A logical evaluation of the Universe resulting in God.

[12 Monkeys]

So parking places... I wan't to summarize the opposing points of veiw... I believe that god's existence is able to be detected through the human consciousness. You believe that the human consciousness is to limited to accomplish the task and based on the evidence you find most important you believe he does not exist... Is this correct?

PS. If you think that Christians thinking god gives them an advantage is irritating for you... It makes a christian that doesn't particularly think they want to be betrayed that way really annoyed.

SPAG .....as each individual of any religion pictures his god to be exactly what he wants it to be,and to feel exactly how the follower himself feels in any given situation. Like when a priest ass-rapes a boy either he thinks in his own mind justification as to why its OK with God,or he lies to himself. If there is a god and said priest accepts Jesus as his Lord he can justify doing anything he wants.......just as most Christians think actions contrary to God's commands are ok...because they can justify it always. This is why there are 38,000+ denominations of Christianity....each denomination having "their God" exactly as they see him

[Azdgari]

This argument makes sense if you can provide examples of alternative systems that are not based on false assumptions...

The bolded text suggests to me that you didn't really get my point.  The "assumptions" - or axioms - only get called "true" if they model nature.  So what you're asking for cannot exist:  Alternative systems to the one that best models our scale of nature, that aren't based on any axioms that end up creating a system that best model our scale of nature.  A contradiction in terms.

Maybe that's not what you meant, though.  If my response indicates that I missed your meaning, could you clarify?

And on your big question, this Idea isn't my own... It was presented to me by a friend, as a subject of his dissertation many years ago.  I didn't mention this before because I don't really know you people, and the possibility that his name would come to pass and someone would pester him (an event that he would never approve of or I would hear the end of) What you are seeing is my interpretation and description which does not do it justice.

His name would only have come up if you mentioned it.  But anyway, nothing wrong with using someone else's argument.

Before this argument I had already come to the conclusion of God's existence on my own terms, But I found this argument really intriguing, and wanted to see what arguments could be made against, and sure up the argument.

Thanks.  What I was getting at was this:  I, and I'm sure others, would be interested in what argument or thought process actually convinced you in the first place, moreso than whatever argument you found convincing after the fact.  Because we tend to wear rose-coloured glasses about whatever arguments support the positions we already hold, and the initial one(s) convincing you wouldn't fall into that category - while this one does.

Not to be made against atheists, but instead against other Christians. I believe the biggest problem with the Christian faith right now lies in fundamentalists, and that this line of logic could help me to curve them to a more reasonable stance.

So you believe that faith is foolish?

EDIT:  Removed a nonsensical double-negative

[mhaberling]

SPAG .....as each individual of any religion pictures his god to be exactly what he wants it to be,and to feel exactly how the follower himself feels in any given situation. Like when a priest ass-rapes a boy either he thinks in his own mind justification as to why its OK with God,or he lies to himself. If there is a god and said priest accepts Jesus as his Lord he can justify doing anything he wants.......just as most Christians think actions contrary to God's commands are ok...because they can justify it always. This is why there are 38,000+ denominations of Christianity....each denomination having "their God" exactly as they see him

Spag? why do you attack my lack of attachment to a specific recorded doctrine... I have beliefs qbout the nature of god... but a projection of myself? i dont think so...  maybe you need me to conform to a familair doctrine because its easier to argue me that way...ui

[mhaberling]

ParkingPlaces, I think I'm satisfied with this conversation...

It has truly been interesting seeing alternative points of view. I disagree about the limits of human consciousness, but that is to be expected and I really don't see a consensus in the near future. Thanks this is been a very engaging thread. Something I was hoping for, being this is the first one I've started.  Thanks again, even if you are just an fool to afraid to turn and see the light [/joke] No but in all seriousness its been fun and I'm finding this forum rather addicting.

Oh yeah, I never intended to call evolution bad science. Evolution is rather good science, evolution I feel like it is treated as fact when it is presented to kids in the education system. My main point in the thread wasn't that evolution was wrong, but that it isn't complete and shouldn't be treated that way. After all if you paint nine tenths of a house and call it done what is the motivation to painting the last tenth.

[mhaberling]

Azdgari... No I think you understood me correctly, but I guess a different way to put it might be that A math system as what you say mimics the natural world is the only one that can make logical sense... If it is the only one that is logical then it is the only one that is true.


But I really want to answer your faith is foolish point...

No i don't think faith is foolish... What I do think is that religious people become afraid that logic is against them so they reject it when talking about there faith. With that kind of mindset they start to cling to very specific sentences in the bible that reflects how they feel. If people can except logic into their faith they can maybe see things like "Oh god making gays and then hating them" doesn't really make sense and could have be tainted by the feelings of the Bible's writers. Faith is one thing but Faith and logic is so much more.... Hope that answers your question.

