Alluring, isnt it?

[Tristan]

I was thinking of a friend today who often proclaims her love for Jesus. In fact, she says she is in love with him. I find this interesting, a bit, puzzling, but altogether amazing and Ill tell you why.

Think about it: we live in a love-starved world. There will be people who say they are happy alone but the truth is that all of us feel the need for companionship and love in one form or another at some time in our lives.
But there is no guarantee... no reliability. However, there is in religion. As long as she believes that she loves Jesus and in return he loves her just as much, she will be happy. And it doesnt matter if he never existed or did, if he really is the son of god or isnt. Thats beside the point. "She believes" is the key phrase. Everything else is irrelevent.

And so I find it a tantalyzing and even alluring concept to believe in a god and a religion. I have often thought of it. But just as a religious person says, "Just something in my heart tells me that its true", I think the same thing but in respect to religion being a pair of rose colored glasses. Give me an earthbourne love with all her imperfections and majesty and I will be happy.

It's interesting to think about. We breed hate because we all want to believe we are right.

T

 

[usp8riot]

"Just something in my heart tells me that its true" never worked for me. And I wasn't raised a Christian. I am very analytical and couldn't find an educated preacher out there that could scientifically convince me to be a Christian until I sought myself to try to disprove Him. Until finally I realized after trying to come up with theories of how He couldn't exist, I mentally and humbly bowed down when I found out myself that He can't be disproven. It's strange. Ever since then, one day, all of a sudden, I've been a hard-core believer. And it happened because of science and math that I found him. Maybe some people might require more proof than what I've attained but it's like math. Sometimes the smartest among us get it with little teaching while the slower among us just don't get it unless the teacher goes more in depth. Or maybe it's stubborness. Or a bit of both. But God is the king of science and math so that is the wrong route if anyone wants to disprove Him. It will only lead you to Him.

 

[Tristan]

But see thats the amazing and scary thing about religion: It can and will never be disproven or proven. Its completely, totaly, and utterly subjective. Its like.... Art.

 

[Sarkus]

Until finally I realized after trying to come up with theories of how He couldn't exist, I mentally and humbly bowed down when I found out myself that He can't be disproven.

Okay - following this logic - please bow down before the invisible Pink Unicorn that sits on my desk every day.
Bob (that's HIS name) can't be disproven.

It's strange. Ever since then, one day, all of a sudden, I've been a hard-core believer. And it happened because of science and math that I found him.

Knowing something can't be disproven is not utilising science or math. It utilises logic and an absolute lack of evidence.
Did you know that something that doesn't exist also can NOT be disproven??

Maybe some people might require more proof than what I've attained...

No offence meant, but you have attained no proof whatsoever - you have merely come to the conclusion that there is no proof against His existence, and there will never be any, and have thus chosen to believe that He exists.

Again, I refer you to the example of something that doesn't exist....

Think of something that doesn't exist.
Anything at all - your choice.
Now prove to me it doesn't exist.

 

[Lerxst]

Think of something that doesn't exist.
Anything at all - your choice.
Now prove to me it doesn't exist.

Well, you said "anything at all..."

(It has been about 15 years since I took a course in Real Analysis, so the 'proof' isn't at my fingertips, but we know the proof exists....)

Here goes:

I am thinking of a number x that is both rational, and has the property that x*x=2.

I can prove x does not exist.

QED.

 

[charles cure]

Well, you said "anything at all..."

(It has been about 15 years since I took a course in Real Analysis, so the 'proof' isn't at my fingertips, but we know the proof exists....)

Here goes:

I am thinking of a number x that is both rational, and has the property that x*x=2.

I can prove x does not exist.

QED.

right, but thats a mathematical proof, and it only works because X has clearly defined properties. god has no such clearly defined characteristics, and so for any proof that you could do disproving the existence of god based on one or two particular properties, someone would come along and say, well that proof doesnt work because i dont believe that god has those properties. hence, the fallacy.

