Is there a God?

[pianistimo]

indoctrination is more evident in evolution.

i cannot prove to you my faith - just as you cannot prove your reasonings to be any more logical than mine.  i never claimed to be a scholar of biblical thoughts - but neither are you rocket scientists.  so if you keep trying to foil me - it is pointless.  you are not believing in my faith - just as i do not accept reason as a means to understand how God existed before matter. He is Spirit.

as for my limited understanding of paul's writings, i do see evidence that paul knew of Christ's death and ressurrection and mentions it MANY times.  Romans 1:4 declares it from the beginning so that people will know that Paul IS an apostle.  "concerning His Son, who was born of a descendent of David according to the flesh, who was declared THE SON OF GOD with power by the ressurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord...."

I cor. 1:2 "to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours....ICor. 1:13 "for Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, NOT IN CLEVERNESS OF SPEECH, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.  For it is written..."I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside...the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men...."

as a divergence, yet on the same topic, i've been thinking about torp's question all day.  i too experienced a death of a family member (my father) when i was two.  i'm sure his mother prayed for his healing - and yet received a similar answer.  that doesn't mean that her faith and yours were lacking.  death isn't the end - but it's the end of the 'race' that we are in against death.  so, in effect, my father and your sister are in a far better place than we are alive (especially in these trying times).  that's not as comforting, though, as knowing that God will never give us a burden too great for us.  I kinda doubted that too, because at times I would pray to God and tell Him it WAS too great.  i said i couldn't carry it - and cried a lot about it.  i didn't understand the passages about 'the dead burying the dead...' that seemed rather heartless.  but, over time i understand better.  for one thing - God knows what we can bear and tests our hearts (otherwise how would he prove that we have faith?) I cor. 13 says "bears all things, hopes all things..."  there would be no point of that verse if things sometimes didn't go as we wished (despite fervent prayers).  also, we never know the WHOLE picture - as God does.  maybe he was working with my father and your sister in more merciful way than we understand.  cancer is painful and you don't want to hang around forever dealing with it - esp. if you are not healed right away.  the causes of cancer may be from our changing our environments to other than what God had in mind.  also, my mom told me that my father 'tested his fate' by certain things that he did - and his kidneys became weak because of it. 

I cor. 15:46 "however the spiritual is not first, but the natural (explaining matter, energy, and spirit); then the spiritual.  the  first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.  as is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy (if we are made of matter - we are matter), we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (spirit).  now i say this brethren, that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.  behold, i tell you a mystery - we shall not all sleep (death to all?) but we shall all be changed (at Christ's second coming). in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye (this is encouraging to those who lose loved ones), at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead shall be raised imperishable (spirit - not matter or energy as we know it)."

when we as mortals put on immortality - i'm sure we'll understand a lot more too about what happened in the past, what's happening now, and what is our 'destiny.'  II cor. 1:5  "for just as the sufferrings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ."  we don't get all our comfort in this life - but we have enough to encourage us to 'finish the race.'  paul often referred to running a race (since the romans/corinthians identified with the roman ideals of athleticism. 

even with piano - you don't want everything easy - otherwise you have nothing to 'test your mettle with.'  Galations 1:1 "paul, an apostle (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead), and all the brethren who are with me...i am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel...

paul goes on to say that he did not receive the gospel from man, but from God (as he was blinded while persecuting Christians).  paul and the gospels have no conflict because he learned from God directly that he was sent to the gentiles and did not preach a doctrine of 'works' but a doctrine of faith.  he spoke with peter and james three years after he had already been to arabia (gal. 1:17).  the gentiles he spoke to were only required to put away deeds of the flesh (as opposed to pieces - such as in circumcision) :  immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing - but to have the fruits of the spirit:  love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control (against these there is no law).

paul also wrote to the ephesians, philippians, colossians, thessalonians i ii, timothy i ii, titus, philemon (so he wrote many many of the nt books).  his writings could only have been written during his lifetime and not hundreds of years before 290 AD - that would have been before Christ.  i don't claim to know all about how the books came to light - and it's been awhile since i've read how the king james version was popularly accepted - but i do know that none of the gospels counters paul directly.  they define Christ's time and gospel to those in jerusalem and judea just as paul defines the gospel to the gentiles.  the apostles worked together - and the spirit of God moved them to say everything in common and with the peace of God always mentioned (no matter the book).

[bearzinthehood]

just as you cannot prove your reasonings to be any more logical than mine

Here is another interesting statement.  Let's explore some logic:

• Theorem:  There is a God, and the Bible is his Word.  God is omnipotent and omniscient.  There is an afterlife.  In this afterlife there is a place reserved for good Christians.
  
  
• Proof:  There is a Bible.  In this Bible it is written that there is a God, and the Bible is his Word.  It is also written that God is omnipotent and omnisicent.  The Bible also contains mention of an afterlife, and a place reserved for good Christians in this afterlife.
  