[ParkingPlaces]

mhaberling


It's been fun. Obviously we won't come to any meaningful agreement on the key issues.


I have heard evolutionary theory described as the most complete theory in science. I trust the science.


On the bright side, brain science is making incredible strides and it may not be too long before we have much better descriptions of what consciousness is and how it affects our interaction with whatever it is that is real. With more information about what our consciousness is, perhaps at least some of our questions on that issue can be answered.


It is always fun to converse with people having different views. I'm glad that we both survived.


PP

[Azdgari]

Azdgari... No I think you understood me correctly, but I guess a different way to put it might be that A math system as what you say mimics the natural world is the only one that can make logical sense... If it is the only one that is logical then it is the only one that is true.

What is the logical sense of the square root of -7?  Do the axioms of our familiar arithmetic yield a meaningful answer to that, according to their own rules?  No, we have to invent an ad-hoc solution of a variable, or use algebra that avoids having to actually carry out that calculation.  It's an illogical result of our math.  The system is not perfect.  But then, why would it be?

A non-commutative system of algebra, on the other hand, avoids the issue by having no simple function called "square root" in the first place - a * b and b * a do not have the same meaning, even in cases when a = b.  This leads to problems down the line as well, of course.  But every system of math will.  See Godel's theorem.

But I really want to answer your faith is foolish point...

No i don't think faith is foolish...

Faith is what they have.  Faith is what one has in the absence of reason or evidence.  So why attack faith with what you consider to be reason and/or evidence?  Unless, of course, faith[1] really is foolish...

What I do think is that religious people become afraid that logic is against them so they reject it when talking about there faith.

See my footnote on "faith" above.  We are now using it in two senses.  I wasn't explicit in my meaning when I first used it, and I should have been.  But now I have been, and if you continue to use "faith" to mean multiple things, useful communication will not take place.

With that kind of mindset they start to cling to very specific sentences in the bible that reflects how they feel. If people can except logic into their faith they can maybe see things like "Oh god making gays and then hating them" doesn't really make sense and could have be tainted by the feelings of the Bible's writers. Faith is one thing but Faith and logic is so much more.... Hope that answers your question.

What useful role does faith play in the first place, then?  Surely one's beliefs could only be improved by replacing more of one's faith-based beliefs with logic/evidence-based beliefs.

1.	Meaning, here:  Belief justified by something other than reason or evidence.

[12 Monkeys]

SPAG .....as each individual of any religion pictures his god to be exactly what he wants it to be,and to feel exactly how the follower himself feels in any given situation. Like when a priest ass-rapes a boy either he thinks in his own mind justification as to why its OK with God,or he lies to himself. If there is a god and said priest accepts Jesus as his Lord he can justify doing anything he wants.......just as most Christians think actions contrary to God's commands are ok...because they can justify it always. This is why there are 38,000+ denominations of Christianity....each denomination having "their God" exactly as they see him

Spag? why do you attack my lack of attachment to a specific recorded doctrine... I have beliefs qbout the nature of god... but a projection of myself? i dont think so...  maybe you need me to conform to a familair doctrine because its easier to argue me that way...ui

so not following a doctrine and just making it up as you go is NOT SPAG?

[Dante]

My main point in the thread wasn't that evolution was wrong, but that it isn't complete and shouldn't be treated that way.

How should it be treated then?

Science doesn't claim it is complete. We are always learning, and adding, and refining our knowledge. No one has claimed otherwise.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

[mhaberling]

Dante... I'm about done with this thread, I don't want you to be left out, but my intention right now is to finish up my discussion with Azdgari and let this thread die...

P.S. what your arguing is also incredibly off topic...

12 Monkeys... I feel your following me around with this SPAG argument, which makes me think of spaghetti, which makes me crave spaghetti which gets irritating after a while... Ill fight you on this SPAG argument in a formal debate if you challenge me, but if not then please drop it.

[mhaberling]

Azdgari... we don't really see a need for the axioms in basic math... You can derive almost all of Maths functions from addition... Roots are a division problem that assumes an equivalency between the answer and the divisor... This idea of an artificial limit makes it not true...

On your faith question... There are somethings that are unknowable... Christians have to have faith in the true nature of god... After all you can not see inside another's consiousness

[Azdgari]

Azdgari... we don't really see a need for the axioms in basic math... You can derive almost all of Maths functions from addition... Roots are a division problem that assumes an equivalency between the answer and the divisor... This idea of an artificial limit makes it not true...