 

[Sarkus]

right, but thats a mathematical proof, and it only works because X has clearly defined properties. god has no such clearly defined characteristics, and so for any proof that you could do disproving the existence of god based on one or two particular properties, someone would come along and say, well that proof doesnt work because i dont believe that god has those properties. hence, the fallacy.

Aye - that's not proof - that's definition. You have merely defined something as not existing.

I can define God as not existing if I cared to - and hence, according to you, this is all the proof I need?

 

[Lerxst]

right, but thats a mathematical proof, and it only works because X has clearly defined properties. god has no such clearly defined characteristics, and so for any proof that you could do disproving the existence of god based on one or two particular properties, someone would come along and say, well that proof doesnt work because i dont believe that god has those properties. hence, the fallacy.

Indeed, but once we get outside the realm of math and logic we should not even use the words "proof" or "prove" at all. It's not an issue of proof, it is an issue of evidence. And I think we all agree that there isn't a shred of evidence for any God.

I'm sorry to get off on a tangent here, but it's just that lately I have been thinking about the exact meaning of the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" and I think it is somewhat misleading. In mathematics, I can dream up crap and then prove it is not true. However if I instead postulate an invisible pink dragon, the only appropriate statement in response is: "there is zero evidence that said dragon exists." From there I would conclude that the idea that the dragon is real is provisionally false, in the sense that it would be ridiculous to withold judgement on the basis of, and in the context of, all the collected observations (or lck thereof). It still leaves open the possibility that evidence might be uncoverd tomorrow, which is why it is provisional. Outside of math, all of our knowledge must be so classified.

 

[charles cure]

Aye - that's not proof - that's definition. You have merely defined something as not existing.

I can define God as not existing if I cared to - and hence, according to you, this is all the proof I need?

what im saying is that mathematics is s system with rules. an equation will not be solved correctly if you put a number with the wrong characteristics in it. god however, is not subject to hard and fast laws in a logical system. god has no specific set of agreed upon characteristics, so to challenge any one of them is useless because a believer can then say, well i dont think that god has that attribute, so your proof is meaningless.

if you could come up with a singular definition of the nature of god, then you could have a shot at working out its existence or non-existence using mathematics, but in the absence of that, you cant.

i suppose you can define god as not existing just as easily as you could define god as existing, but the fact remains that you wont be able to do it effectively through mathematics. hence, the debate rages forward until god gets some actual characteristics.

 

[charles cure]

Indeed, but once we get outside the realm of math and logic we should not even use the words "proof" or "prove" at all. It's not an issue of proof, it is an issue of evidence. And I think we all agree that there isn't a shred of evidence for any God.

I'm sorry to get off on a tangent here, but it's just that lately I have been thinking about the exact meaning of the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" and I think it is somewhat misleading. In mathematics, I can dream up crap and then prove it is not true. However if I instead postulate an invisible pink dragon, the only appropriate statement in response is: "there is zero evidence that said dragon exists." From there I would conclude that the idea that the dragon is real is provisionally false, in the sense that it would be ridiculous to withold judgement on the basis of, and in the context of, all the collected observations (or lck thereof). It still leaves open the possibility that evidence might be uncoverd tomorrow, which is why it is provisional. Outside of math, all of our knowledge must be so classified.

right, but think of it, the reason you know that you can disprove something in mathematics is because it is a human designed system with rules and answers that are definitely correct or incorrect according to that system. you can prove the correctness by building something according to a sound mathematical design and then seeing if it works. you can then attempt to build the same thing using faulty math and see that it does not work. that is evidence. math is just theory when not applied practically, but its soundness has been proven enough times that we understand that if something is mathematically unsound, then it is incorrect and will not acheive desired results if attempted in actuality. that all comes down to evidence of effectiveness through practical application.

 

[Lerxst]

right, but think of it, the reason you know that you can disprove something in mathematics is because it is a human designed system with rules and answers that are definitely correct or incorrect according to that system. you can prove the correctness by building something according to a sound mathematical design and then seeing if it works. you can then attempt to build the same thing using faulty math and see that it does not work. that is evidence. math is just theory when not applied practically, but its soundness has been proven enough times that we understand that if something is mathematically unsound, then it is incorrect and will not acheive desired results if attempted in actuality. that all comes down to evidence of effectiveness through practical application.