What is wrong with this reasoning?

There is a Bible, there is no disputing that.  There is, however, no way to prove that the Bible is the word of God.  We can not measure God's existence, nor is there any objective evidence of the words contained within the Bible being those of God.

The existence God is axiomatic by construction, it cannot be proven by logic.  It is similar to the Euclidean statement that no two parallel lines intersect.  Any proof of pianistimo's claims would have to go as follows:

• Axiom: There is a God, and the Bible is his Word.
  
  
• Theorem: <whatever statements the Christian believes to be true>
  
  
• Proof: <references to the appropriate passages in the Bible>
  
  

I believe in God, and have my whole life.  But, I believe that the Bible, Quran, and all other "holy" texts are the word of man.  I can't prove it, but I don't claim to be able to.  Above all, logic is the study of truth, and pseudoscience offered as "proof" of God's existence is nothing more than a perversion of the principles of logic.

[prometheus]

If I were pianistimo's doctor I would send her to a mental clinic, I am sorry to say.

people also need boundaries (as children do).  if we could all do as we please - with no laws from God - we would not know our boundaries and hurt ourselves more often.

Wow. Ok lets stop here. Let's apply this to the government of a country. What would the result be? Lets find some people that agree with this statement. Can anyone tell me which kind of people have this ideology?

[gruffalo]

the only proof of good that i know of is through myself, and not anyones words. and to the guy who said i invented it for myself? why would i? i had no intention of following the law or being religious. im a teenager. im still going out boosing and i know its wrong but im trying to correct myself but it all takes time. i dont try and prove GOd. i just say what i feel. take it or leave it.

[leahcim]

Wow. Ok lets stop here. Let's apply this to the government of a country. What would the result be? Lets find some people that agree with this statement. Can anyone tell me which kind of people have this ideology?

Vegetarians?

[leahcim]

What is wrong
The existence God is axiomatic by construction, it cannot be proven by logic.  It is similar to the Euclidean statement that no two parallel lines intersect.

It's not. Euclidian geometry is an abstract idea.

No one is suggesting that abstract ideas don't exist or aren't useful. If you want to imagine there is a God, go ahead. But it'll be no different from the myriad different mathematical models you might construct and imagine for some physical property.

But, like the maths model for physics in the game Half life 2 [or indeed the abstract 3d pictures the game draws], few would pretend that these models or the God you have created "by construction" is real in any physical sense. Nor that they are anything more than the abstract ideas that they are.

You might want to look at science.

[leahcim]

Harsh, yet  true.

I'd say it's a version of Pascal's wager, where the desired outcome is fairly clear [in at least 2 recent posts] and thus, albeit flawed logic, understandable and logical nevertheless.

[pianistimo]

i understand what bearsinthehood and others say about my logic, but i just mentioned that i don't think there is a formula big enough to put God into.  he defies logic.  is that logical?

ok. you don't follow my logic - but i do understand yours (and i do wish that i had more logic for physical matters many times.  my step-dad was an engineer and often told me that i needed to think something through 'logically.')  there's no argument about what formulates a logical thesis.  in fact, i wish i had all of you guys around when i was trying to write a 5,000 word research paper for one of my music classes.  the instructor said i 'wandered' too much.  i may not be admitted to a mental institution just because i am not as logical as others - but i have my own bondage (mental) when i cannot remember something or figure out something.  it REALLy DOES bother me, when this happens.

i feel an incredible release, though, when someone just accepts me on a loving basis.  Since Christ accepted everyone, there was no assigning people to mental institutions soley on the basis of flawed logic.  in fact, the disciples were a curious combination from the very logical (doubting thomas, for instance) to the very impetutous (such as peter, who cut that guys ear off).  and, we see an acceptance of the gospel by gentiles - who were taking much of what paul said (his vision from God that he was sent to preach to them ) by faith.  what convinced them?  logic?  no.  i don't think so.

the parables of Christ are very logical, though.  but, they don't go through theorems or difficult formulas.  they are simple logic.  if you see someone in a ditch (like the samaritan did) you help them.  many 'wise' people forget this simple matter of loving your neighbor as yourself.  therefore, they are basically stupid because they are looking at wisdom as the end all of human existence.  but, if you believe that the gospel sounds correct (truthful) you prove it by trying to incorporate God's word into your life.  you try it. (testing it) to see if it brings the blessings of God into your existence.

i believe a government based upon God's laws WOULD be communistic but in a MUCH different sense.  people would share all things FAIRLY - yet there would be motivation for all because there is never a place that says that we shouldn't own land or houses.  it's just the idea of hording that is wrong.  all governments today have elements of waste - where a huge amount of money is going one place - and there are loads of people in need in another.  are you telling me that any government today is so much better than this government would be?  i believe the kingdom of God WILL be utopian because it will be enforced.  how?  FOR THE FIRST TIME IN WORLD HISTORY - true christians will be ruling with Jesus Christ.  this sounds kind of arrogant - i suppose, to logic freedom thinkers, but in reality we are not free to desecrate the planet.  it is borrowed!  we were told to take care of it!  since we have not...i believe that it will be RESTORED and revitalized - and we will be taught a much different way than previously learned under any government.