Well then you're simply wrong about the need for axioms.  Consider:  What does division mean?  What does addition mean?  What does equivalence mean?  I suggest reading up on this a bit before trying to discuss it further.  This will help bring you up to speed.

I do understand that nobody likes to learn that their assumptions about the universe aren't absolute truths - or that they are assumptions in the first place.

On your faith question... There are somethings that are unknowable...

...and for such things, the honest response is to say "I do not know".  Because of this, faith is inherently dishonest.

Christians have to have faith in the true nature of god... After all you can not see inside another's consiousness

Have to have faith, or what?  What is the consequence that Christians will face if they don't have faith?

[mhaberling]

Azdgari.. I believe we are running around in circles on this issues of mathematics... I'm am not unaware of axioms. On the bright side its been a really interesting discussion...

On your faith argument I think you missuderstand. If one believes in a god.. In a creator... In a knower of the truth... A right and a wrong... An objective morality  one has to have faith that it is a god worth believing in...

I believe that you and I see the world in incredibly different ways... I doubt as a atheist u wil be able to see the point of my second argument. But it has been fun debating you and I hope to see you in other threads.

[Azdgari]

Azdgari.. I believe we are running around in circles on this issues of mathematics... I'm am not unaware of axioms. On the bright side its been a really interesting discussion...

You are unaware of how they work and how they are used.  Perhaps your faith requires that you be unaware.  Certainly your faith in the validity of the argument you posted in the OP requires that you be unaware.

On your faith argument I think you missuderstand. If one believes in a god.. In a creator... In a knower of the truth... A right and a wrong... An objective morality  one has to have faith that it is a god worth believing in...

Any real god that affects the universe is worth believing in, no matter its moral character.  Truth is like that, despite what you say here.  Not liking a deity's character does not mean one should lie to one's self about its existence, if indeed it exists.  Or did you mean "believe in" in the sense of "believe in its moral rightness"?  Such that faith about assertions of fact are foolish, but faith in moral assertions are not?

And you already acknowledged in another post (the one I just +1'd) that you priviledge your own morality over that of a deity anyway.  So it's strange to see you write this here.

I believe that you and I see the world in incredibly different ways... I doubt as a atheist u wil be able to see the point of my second argument. But it has been fun debating you and I hope to see you in other threads.

That makes no sense.  You have dismissed any ability of mine to understand your argument, yet at the same time hope to see me in other threads.  Why?  So that you can do the same there?  We live in the same universe, mhaberling, and we share the English language.  If miscommunication has taken place, then let's figure out where and fix it.

[mhaberling]

And you already acknowledged in another post (the one I just +1'd) that you priviledge your own morality over that of a deity anyway.  So it's strange to see you write this.

If you believe in a deity, a creator. You believe In a father of your species, or mother or parent in general, you hope and have faith in that it loves humanity, and wants the best for us. You can never no for sure. That's why a theist needs faith..

Sorry I'm on an iPad so my answers are a little more brief than I would like...

On math... Addition is inherently obvious, multiplication is a dirrivitive of addition, division is dirrivitive from multiplication... Does that make sense to you? (no sarcasm intended)

Edit: thanks for the plus 1 : )

[12 Monkeys]

If you fail to follow a doctrine of any kind.....all of which are using their interpretation of the Bible where as you do not rely on an organization...what are you left with if not SPAG?

[mhaberling]

Ill fight you on this SPAG argument in a formal debate if you challenge me, but if not then please drop it.

what wasnt clear about that?

[12 Monkeys]

Give your opinion on what it is ......not really hard is it?

[mhaberling]

no.. you cant follow me around with this and get a response... your acting like a child and i dont have to reapond to that..

[12 Monkeys]

 I was asking you to explain your perceptions of the god you see and how you came to the conclusions....I apologize if you took it the wrong way. Most followers have someone telling them what to think,I ask you how you are different.

[mhaberling]

it sounded more like you are trying to attach some kinda of label to my belief system and prove i fall into a catagory... which is fine inside a formal debate...

[ParkingPlaces]

For clarification, mhaberling, we use the term SPAG (which means "Self Projection as God") when we think we detect someone who has customized religion and their god to be exactly what they want it to be. The term, coined on this site at some point in the past refers to the tendency of some believers to rewrite most if not all religious doctines to fit what they want religion to be rather than be what they are told it should be.


People who don't belong to any specific church and don't follow tenets handed down over the ages are the ones that most often fall into this group. You may or may not be someone doing this, but if you can't identify the organized religious source of your specific beliefs, be they about heaven or hell or original sin or whatever, we start to suspect that you have customized religion to fit your needs.


