[CP5670]

But the discussion about the existance of a God or supreme being is not something related to your frame of reference alone, it's related to the universe as a whole - therefore, you must take in consideration anything that's possible in the universe. It escapes the standard for logic problems.

Yes, but as I said earlier, we should only take into account that which has an effect on the universe, because if this is not the case, how would you deduce anything? Cognitive thinking itself would be meaningless, so we have already discovered all that can be known in that area. Because of this, we have already gone part of the way towards proving it cannot be so. The only alternative here is to go in the other direction, and coming back to this part once the other part has been solved. (a good strategy in any problem is to break it down into discrete parts; this is what we are trying to do here)

BTW you are using logic here to disprove logic; a bit strange, huh?

Also, what does this have to with frames of reference?

And what does the sin and cos of X have to do with anything?

A nice nonmonotonic oscillating series to demonstrate that it is not possible to directly compare finite and infinite quantities.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, but as I said earlier, we should only take into account that which has an effect on the universe, because if this is not the case, how would you deduce anything? Cognitive thinking itself would be meaningless, so we have already discovered all that can be known in that area. Because of this, we have already gone part of the way towards proving it cannot be so. The only alternative here is to go in the other direction, and coming back to this part once the other part has been solved. (a good strategy in any problem is to break it down into discrete parts; this is what we are trying to do here)

What does this have to with frames of reference BTW?

It has to do with frames of reference because you're clearly saying that you ignore things that don't affect the universe, while you state that the universe is that which is perceivable by you. You're talking about logic inside your frame of reference (or context), not in the universe as a whole. You're discarding a simple and logic law of probabilities because you never saw it proved inside your context - simply because your context is too limited to ever prove it (as is every human being's context).

Originally posted by CP5670
A nice nonmonotonic oscillating series to show that it is not possible to directly compare finite and infinite quantities.

You ever studied formal semantics and theory of categories?

[Corsair]

5 Pages and the topic hasn't been locked! WOW!
Oh and Setekh: I wasn't being offended or anything about what was before the big orange type, it's just that you were pointing it out and all so you were being pretty hypocritical. No hard feelings.

Damn do you people have a lot to write about on this topic!

And it's true, if people are preaching love and peace, just under a different name, why have people been so hostile towards them in the past? Wierd.

[CP5670]

It has to do with frames of reference because you're clearly saying that you ignore things that don't affect the universe, while you state that the universe is that which is perceivable by you. You're talking about logic inside your frame of reference (or context), not in the universe as a whole. You're discarding a simple and logic law of probabilities because you never saw it proved inside your context - simply because your context is too limited to ever prove it (as is every human being's context).

Exactly, which is why I said the probability always exists, but we should concentrate on the other part of the problem until it has been fully solved, because, as you said, the perceptive part is insolvable. So, uh, what's your point? :D

Human beings in their current state will not be able to prove this mathematically, which is why I stated earlier that the progress towards further complexity is inevitable if we are to prove this.

You ever studied formal semantics and theory of categories?

No, but it isn't really necessary here. You just need to know a little bit of variational calculus and number theory to be able to prove that.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly, which is why I said the probability always exists, but we should concentrate on the other part of the problem until it has been fully solved, because, as you said, the perceptive part is insolvable. So, uh, what's your point? :D

Human beings in their current state will not be able to prove this mathematically, which is why I stated earlier that the progress towards further complexity is inevitable if we are to prove this.

My point is - it's not provable by perception inside our current context, but the probability is there - and in an infinite universe (which may or may not exist, actually - in fact, the current trend points to the existance of an infinite number of finite universes, which leads to the same result) it will be true.

Originally posted by CP5670
No, but it isn't really necessary here. You just need to know a little bit of variational calculus and number theory to be able to prove that.

Actually, if you take in consideration any of those things I mentioned, you can compare infinite and finite values - either by derivating a semantic value for each of them or by representing them in terms of categories (what would make them not only comparable, but would allow you to operate the values at will).

[CP5670]

My point is - it's not provable by perception inside our current context, but the probability is there - and in an infinite universe (which may or may not exist, actually - in fact, the current trend points to the existance of an infinite number of finite universes, which leads to the same result) it will be true.

Uh, yeah; that is what I said. So what are you trying to prove? Also, what will be true? (remember that by taking no assumptions, nothing can be true or false)

Actually, if you take in consideration any of those things I mentioned, you can compare infinite and finite values - either by derivating a semantic value for each of them or by representing them in terms of categories (what would make them not only comparable, but would allow you to operate the values at will).

I'm not quite sure what a category is, but it is probably something like a sum if it is possible to express it finitely. However, that isn't necessarily solvable.

Try this one: (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)

lim x+1
x->¥

lim x³
x->¥

If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1.

Tell you what; I have to go somewhere for a while now, but I'll be back to argue later.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by CP5670


Try this one: (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)

lim x+1
x->¥

lim x³
x->¥

If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1.