[pianistimo]

i know you don't like it when i quote the bible - but i can't help quote this one place in acts 2:41-47 "those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added that day.  they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the COMMUNAL life; to the breaking of bread and to the prayers. awe came upon everyone, and MANY wonders and signs were done through the apostles (healing sickness, etc).  all who believed were TOGETHER and had ALL THINGS IN COMMON; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need...."

this is very risky behavior to us today.  we are used to thinking that we basically own everything.  but sharing commonly wasn't so risky back then because so many people were joining in and doing it.  can you imagine if everyone did the 'right' thing.  no one stole.  no one killed... there would be a lot less wastefulness and no need for security devices - because people would be trustworthy.  our world is upside down and we don't even take it into account anymore - because bad news is the only thing we hear.

paul went right after moral decrepitude in the gentile worshipers and said that they had to learn a new way.  not much different today - whether christians or not - our society is really messed up that way, too.  people saw the difference in Christ's gospel - and convinced people by their viewing of the example of other christians in their behavior and how their lives were manifested.  paul mentions the 'paradox' of the cross in 1 cor. 1:18 "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  for it is written:  i will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned i will set aside.  where is the wise one?  where is the scribe?  where is the debater of this age?  has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?  for since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to KNOW God through wisdom...(but ) to save those who have faith."

there are many simple remedies to many seemingly complex problems in the world today.  that's my take.  and, so you don't think i think i'm perfect - i'll just say 'far from it.'  but, i do take time to listen to the spirit (that means go to church and hear what is preached to you).  today - the message was about how proving the gospel is about 'holiness.'  that God reveals what it is.  most people don't know that it isn't man made.  we can't just 'look holy.'  it is a gift from Jesus Christ.  that's my two cents.  anyway - it made sense to me - and so i put it here - so that just the life, death, and ressurrection aren't the only thing - but also, so that WE might have life (by Christ's holiness).

[prometheus]

It's not. Euclidian geometry is an abstract idea.

Maybe you should look up what people mean when they say that euclidian geometry is based on axiomatic concepts. And since when did axioma's cease to be abstract ideas? You aren't making any sense here.

And about your joke, well I suspected Pianistimo to ignore it, because she ignores anything she doesn't like, which is stupid considering the amount she types, I didn't expect a 'joke' of this level either.

It seems Pianistimo is typing all these posts only to convince herself.

Ooh and Pianistimo, I am not judging you as a person. If I knew you I would probably accept you on a loving basis, well this is pure speculation actually. But I have only these posts I am judging. And frankly they perplex me, or they freak me out.

The part I quoted about people needing laws enforced by god. Those same ideas are expressed by Takfir wal-Hijra, the taliban, and all those other extremist muslims. It is just this part in their ideology that justifies violence against civilians. Theocracy has to be enforced. God's law has to be put in place. Democracy is against God's law, etc. God's will is absolute truth, and vice versa, so everything is irrelevant.

[pianistimo]

ok.  pascals wager.  ahahahahah 
i did like the one about vegetarians, too. 
btw, you all probably make you points with less words and more analysis, whereas i think while i talk.  therefore, i am.  does that make sense?  you don't have to agree or disagree.  i just say - God is.  therefore, He is.  He says 'I AM that I AM.'  how can i explain that?

[lisztisforkids]

This thread is getting ridiculous. So I am going to say my bit (wether it has already been said or not) and leave.

The Bible itself is in question of its validity. When the Bible was put together some 1700 years ago at Nicea the Church leaders at that time were in bitter argument over what books belonged in the Bible and what books dident belong.  I ask you this.... Who has the authority to say what is the word of God? A bunch of old men sitting at a table?

I have no doubt in my mind that Jesus existed. I do have doubts about what he supposedly said.
I also have no doubt in my mind that Muhammad existed either.

When you beleive in orthodox religon, you are confined to that religons ideas. On the other hand, all us infidels and unbeleivers are free to beleive in what we chose, and therefore have a much more open mind than religon beleivers.

Evolution does not say that there is no god, or the earth was created 6 billion years ago, or
that the unviverse was created in a big bang. Geology says that the earth was created 6 billion years ago, Astronomy says that the universe was created in a big bang. A few dozen men at Nicea 1700 years ago says that this is all wrong though...