A good catholic or a dedicated methodist or an ardent baptist can tell us the source of their specific beliefs. SPAGgers cannot. Or won't.


And on this site, at least, they are extraordinarily common. Hence 12's question.


If you don't

[Azdgari]

If you believe in a deity, a creator. You believe In a father of your species, or mother or parent in general, you hope and have faith in that it loves humanity, and wants the best for us. You can never no for sure. That's why a theist needs faith..

Which is fair.  But you did priviledge your own morality over its morality, suggesting that you do not believe in an objective foundation of morality.  Against whose moral standards might you judge a god to be wrong?  Your own, of course.

Sorry I'm on an iPad so my answers are a little more brief than I would like...

On math... Addition is inherently obvious, multiplication is a dirrivitive of addition, division is dirrivitive from multiplication... Does that make sense to you? (no sarcasm intended)

Yes.  But there are hidden assumptions both in composing the concept of addition, and in deriving the others from it.  Axioms.  Delving deeper into this topic violates your faith, so you can't do it.

[Jag]

Jag... A box is presented to you containing the true nature of the Universe... You would never care to open it?

Apologies for missing this conversation, I got caught up in Real Life and missed following up on this. The discussion has gone far past here, so we don't need to revisit this if you would prefer to drop it.

To your question, I'm not sure how this follows from the original exchange. If given the opportunity to understand the true nature of the universe, of course I would take it. Did I misunderstand your original question?

[mhaberling]

Which is fair.  But you did priviledge your own morality over its morality, suggesting that you do not believe in an objective foundation of morality.  Against whose moral standards might you judge a god to be wrong?  Your own, of course.

Fair enough... You are correct... I hope there is an objective morality, but if I would learn of it and not agree I would say I would still value my own morality over it. I'll give you that.

On math... Axioms I think are to broad of catagory for this argument... Axioms like the one that defines equality is inherenfly true. This makes it descriptive instead of definitive

[mhaberling]

On this SPAG thing... I feel like this only has significance if it is an unconscious process.... I believe in god. I don't really think believing in a Bad god is of much use. If you accept that the books describing a single deity are infused with the thoughts and ideas of the cultures who wrote them, the only thing you can say is probably true is the base message. The one that repeats itself over and over. I found that to be that god loves us and wants us to treat each other lovingly and respectably... I found that to be a pretty reasonable aditude for god to have, and as I said if one cannot know the true nature of god no sense in not giving god the benefit of the doubt.

[ParkingPlaces]

On this SPAG thing... I feel like this only has significance if it is an unconscious process.... I believe in god. I don't really think believing in a Bad god is of much use. If you accept that the books describing a single deity are infused with the thoughts and ideas of the cultures who wrote them, the only thing you can say is probably true is the base message. The one that repeats itself over and over. I found that to be that god loves us and wants us to treat each other lovingly and respectably... I found that to be a pretty reasonable aditude for god to have, and as I said if one cannot know the true nature of god no sense in not giving god the benefit of the doubt.

Whether conscious or unconscious, people who come to us with their new version of christianity are a bit suspect. We label them. Because we're spagologists.


If you are able to generalize and follow only the general guidelines without getting in everyones faces about how you know the truth and nobody else does and we should all follow you or prepare for some unpleasant fate, then you are not guilty of SPAG.


If you toned down your approach specifically so that we wouldn't notice your ardent and new interpretation of religion, then you are still guilty of it, we just don't know it.


I of course hope it is the former.

[12 Monkeys]

On this SPAG thing... I feel like this only has significance if it is an unconscious process.... I believe in god. I don't really think believing in a Bad god is of much use. If you accept that the books describing a single deity are infused with the thoughts and ideas of the cultures who wrote them, the only thing you can say is probably true is the base message. The one that repeats itself over and over. I found that to be that god loves us and wants us to treat each other lovingly and respectably... I found that to be a pretty reasonable aditude for god to have, and as I said if one cannot know the true nature of god no sense in not giving god the benefit of the doubt.

Without belonging to a religious organization or from a holy text the only other way is SPAG.  With Spag you(generally) set up the God you have an interest in and you must ignore the stories of God's not so loving nature towards his creation. Do you believe in Jesus?

 The only way to know God or Jesus is through Holy text or organizations.  God and Jesus confined and bound in text created by sheep herders ignorant of scientific method and even ignorant of our own solar system. This God and Jesus are easily ignored because of the limits put on them by said goat herders.

 Now that said,is it Yahweh you believe in of just a creator or supreme being?

[mhaberling]

12 monkeys why do you want to hold me to something you consider a story?