Tell you what; I have to go somewhere for a while now, but I'll be back to argue later.

Math nerd.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Uh, yeah; that is what I said. So what are you trying to prove? Also, what will be true? (remember that by taking no assumptions, nothing can be true or false)

The original assumption is the law of probabilities. Somewhere in the universe, or in one of the infinite universes, anything can be true. Simple as that, eh?

Originally posted by CP5670
I'm not quite sure what a category is, but it is probably something like a sum if it is possible to express it finitely. However, that isn't necessarily solvable.

Try this one: (the formal "d-e" definition would be necessary here)

lim x+1
x->¥

lim x³
x->¥

If this is true, according to you, x³=x+1.

Hell, no! I don't know if they told you, but there are infinite degrees of infinity, and infinite numbers of infinites degrees of infinities, and so on. The infinity found on your first equation is not the same infinity that was found on the second. I don't know the name in english, but there's a term for that (it's álefe in portuguese).

And categories have almost no similarities to the basic math constructs (that you have been using up to now). They are a completely different take on mathematics, and it would take LONG to explain - but I suggest you look into it if you like math. They are for math what the GUT is for physics.

[CP5670]

The original assumption is the law of probabilities. Somewhere in the universe, or in one of the infinite universes, anything can be true. Simple as that, eh?

That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved.

Hell, no! I don't know if they told you, but there are infinite degrees of infinity, and infinite numbers of infinites degrees of infinities, and so on. The infinity found on your first equation is not the same infinity that was found on the second. I don't know the name in english, but there's a term for that (it's álefe in portuguese).

And categories have almost no similarities to the basic math constructs (that you have been using up to now). They are a completely different take on mathematics, and it would take LONG to explain - but I suggest you look into it if you like math. They are for math what the GUT is for physics.

I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying.

Anyway I gotta go now (parents are shouting from the car ); see you in a bit.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved.

And that's why I told you about contexts. You're trying to solve it one way, I'm trying to solve it another way. You're focusing on what you can perceive, I'm focusing on what is made possible by the laws of probability.

Originally posted by CP5670
I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying.

Actually, the two infinities you stated are different, they're just not comparable through standard basic math. Look into categories and formal semantics (this last one is damn fun), and you'll get a new view of all this. Just be sure to have lots of time before you start.

[Nico]

Styxx, you can't assume that because something may exist, you can use it. In this case, why would God be the most powerful being in the universe? Everything exists in the universe, according to you, right? so I decide that there's a god more powerful than the christian one, hey, I decide he created this God, and told him to create the whole fluff about christianism maybe. Why not? Now I can hear everybody yelling at me, damn ( So I have to point out that I don't take this hypotesys seriously, and it's ABSOLUTLY NOT an attempt at offending anyone )
Anyway, following your conception of the infinite universe, Styxx, please prove me wrong

[Styxx]

Originally posted by venom2506
Anyway, following your conception of the infinite universe, Styxx, please prove me wrong

Who says I want to prove you wrong?

Then again, if there's a God that's more powerful than any other, that one would be the one recognized by Christianism...

[Darkage]

Anyone want a piece of my at 9am in the morning made appel pie?

hey i was hungry so why not make appel pie:p

[Fineus]

Originally posted by Styxx
if there's a God that's more powerful than any other, that one would be the one recognized by Christianism...

I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.

[Geezer]

Originally posted by Setekh


Now, if the Dalai Lama and Gandhi turned away from God - that is, chose to rule their own lives, and not submit themselves to God, who is Sovereign (ie. supreme ruler), then they too are sinners. They will suffer the same fate that all other sinners will. The only way to escape that fate is not through being good, or through our own power; God states explicitly that Jesus, who paid for our sins, is the only way...

The only person in the world who has never sinned, the only person who could offer a perfect sacrifice, who could hence pay for our infinite sin, is Jesus Himself. That is why He, the only perfect being, can be the only sacrifice that will pay for our sins.

Well, I went to sleep and the thread went on.  But I want to go back to what Setekh said for a moment:

If you want to say that anyone who sins "turns his face from God", I've got no problem with it - provided "turning your face from God" is used to describe things like murder and rape as well.

But, again, you're assuming that the face of God shown to Christians is the only face of God that there is.  The Dalai Lama has not turned his face from God.  He is seeking God along the path he knows.  This is where simple faith, simple belief, enters in.  Whatever brought you to your own beliefs, whether it was study or sudden insight or the words of your elders or something else, those same things happen to non-Christians.  A devout Moslem or Jew or Hindu is as sure that his beliefs are true as you are.  

Now, maybe the Christians are the only people on earth who know the true path to salvation and maybe there's many true paths.   And maybe there is only one true path and it's the one that the Dalai Lama is following.  For our time on earth, we can only do our best - none of us can prove that his path is the only true one - it's all "belief".

[Geezer]

Originally posted by Thunder

I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.