I beleive in God. I also beleive in Evolution. I beleive that the universe was created in the big bang 14 billion years ago. But I do not beleive in God because of the Bible, or the Koran, or whatever.

I beleive in God for much more deeper more profound reasons than the Bible can ever state.

[leahcim]

Maybe you should look up what people mean when they say that euclidian geometry is based on axiomatic concepts.

I know what axioms are. Maths never ceases to be anything other than an abstract idea.

However, it was because he said that an axiomated "There is a God" is similar to the axioms of geometry. I disagreed with that asserted similarity in the context of the thread's question "Is there a God?" and the posts people have made with their opinions about whether there is or not.

Saying "assume there is" [or suggesting that someone else has] and then suggesting that, because it's an axiom you can't use logic to state otherwise is fallacious. It wasn't exploring logic. Logic is not "the study of truth"

It was wrong for other reasons too. It was equally fallacious to state that a premise like "There is a God" cannot be countered by logic because it is like an axiom. The fallacy is called "begging the question" Many mathematical proofs start with premises that are wrong to find contradictions and thus prove them false. It's obvious I'd have thought, but evidently not so I'll state it :- in logical argument the premises can be false just as much as the argument may contain errors and / or the conclusions drawn from them can be.

But as it is fair enough to hypothetically say something like "for the sake of argument, let's say that there is a God, call it an axiom" I didn't see much point in choosing the above paragraph to refute the post. Leave that for a thread that wants to debate what logic is perhaps. Instead I though that's fair enough, but the God you have created in that way is merely hypothetical and abstract. You can just say "For the sake of argument, let's axiomate that there isn't one", in much the same way that you can define a geometry that uses different axioms from Euclidean ones. If Geometry is "true" in any sense, clearly you can "study truths" that differ from each other.

I don't think the debate here, started with the question "Is there a God?" has been about whether there is an abstract, imagined or axiomated God or not. I'm certain those that say they believe in God are talking about something they believe is as "real" as the Sun, Moon and Earth and not something they are assuming is true in a similar way that you might assume something about parallel lines.

[timothy42b]

Now I will continue to argue with pp, whose name I abbreviate not disrespectfully but merely to avoid a spelling error.

I argue not because I don't believe in God nor in faith, but because I believe a certain kind of blind faith demonstrated is dangerous.

In this month's Scientific American there is an interesting article that mentions the Dalai Lama.  His religion (Buddhism) taught that the moon creates its own light.  He looked through a telescope and saw direct contradiction in the shadows in craters.  In other words, facts (produced by science) disproved what his own religion taught.  What did he do?  He said, oops, I guess my religion is wrong on this point.  That took a great amount of integrity and faith, but resulted in his retaining his belief while not looking like an idiot.

Contrast that to the fundamentalist beliefs that worship the bible.  We know scientifically there was no flood.  Not only is the story ridiculous in every detail, it could not have occurred 4,000 years ago and left no trace.  Christians with the integrity of the Buddhist Dalai Lama understand that story to be metaphorical.  But a certain large segment of Christians have no way of letting one detail go with losing the whole, so they must insist something occurred which obviously did not - standing for ignorance and superstition.

Come on, guys, the Bible was not even believed to be literal until 1911! 

[sarahlein]

Well, this is interesting:

We know scientifically there was no flood.  Not only is the story ridiculous in every detail, it could not have occurred 4,000 years ago and left no trace

Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, how do we know this?

Care to elaborate Tim?

[Dazzer]

hmmm well maybe it IS possible that while there may not have been a world wide flood, there could have been a major area flood? which could have spanned such a wide area that land could not be found.

If you read about planet X (tenth planet blah blah blah) it was theorised that if there was a flood, it could have been the result of

1)the close proximity of the tenth planet causing a huge gravity pull of the tides towards a specific area, thus causing a flood.
2) extreme changes in weather causing ice caps to melt thus causing said flood blah blah blah.

[prometheus]

Planet X? Whoa! Lets not go there.

[lisztisforkids]

Science does not take sides.

[lisztisforkids]

I am so sick of Fundamentalist telling me and everybody else that logic, reasoning and science is wrong.

[pianistimo]

i never said that!  in fact, it all works together really well.  it's just that it can't explain faith and God's existence.  or maybe i should say - the church fathers tried to work out formulas - but they didn't fit everyone's thinking.  theology turned into mass debates on doctrine.  the trinity idea alone still is not really to be fully reasoned (admittedly by catholics themselves- it is one of the hardest doctrines to prove).  if God is spirit, how do you explain that concept?

i think prometheus needs a bibilical scholar to come on and say what exactly h appened at nicea.  i heard something (and don't quote me because i truly don't know), but many of the hebrew texts/books were said to be destroyed if they did not 'match' with 'correct' doctine. there are many versions of Christianity - but, the main tenents are what keep Christians together (love).  if you have love for one another then you are Christ's disciples.  our limited understanding is just that!  limited. 