The thing is that I don't believe that math is a human defined system. I think it is just as much a part of reality as are electrons. I cannot believe that the fundamental theorem of calculus, for example, wasn't true long before it was discovered and written down. That to me is why mathematics is so strange, because the kinds of truths it yields are so different from the other kinds of truths we find via biology, for example.

 

[Sarkus]

Indeed, but once we get outside the realm of math and logic we should not even use the words "proof" or "prove" at all. It's not an issue of proof, it is an issue of evidence. And I think we all agree that there isn't a shred of evidence for any God.

I'm sorry to get off on a tangent here, but it's just that lately I have been thinking about the exact meaning of the phrase "you cannot prove a negative" and I think it is somewhat misleading. In mathematics, I can dream up crap and then prove it is not true. However if I instead postulate an invisible pink dragon, the only appropriate statement in response is: "there is zero evidence that said dragon exists." From there I would conclude that the idea that the dragon is real is provisionally false, in the sense that it would be ridiculous to withold judgement on the basis of, and in the context of, all the collected observations (or lck thereof). It still leaves open the possibility that evidence might be uncoverd tomorrow, which is why it is provisional. Outside of math, all of our knowledge must be so classified.

Good tangent, though.
Proving a specific negative is easy - There is no apple in the top drawer of my desk. I have a look. Lo and behold there is no apple. I have proven a negative.

You can not prove a general negative - i.e. you can not prove there is no green martian in this or any other universe. This is because it is not possible to observe every point necessary to make the proof.

What you can also not prove is the non-existance of something for which there is no evidence.

Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists.
Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

 

[Sarkus]

The thing is that I don't believe that math is a human defined system. I think it is just as much a part of reality as are electrons. I cannot believe that the fundamental theorem of calculus, for example, wasn't true long before it was discovered and written down. That to me is why mathematics is so strange, because the kinds of truths it yields are so different from the other kinds of truths we find via biology, for example.

Aaah - but Biology is full of mathematical wonders - most notably the Golden Ratio (aka The Fibonacci number).

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70golden_ratio.html

 

[Lerxst]

Aaah - but Biology is full of mathematical wonders - most notably the Golden Ratio (aka The Fibonacci number).

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70golden_ratio.html

Oh I know... and that to me is another deep mystery. Why is mathematics so effective and prevalant in nature? Why are physical principles mathematical at all? One could say that if they were not, the universe would be chaos and we would not be here to observe it. Maybe the universe has to be mathematical. Kepler said geometry was the mind of God. I certainly understand where that feeling was coming from.

 

[Lerxst]

Good tangent, though.
Proving a specific negative is easy - There is no apple in the top drawer of my desk. I have a look. Lo and behold there is no apple. I have proven a negative.

You can not prove a general negative - i.e. you can not prove there is no green martian in this or any other universe. This is because it is not possible to observe every point necessary to make the proof.

What you can also not prove is the non-existance of something for which there is no evidence.

Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists.
Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing."

Most of that is all well and fine, but I guess I'm more concerend with what is known and what is unknown and what we can say about the latter. There is an implicit (or explicit?) premise in the objectivst viewpoint that all that exists can be known. And I don't know why I should agree to that.

"Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible." - I don't know that I should buy that either. It seems to assert a kind incredible, grandiose power to the human mind. I don't think we are smart enough to be able to be the arbiters of what is possible and what is not based on our capacity to reason.

 

[Sarkus]

Most of that is all well and fine, but I guess I'm more concerend with what is known and what is unknown and what we can say about the latter. There is an implicit (or explicit?) premise in the objectivst viewpoint that all that exists can be known. And I don't know why I should agree to that.

Let's explore this, then.
The implicit premise you have raised is: if it exists, it is knowable (= can be known).

What can exist without being knowable?
I don't mean knowable by us, mere humans, but knowable in the absolute sense, i.e. if we occupied every space in the Universe at every moment of time and were able to detect every interaction that ever took place.