I heard a clergyman (I'm pretty sure he was a Catholic, but it was a while ago) on TV.  He said something along the lines of "If the heavens suddenly parted and the face of God was revealed to all mankind, we would have God but we would no longer have faith."   He seemed to think that that was a bad thing.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by CP5670


That is why we are not discounting the probability completely, but not taking it into consideration until the current problem is solved.



I need to look at the category stuff sometime. Yes, I have heard of the "infinity of infinities" (I spent some months trying to figure out why 0/0 was indeterminate and not imaginary and ran into this a number of times) but the infinity we're talking about here is a finite symbol for all the infinities combined. There are an infinite number of infinite values between any given finite value and an infinite value, so that is what the ¥ here means; it is not possible to go any further, because it will lead to the same value. However, things like ¥-¥ and ¥/¥ are indeterminate, and more information is required (namely, the "roots" of the ¥'s), which means that part of the problem (the part that can be solved) has to be determined first. Apply this to our little philosophy issue and you get the thing I was saying.

Anyway I gotta go now (parents are shouting from the car ); see you in a bit.

There are two types of formula thinking.  Mathematical and Scientific.  Math is in a controled enviroment(A bubble) while scientific formulas normally account for the randomness of the universe.  The atom for instances.  We knew it exist before we could see it.  The electron and nucleus with the protons, neutrons and quarks, we can't see them but indirectly know they are there.  Point is with your type of thinking unless you can prove something exist you don't consider it a factor.  Thust if you don't consider it a factor than you wouldn't atempt to discover if it does or not.  Am I following you?

Oh and BTW it's Christianity not Christianism.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Oh and BTW it's Christianity not Christianism.

Ops, my bad.

[CP5670]

I'm currently on a slow computer with a crappy 56k modem and an awful laptop mouse (I'm in a hotel in Pittsburg ) and will be on this for the next few days, so bear with me.

Anyone want a piece of my at 9am in the morning made appel pie?

I just had apple pie.

And that's why I told you about contexts. You're trying to solve it one way, I'm trying to solve it another way. You're focusing on what you can perceive, I'm focusing on what is made possible by the laws of probability.

Exactly, but the thing is that you cannot really get anywhere using that approach. The laws of probability state that logic itself might be flawed and that its own laws might not be true, which is why I refer to it as a dead-end. If we want to think about the topic at all, we have no choice but to go with the other assumption.

I think we have gotten a bit off-topic though. I am all for agnosticism (which makes perfect sense to me), but we should not take into account the existence of a god until all known values have been completely understood in order to maximize efficiency in accordance with logic. Once this has been done, the realm of hypothesizing is open, and we can attempt to incorporate the god idea into existing stuff and see what comes up.

Actually, the two infinities you stated are different, they're just not comparable through standard basic math. Look into categories and formal semantics (this last one is damn fun), and you'll get a new view of all this. Just be sure to have lots of time before you start.

I'll need to look into this subject more if it goes into infinite quantities, but calculus of variations specifically proves that quantities that are either absolutely infinite or zero cannot be directly compared (divided or subtracted, essentially) without the stuff that they were computed from. I was skeptical of this as well until I did some more work into oscillating series and finally saw a proper proof of the thing, along with several supporting examples. The subjects you talk of probably deal with general infinities instead of absolute infinities, which can indeed be directly compared and manipulated.

I'm confident that any religion following one (or even many) gods would claim to recognise any god that showed up.

That definitely makes sense to me.

There are two types of formula thinking. Mathematical and Scientific. Math is in a controled enviroment(A bubble) while scientific formulas normally account for the randomness of the universe. The atom for instances. We knew it exist before we could see it. The electron and nucleus with the protons, neutrons and quarks, we can't see them but indirectly know they are there. Point is with your type of thinking unless you can prove something exist you don't consider it a factor. Thust if you don't consider it a factor than you wouldn't atempt to discover if it does or not. Am I following you?

Absolutely correct. Unknown variables should only be taken into account after all known variables have been synthetically analyzed. If we indirectly know that elementary particles exist, it is because we have observed their effect on other objects; they do have an effect on our universe and can therefore be explored further. This is not the case with god; there has been no credible observation of god, nor have we anything that would require god to explain. (you could call the unknown "god," which is fine, but it is necessary to go beyond that in order to form theories)

Although if we are going by science, that dictates skepticism unless proof is derived from existing facts, while math actually is the one that leaves the possibility more open, but even then, has similar proofing systems.

[Setekh]

Okay, I've read through all this (every word: yes, I really did). I will not reply, since my intellectual faculties will probably let me down. Instead, I'll point you to a very good little book. You should be able to find it, CP (and all those others who want to read it) - it's called "Know Why You Believe", by one Paule E. Little. It explains a lot. I've read through it and, short of quoting the entire book, I really can't tell you how fitting it is to this very situation.

Please, I beg you, read this book. It is available worldwide. You might even find it on Amazon. I will consider it a favour to me if you actively pursue this book, find it, and read it. Thanks.