what Christ said was first written down by the apostles and then both verbally and textually passed on.  the quran was passed on as well - yet did not acknowledge Christ as anything but a man/prophet.  some of the things in the quran repeat things in the bible - so that could actually be used as a second 'runner up.'  yet, doctrine is changed.  perhaps that is the closest historical document that verifies Christ came in person (as the quran says he did) yet doesn't verify his divinity (Son of God). 

arguments like this seem pointless to me - because if you are looking for God you will find him everywhere in creation.  and, if you believe in science as a sort of explaination for everything - you eliminate the need for faith (relying on the bible as a source of truth).  by eliminating the bible - truth of God (the gospel in history, spirituality, prophecy) is gone, imo.  but, to prove this to someone else i would have to use personal experience.  that my prayers have been answered on many things...that God has shown me things by trials, too...and that i am learning that just knowing isn't enough. you have to do.  for instance, before my leg was broken i was becoming 'weary.'  i would think about doing things for others, but wouldn't get around to it as often as when i was younger.  now, i think - ok - take a day and go do something for someone else.  it makes you feel better - and even if you don't become a christian right away because of the spiritual rewards you see- you are helping another person and still receive blessing from Him by doing what He says.

there's somewhere in the bible that says 'show me your works by your faith, and i'll show you my faith by my works.'  faith and works go with hope - because you can help someone else have hope when everything seems dismal.

[gruffalo]

i am on similar lines with what you said liszt. i didnt read any single bit of the bible when i started believing in God. i read it now for inspiration and help because it has nice stories, but i dont try and prove things through the bible and i dont try and prove God. God cannot be proved, he can only be experienced. and to experience him, you have to take a leap of faith and just pray to see if he is there. it may not happen straight away (in my case it did) but perseverance helps.

[pianogeek_cz]

Okay, after several minutes of swaying form "post" to "don't post":



Let's get to the question from the other side:
Axiom: There's no God.

Let's explore the results. The three key theological predicates that define God as an absolute entity are:
1) Absolute self-confidence: pure Spirit, exhaustive.
2) Absolute freedom: "I am He who Is" (JHWH, see Exodus (don't remember the exact place...)), absolute self-proof.
3) Absolute power: He can do anything.
If there is no God, where are those three values? The contradiction of God's existence would assign them to human beings. Where would this lead?

Ad 1) Absolute self-confidence: a human would be obsessed with the need of unlimited strength, he would fall to the temptations to go beyond the limits of what a human being can bear with the idea that nothing is impossible.  He feels above everything: above fear from results. He would ask himself the question: "Can I bear even this?", the greatest atrocities he would commit for the sake of finding out, finding something that would break him, repelling anything but life on the very edge of himself. There would be a challenge to the God believed nonexistent: If you exist, punish now, because you MUST do so, and you'll see whether I can bear it! Why don't we, when we say there's no God, behave so?

Ad 2) Absolute freedom: A God is absolute being, being, which doesn't need anything else for its existence, it's completely independent on any condition, in other words, absolutely free. If there is none, I should be like it. To be like it, I must prove my own absolute freedom. And what is a more persuasive proof of my existence of that kind which would, at the same time, be a limit-like experience of my existence, than denying it? "I have a duty to kill myself, because the fullest proof of my free will is to take my own life." Why don't we affirm ourselves so? (The answer "To play piano" doesn't qualify...   We'll see why later.)

Ad 3) (If I wanted to explain this in the fullest, it would be a very, very long explanation. I'll make it shorter... If you still want the exhaustive version, I'll try to formulate it...) Basically, it is ateism not theological (as seen in ad 1) ) or metaphysical (ad 2) ), but moral and social. In one word: Socialism. We all saw how it didn't work, because absolute power results in two theses: 1) The ends justify the means, and 2) The denial of freedom of the individual. Their results were catastrophic (70 000 000 and maybe more dead...).

My own conclusion (question it as you will, I'll be glad to see the matter from different viewpoints I've never thought about) is: There has to be a God, something above us humans, because if we were to represent the three absolute values, we would destroy ourselves, which is against one's own conscience. We have to have something transcendental (I don't mean the Liszt etudes... ) in order to justify our existence and to what we can relate the predicates 1-3. (Back to why the piano didn't qualify: it's human-made, so it can't serve as something transcendental.) One could even say that from the metaphysical point of view (ad 2) ), ateists contradict their atheism when they don't commit suicide!

Side remark: The painful problem, as I see it, is to clarify the image of what should God be like (Buddha? Zeus?). I believe that's personal. The existence of different religions is the result of people being able to convince other people that their personal idea of God was correct...



I hope I didn't manage to thoroughly confuse you all...  

