[thomassmith]

Zosi is right that is the smartest reply I've ever seen on the forums.

[Max™]

You might want to clarify who your response is aimed towards.


You're also a bit mistaken in that mathematics does contain actual truths, which can be reconstructed from their axioms, and which the axioms can be drawn from.

It doesn't "prove itself", but it does contain absolute proofs, i.e. in base 10 mathematics, 2 + 2 is absolutely 4, there is no question about this, it isn't something that can change, it's just how math is.

Nothing else has this property, I can not point to an absolute proof in science, I can merely point to that which has yet to be falsified in any manner, and state that it is as good as proven as it gets.

[Cadsuane]

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.

Yes, there is. the universality of those rules is a condition for them being true, but this is besides the point (which you're still missing). If God does not obey rules, it's absurd to think we could deduce anything about God using those rules. God would be unknowable, since we could never have a rational basis for believing in Him. This is something most religions actually acknowledge and compensate for with faith and the promise of revelation, which is just Orwellian doublethink.

I know Aquinas and scholasticism in general so you don't need to illustrate further. They are all either inconclusive or blatantly fallacious.

[Max™]

MATH > GOD

When asked why Math works, God replied: 'Fuck if I know, it was here before I was.'

[Cow_k]

It doesn't "prove itself", but it does contain absolute proofs, i.e. in base 10 mathematics, 2 + 2 is absolutely 4, there is no question about this, it isn't something that can change, it's just how math is.

I'm going to be honest, I'm completely tired of this thread due to how boring and circular it is, but this is the major problem with people who claim to know everything about something.

This is a truth as far as we can tell. In our current area of the universe 2+2 absolutely does equal 4 and to go about living as if it were anything else to us is ridiculous, but this is the current limit to human logic. In our minds, there can be no other possible outcome to this situation. While it may prove that this is true everywhere always, right now to make the claim that it's an unchangeable truth that can never be anything else is foolish. For all anyone knows there could be different dimensions that turn everything we know on it's head, yet we have people arguing that no matter what X always = Y. Right here and now, yes. Elsewhere and always? You have no basis to make that assertion outside of faith. All science operates on the idea that tomorrow everything will still be the same as it is today, a fair assumption considering that it seems to have been this way for a long time, but that still doesn't make any gaurantees about the future.

[zoobernut]

The second part of my sentence was a poorly worded way of saying that higher math is built upon a foundation of more simple math but the concept of math is not self reinforcing in the way that religion is.

Just read Zosi's post over and over until it actually makes sense.

[Cadsuane]

I'm going to be honest, I'm completely tired of this thread due to how boring and circular it is, but this is the major problem with people who claim to know everything about something.

This is a truth as far as we can tell. In our current area of the universe 2+2 absolutely does equal 4 and to go about living as if it were anything else to us is ridiculous, but this is the current limit to human logic. In our minds, there can be no other possible outcome to this situation. While it may prove that this is true everywhere always, right now to make the claim that it's an unchangeable truth that can never be anything else is foolish. For all anyone knows there could be different dimensions that turn everything we know on it's head, yet we have people arguing that no matter what X always = Y. Right here and now, yes. Elsewhere and always? You have no basis to make that assertion outside of faith. All science operates on the idea that tomorrow everything will still be the same as it is today, a fair assumption considering that it seems to have been this way for a long time, but that still doesn't make any gaurantees about the future.

There's a basis to make that assertion because there's no other assertion to make. It's actually not an assertion at all. You can assert something has a certain quality like a particular mass or a particular volume, and that's an assertion, because it could be otherwise. It has a contrast. However you can't for example , assert any number, real or imaginary, does not equal itself. This is an axiom you'd have to take for true to say anything in mathematics; it's called the reflexive property. If you want to describe to us the universe where the reflexive property or any other axiom property is not true, go ahead and do that for us.

Except you won't, because it's a universe that wouldn't work or exist.

[Cow_k]

To our knowledge. It's the same as this:

If God does not obey rules, it's absurd to think we could deduce anything about God using those rules. God would be unknowable, since we could never have a rational basis for believing in Him.

You answer your own question, then make the assumption that everything will always be the same everywhere and always was and always is. Just because we can't think of a universe that could work in any other way, there's no proof that it's a universal truth. You can say that it's currently a truth in this situation of this existence, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It could be rules that exist only here and now.

Considering you state to understand Philosophy, I find it odd that you wouldn't get this.

If you want to describe to us the universe where the reflexive property or any other axiom property is not true, go ahead and do that for us.

Except you won't, because it's a universe that wouldn't work or exist.

Again, you have no basis for saying this outside of your faith that our universe is the only possible working method. You're just regurgitating what we see around us as universal truth.

Also, to Max, I'd like to point out that while you complain about how terrible it is that science has only gone so far due to restrictions placed by other humans, you need to understand the conflict. Some people are perfectly happy with the way the world is now even with our human situation of life and death. If science is going to change what the world that they currently enjoy living in is, are they necessarily wrong to fight for it? I'm not saying you don't have the right to want to further human knowledge, but there's plenty of people, again, who don't give a shit.

[Max™]

You can describe Universes with different physical rules, the simple application of General Relativity shows numerous possible different ways that things COULD be, but aren't.

Math is something below all that, yes there are aspects of our Universe that suggest certain types of mathematics, but there are also branches of math which are not obvious upon study of the Universe, which seem in no way related to our Universe.