To me, that is what it means to be "knowable" or "can be known".

Thus it is consistent that what exists can be known.

If it doesn't exist - there would be no observation - it is not knowable.
If it is not observable - this is the equivalent of not existing.

The question is then: can something exist without interracting, without being observable / knowable?
My answer would be no - as this is surely how we define existence?



In the non-absolutist / personal sense, this whole position falls apart - as it requires absolute observability.
To me, this then becomes a subjectivist view of existence with different interpretation of knowledge, knowable, observable etc.



I'm waffling.
And probably making no sense.
Ah well.

 

[Lerxst]

The question is then: can something exist without interracting, without being observable / knowable?
My answer would be no - as this is surely how we define existence?

But supposing that one created a massive simulation that included sentient minds. Those minds could be asking the same questions about what they know and what exists. Unless the beings that created the sim wanted to interact with them, the sims would be totally ignorant of the 'higher' reality, and they would in principle be unable to detect it. Yet that higher reality of simulators exists, and it is real.

And while I have no evidence to think that this is what is going on in our world, it is certainly plausible, and entails no logical contradictions. So I think that suffices to show that something can be real and not knowable (to us).

That's really the question - is it knowable to humans.

Here is another one: suppoing we have a multiverse containing different universes that are closed off from each other. Those other universes are just as real, but we cannot have knowledge about what is going on in them. Suppose we are in universe A. Perhaps universe D has no life forms at all - so there would be a whole class of things that exist that nobody knows about.

I know there is no direct evidence for a multiverse but there may be theoretical reasons for entertaining the idea, and certainly some cosmologists do just that.

Finally, have you ever heard of Fitch's Paradox?

 

[charles cure]

The thing is that I don't believe that math is a human defined system. I think it is just as much a part of reality as are electrons. I cannot believe that the fundamental theorem of calculus, for example, wasn't true long before it was discovered and written down. That to me is why mathematics is so strange, because the kinds of truths it yields are so different from the other kinds of truths we find via biology, for example.

math is a system conceived by humans in order to explain an underlying order existing in nature. math is a framework by which humans can understand what exists in the world in a basic sense. that is why it fits so well with what is in nature, math didnt exist first, nature did, and math describes it.

 

[Lerxst]

math is a system conceived by humans in order to explain an underlying order existing in nature. math is a framework by which humans can understand what exists in the world in a basic sense. that is why it fits so well with what is in nature, math didnt exist first, nature did, and math describes it.

Yet the mathematics is imbedded in nature in a very deep way, no? When mathematical discoveries are made, that is exactly what they are - discoveries, not inventions. Cauchy didn't invent the Cauchy Integral Theorem, it was always "out there" and he found it.

 

[usp8riot]

A negative is the complimentary existance of a positive. Take an ocean for instance. You live under water and that is your "space" or sky, so to speak, and see a bubble. The bubble is in actuality the nonexistance of the elements in your environment, as we all know. Well, of course, the 02 in h20 collides and makes a bubble of course and you can claim it is a part of your environment but that's getting technical. But lightly speaking, h20 doesn't exist in the bubble. You can prove h20 doesn't exist within the bubble by the impression the oxygen around it leaves, even though you can't see it. Maybe I shouldn't have used that analogy, too complicated. But maybe you get my point. To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. And to every positive, there is a negative, perhaps just for the purpose to prove there is a such thing as a positive even though the negative can't be sensed, it still exists for the positive to exist. Without one, there can not be another.

Okay - following this logic - please bow down before the invisible Pink Unicorn that sits on my desk every day.

If the IPU told man to author a book of morality and I was convinced by it's rationality, I would bow down to it.

No offence meant, but you have attained no proof whatsoever - you have merely come to the conclusion that there is no proof against His existence, and there will never be any, and have thus chosen to believe that He exists.

Negative, that which isn't sensed, exists to prove a positive. There is something that co-exists with us to make us exist, and I call that God. That argument is one of many I've reasoned which lead me to believe in a God along with the good book.