[pianistimo]

very thoughtful.  i wish i could think as logically - but it makes sense that we all have an image of God in our minds (if we believe He is) and He's probably so much more because of  being past (transcendental to) our limited brain powers to understand.

yet, sometimes all of us feel like we are limitless, extremely free, have boundless places to go - but, over time we realize that the laws of gravity kick in, freedom has it's limits, and the boundless places will never all be reached in this lifetime.  just to travel the earth - we still could not visit every single location on earth (every square inch) in our lifetime.  why did God make it 'just that much bigger?'  maybe so we'd have a little awe of Him.  same with the heavens.

[leahcim]

If there is no God, where are those three values? The contradiction of God's existence would assign them to human beings.

It wouldn't, would it?

I mean, if we go back a few thousand years and I say "Oooh, the Gods are angry" during a thunderstorm. The assertion that "there isn't a God" doesn't logically lead to an explanation that the power to make a thunderstorm comes from human beings.

[pianistimo]

we can play with a force that was already in existence.  electricity, gravity, magnetism, etc.  (wish i knew more).  in philadelphia we just celebrated the 300 anniversary of william penn and i had no idea how many of these things he studied.  even 200 years ago - people were still somewhat superstitious.  all we do is discover what God has made from the beginning.  and, despite penn's many experiments, i don't think he ever proved God existed by reason alone.  but, by his study of the creation, he discovered more than we knew before about matter and energy.  the idea of intelligent design probably entered the pic, though, because how could all this just randomly happen (and all the laws that go with each).  the exact numbers of protons and neutrons determining what the make-up of atoms will be.  i think that many great men HAVe read the bible to get 'the other half of the story.'

[pianogeek_cz]

It is apparent that the Christian god is against knowledge - in the story Adam and Eve are punished for seeking and desiring knowledge!!

Wait a second (nothing personal), that's a common misinterpretation of the biblic text. It's a matter of how the verb "to know" changed its meaning.

In the early Jewish culture, knowledge roughly equaled control; the essence of existence was delivered by the name (That's why the inner sanctuary of the Temple of Solomon was "decorated" by the name: to "materialise" the existence of God, to show "He is here." That conception, however, was a decline from the original Jewish faith... There's a lot of historical context to it, but that's not the question now...) - God gave himself to the Israeli when He revealed His name.

Therefore, the controversial formulation "to know good and evil" is supposed to be read "to determine what's good and what's evil", therefore tasting the fruit of the tree would put man to almost the same level as God. The other tree's fruit would do the second part of it: immortality. Therefore, God's act of throwing Adam and Eve from Eden is to protect man from self-destruction, because if man became equal to God, what would then happen? (I've tried to explain that in my previous post...)

I don't say I'm a furious believer in all the Biblic truths. But this is the official Christian (I think also Jewish, but I'm not sure) interpretation of this text...

[bearzinthehood]

It's not. Euclidian geometry is an abstract idea.

No one is suggesting that abstract ideas don't exist or aren't useful. If you want to imagine there is a God, go ahead. But it'll be no different from the myriad different mathematical models you might construct and imagine for some physical property.

But, like the maths model for physics in the game Half life 2 [or indeed the abstract 3d pictures the game draws], few would pretend that these models or the God you have created "by construction" is real in any physical sense. Nor that they are anything more than the abstract ideas that they are.

You might want to look at science.

ax·i·om   Audio pronunciation of "axiom" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ks-m)
n.

   1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
   2. An established rule, principle, or law.
   3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.[/b]


This is exactly how I used the word axiom.  Don't try to pull any math voodoo on me, because that's an argument you can't win no matter how many "intro to advanced math" classes you've been taking at your local city college.

[leahcim]

This is exactly how I used the word axiom.

I didn't say you didn't.

Maybe the later response makes my point clearer?

Don't try to pull any math voodoo on me, because that's an argument you can't win no matter how many "intro to advanced math" classes you've been taking at your local city college.

There's no need, we're not discussing maths or axioms here. Although I think you might want to look at the way maths [and thus you, when you said your axiom is similar to those in Euclidan geometry] uses the word axiom next time you apply Goggle-Forritt

I've never been to college.

Whether there's a God or not is a scientific question. The "proof", as far as it can be called "proof", of a scientific question is answered by observation and experiment, not by dreaming up axioms and using logic to derive conclusions.

[pianogeek_cz]

It wouldn't, would it?

I mean, if we go back a few thousand years and I say "Oooh, the Gods are angry" during a thunderstorm. The assertion that "there isn't a God" doesn't logically lead to an explanation that the power to make a thunderstorm comes from human beings.

[edit: I should've used the word "denial" here and add "human denial", it would be clearer]

Well, I was talking not about explanations of natural processes, I tried to employ logics on the justification and essentiality of God's existence through the aspects of theology, metaphysics, morality and social interaction. But what I would say to your point: to the people out there, the thunderstorm was an effect of some transcendental being - the angry Gods! So again, we're back at the side remark - how do we represent the transcendental being...