It has nothing to do with faith, just observation.

As for fighting for Science, or against it, Science is on the side of logic and reason, furthering knowledge, advancing our technology and civilization...

Do you really want to be on the other side?

[Plow]

You can describe Universes with different physical rules, the simple application of General Relativity shows numerous possible different ways that things COULD be, but aren't.

Math is something below all that, yes there are aspects of our Universe that suggest certain types of mathematics, but there are also branches of math which are not obvious upon study of the Universe, which seem in no way related to our Universe.

It has nothing to do with faith, just observation.

But math itself, beyond physical application, currently goes far beyond what we can literally prove as of right now-- unless you accept that math proves math. I'm aware you've already basically stated this here:

You're also a bit mistaken in that mathematics does contain actual truths, which can be reconstructed from their axioms, and which the axioms can be drawn from.

I'm just pointing that out for other people.

As for fighting for Science, or against it, Science is on the side of logic and reason, furthering knowledge, advancing our technology and civilization...

Do you really want to be on the other side?

When being on the side of logic and reason means giving up respect for life (i.e. breaking what I see as moral boundaries), I will intentionally and knowingly choose the other side, yes. Otherwise, no.

And even without religion, there will be moral boundaries. Just as people will "do good" without religion, people will still believe that we have no business creating and destroying life for scientific progress without religion being the basis for the decision.

Where the boundaries lie may change for some in the absence of religion, but would not change for all, and would still be entirely up for debate as to the validity.

[Cow_k]

You can describe Universes with different physical rules, the simple application of General Relativity shows numerous possible different ways that things COULD be, but aren't.

Math is something below all that, yes there are aspects of our Universe that suggest certain types of mathematics, but there are also branches of math which are not obvious upon study of the Universe, which seem in no way related to our Universe.

It has nothing to do with faith, just observation.

As for fighting for Science, or against it, Science is on the side of logic and reason, furthering knowledge, advancing our technology and civilization...

Do you really want to be on the other side?

And again, religion or no religion, there are people who don't care about the ideas of progress. Many believe that we're born, we die and there's a little bit of time in the middle that doesn't really matter a whole lot. As much as I'd like to see lengthened lifespans and unlimited food sources appear, there's a lot of people who are content with just making due with what we have. They don't care about flying cars or space exploration, but rather that they can live the life they have until they die.

And in the end, again, it doesn't really mean a whole lot since you, everyone you know and all of your grandchildren and great grandchildren are just going to keel over anyway. What does the survival and advancement of you, me or anyone else really matter in the long run? We'll still just be crawling on our bellies trying to survive for as long as we can until it's no longer possible some day. Everyone's just trying to make that reality a little less painful for themselves.

[Cadsuane]

*snip*

Nope, try again.

But math itself, beyond physical application, currently goes far beyond what we can literally prove as of right now-- unless you accept that math proves math. I'm aware you've already basically stated this here:

I'm just pointing that out for other people.

Nuh uh! After two pages you've completely failed to address or understand the issue of mathematical realism. And this would presumably be because... oh!

When being on the side of logic and reason means giving up respect for life (i.e. breaking what I see as moral boundaries), I will intentionally and knowingly choose the other side, yes. Otherwise, no.

I'd love to see how you'll explain this banality. Logically, maybe, which might be ironic. Or probably just leave it as an indication of your airheaded quick-twitch sentimentality.

[Gunitsoldier]

Fuck you atheists. I have faith.

I believe in boobies!

Spoiler: show

http://collectcallstohome.files.word...11/boobies.jpg

the best post in this thread so far

[Seraphus]

the best post in this thread so far

Is it wrong that I sat here and had a daydream about the button snapping?

[Blarg]

Is it wrong that I sat here and had a daydream about the button snapping?

did it work?

[Gunitsoldier]

Is it wrong that I sat here and had a daydream about the button snapping?

It's never wrong if it results in seeing boobs.

[Cow_k]

Nope, try again.

You can always tell when someone has given up.

I recommend you go take some philosophy classes before making more judgments as you've basically ousted yourself as a fraud. There is absolutely nothing you can say to counter the point I've brought up and you proved it by not even trying to respond.

[Cadsuane]

I'm not obligated to respond to your posts if I think they suck and don't actually address what I said. You didn't actually say anything with your second post that you didn't in your first, which I did respond to, so try again.

[Cow_k]

Again, you make the assertion that all is knowable because there's no other way to know it.

Again I tell you that you have no basis to make that assertion, yet you continue to with no actual backing statement than "Yes I do" despite the fact that it's completely impossible for you to say so. Again, to state that we already know every possibility before us is a ridiculous notion, one that if were true would mean science would have come to a stand still. We don't know everything and I state that due to limits to logic, we may never actually have a complete picture.

You can believe whatever you want, but you have no more basis for your belief than anyone else out there other than your observations of what's around which may or may not actually contain any truth at all. For all you know, your entire existence is fabricated and nothing is any more an actual truth than what someone wants it to be.

In short, you know nothing, but yet pretend you do on the basis of: Well, it looks like it's that way so it must be!

And no, you don't have to respond to my posts, but that doesn't make you right either. Usually it's more the sign of someone who has nothing to say but rather cover their ears.

[raginbull]

I'm quite surprised at the results of the poll. Really expected Atheist and Agnostic to be in the single digits with Christian way, way ahead. Cool to know there are so many other non-believers on the forums.