[edit: I hope I don't sound arrogant.]

[pianistimo]

the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  (unless this has been disproven)  can axioms be disproven? 

what if the speed of light is really slower than spirit?

[leahcim]

the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  (unless this has been disproven)

Not on a curved surface it isn't.

[pianogeek_cz]

Not on a curved surface it isn't.

Depends on the number of dimensions you're using. If you're referring to a curved surface, the line drawn on it is curved. Therefore, it's not a straight line...

Imagine a plane flying over a hilly ground. In 2 dimensions (the hills), the plane's shadow seems to go straight. But in 3 dimensions (we take the hilliness of the hills into account), the path of the shadow is definitely not straight - the plane up there is flying straight. Does it make sense?

(By the way, this is pretty off-topic...)

[bearzinthehood]

Depends on the number of dimensions you're using. If you're referring to a curved surface, the line drawn on it is curved. Therefore, it's not a straight line...

Imagine a plane flying over a hilly ground. In 2 dimensions (the hills), the plane's shadow seems to go straight. But in 3 dimensions (we take the hilliness of the hills into account), the path of the shadow is definitely not straight - the plane up there is flying straight. Does it make sense?

This is correct.  If by a curved surface you mean a space governed by a non-Euclidean geometry, it is indeed still true that the shortest path between two points is a straight line.

Specifically, there is one axiomatic difference between a Euclidean space and a non-Euclidean space, and that is that the axiom that there is only one line parallel to a given line through a given point, no longer holds.  The resulting space appears to be that of a plane "wrapped around" a sphere, although it does not appear curved to its "residents".

Also, I'd like to point out the true error with my previous statement.  I said "no two parallel lines intersect" was an axiom, but this is simply the definition of parallel.  It is not a Euclidean axiom.  A more appropriate example would have been, "any two points can be joined by a straight line".

[pianogeek_cz]

very thoughtful.  i wish i could think as logically

Thank you! 

same with heavens.

Hmmm... I percieve heavens more like a state of existence in unlimited God's presence...

[leahcim]

can axioms be disproven? 

You can certainly debate whether you accept one as valid or not.
From the pov of maths it's moot, there are systems that use different axioms.

From the pov of something like "There is a God" I don't think you'd get much beyond the debate about the choice of axiom. It begs more questions than it answers. It's not as though "There is a God" would even mean the same thing to 2 people who accepted the statement either as a self-evident truth or as some mathematical statement similar to those made by Euclidean geometry.

[bearzinthehood]

However, a statement like "There is a God, and the Bible is his Word," is much better defined...

[leahcim]

However, a statement like "There is a God, and the Bible is his Word," is much better defined...

Not really. It seems like 2 statements to me connected with the word "and"

1. There is a God
2. The bible is his word.

If you're saying that statement 2 defines 1, why is 1 necessary? What is a God? In what sense "is"? Does he exist as I do, or like parallel lines do? What does statement 1 tell me about this God? Is it saying there is at least one God, only one God and / or one God in particular?

Can we do substitution yet in this system? If we substitute "the bible" for it's text then if nothing else, there now seems an awful amount of self-referential, confusing, contradictory and debatable text in statement 2 for it to be an axiom in the sense it was compared with one of Euclidean Geometry's axioms.

OTOH,

1. There is no God
2. The bible was written by man.

Seems no better or worse.

I guess this idea of axiomating it would make a good pantomime "Oh yes there is" "Oh no there isn't" "He's behind you!" - OTOH, I guess you could argue that is what these debates are effectively anyway. So maths didn't make it worse, but didn't help. Next?

[bearzinthehood]

Not really. It seems like 2 statements to me connected with the word "and"

1. There is a God
2. The bible is his word.

If you're saying that statement 2 defines 1, why is 1 necessary? What is a God? In what sense "is"? Does he exist as I do, or like parallel lines do? What does statement 1 tell me about this God? Is it saying there is at least one God, only one God and / or one God in particular?

Can we do substitution yet in this system? If we substitute "the bible" for it's text then if nothing else, there now seems an awful amount of self-referential, confusing, contradictory and debatable text in statement 2 for it to be an axiom in the sense it was compared with one of Euclidean Geometry's axioms.

OTOH,

1. There is no God
2. The bible was written by man.

Seems no better or worse.

I guess this idea of axiomating it would make a good pantomime "Oh yes there is" "Oh no there isn't" "He's behind you!" - OTOH, I guess you could argue that is what these debates are effectively anyway. So maths didn't make it worse, but didn't help. Next?

You make no sense.  A proposition is any statement with a truth value.  The proposition, "There is a God, and the Bible is his Word" has a truth value which is computed by using the logical AND operation on the truth values of "There is a God" and "The Bible is God's word".  If I choose to state as an axiom that any particular proposition is always true, then that is a valid axiom.  You may disagree with my axiom, but it's an axiom nonetheless.

Furthermore, the opposite of my statement is "There is no God or the Bible is not God's word", not what you wrote.  What you wrote I assume meant "There is no God and the Bible was written by man," which is a stronger statement, even stronger than "There is no God and the Bible is not God's word."

I'm also curious as to why you hold Euclid's axioms in such high esteem, so much so that other axioms can be an axiom "like Euclid's".  Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Euclid's axioms are incomplete and do not fully describe even what is commonly known to be Euclidean geometry.

On a final note, please stop using the word "axiomate".  It's not a word, it has nothing to do with anything.

[ahinton]

On a final note, please stop using the word "axiomate".  It's not a word, it has nothing to do with anything.

On the contrary, it's an Australian word, the rather unpleasant original meaning of which was "cut down your friend", although, since this is essentially a piano oriented forum, I should also point out that a more contemporary connotation readily identifiable to members of the piano fraternity/sorority is "Emanuel is your colleague" (on which subject it occurs to me to suggest that a certain work by Harrison Birtwistle be kept out of this...)

Best,

Alistair

[bearzinthehood]

On the contrary, it's an Australian word, the rather unpleasant original meaning of which was "cut down your friend", although, since this is essentially a piano oriented forum, I should also point out that a more contemporary connotation readily identifiable to members of the piano fraternity/sorority is "Emanuel is your colleague" (on which subject it occurs to me to suggest that a certain work by Harrison Birtwistle be kept out of this...)

Best,

Alistair

In that case, then let me also point out that skeet is an American word that describes my opinion of this topic.  And I don't mean shooting clay targets with a gun.

[leahcim]

I'm also curious as to why you hold Euclid's axioms in such high esteem so much so that other axioms can be an axiom "like Euclid's".

I don't. It was you that compared your axioms to Euclids by saying they were similar. Hence the posts talking about that claim.

I think I've made it clear why I don't think axioms, and especially those you chose and deemed "similar" to Euclid's were valid to throw light on this particular topic. As I as I said, to me it's a scientific question.

All the stuff about boolean algebra seems another strawman. It didn't negate any point I made. I never claimed to have written the exact opposite.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Euclid's axioms are incomplete and do not fully describe even what is commonly known to be Euclidean geometry.

Perfectly aware. It's not a secret is it? I don't think you'll get your Field's medal for knowing that Hilbert, is that you? Nah...it can't be can it?

A self-igniting straw man that asks leading questions. They said it couldn't be done

What next :-

"I think we should look at this using chemistry....
Take a large tub of hydrochloric acid...add some sugar...kaboom. I believe in God.

Did you know the chemical symbol is HCl? I hope not so I can be cleverer than what you are"

[bearzinthehood]

No, indeed, it's not exactly clear why you write anything you write.  Just as a blind man needn't pursue a career in portraiture, perhaps you too should steer clear of mathematics.

Was that ad hominem?  Oh yes, I believe it was. 

[leahcim]

Was that ad hominem?

Only against yourself and a few blind artists.

[bearzinthehood]

Only against yourself and a few blind artists.

Thank you for displaying your amazing lack of aptitude for reading comprehension.  I'm willing to help, but from here on out I think it's best I charge a consulting fee.

[leahcim]

Thank you for displaying your amazing lack of aptitude for reading comprehension.  I'm willing to help, but from here on out I think it's best I charge a consulting fee.

Let me explain it to you. I believe I have insufficient information [usually none at all] from which to judge anyone, in mathematics [or indeed in many other subjects], from anything they have posted in this forum, let alone this thread.

If you believe differently, and you appeared to assert that you did, then I think you are simply calling into question your own judgement. Which I think is better than your post suggests. Why make yourself look dumb when you aren't? An ad hominem attack against yourself as you suggest.

I see no reason why a blind person cannot paint, possibly even portraits.

[bearzinthehood]

I assert that almost everything you've said about mathematics to date has been either incorrect or amateurish.


That'll be $40.

[leahcim]

That'll be $40.

I'll pay $80. Mark the invoice "For services rendered towards demonstrating a theory about the none appreciation of Mozart"

[bearzinthehood]

I'll pay $80. Mark the invoice "For services rendered towards demonstrating a theory about the none appreciation of Mozart"

Yeah you're right, all discussions involving Mozart incur an extra aggravation fee.

[leahcim]

Yeah you're right

You think so? Obviously I was completely wrong then

[ahinton]

Yeah you're right, all discussions involving Mozart incur an extra aggravation fee.

Hey, wait a bit: Is there a Mozart?

(Just trying to revitalise a flagging topic, though I cannot imagine for the life of me why)...

Best,

Alistair