The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by Dinithion But your God isn't unreal or delusroy? Seriously. I don't understand where you are trying to go..

I don't have a god, and lost all faith in science and math in my teens.

Also, are there any well known inconsistencies in mathematics you can think of that you would like to share?

The attached essay describes my disenchantment with math, and describes several of them.

Originally Posted by SigTerm This does not answer my question. You have finite space with no boundary, so there's no "behind the boundary". Now what?

That which you quoted from my previous post "Whether we can perceive, or even conceive of, such a boundary, says nothing as to its actual existence, or non-existence." is my answer to your question. You have a mental construct of "finite space with no boundary", which may be mathematically provable, but exists only in our minds.

Whether that is actually so is unknowable, but our process for proving it is as self-evident to us as witchcraft was to an earlier generation. Yet the history of human knowledge is nothing but the refutation and rebuttal of earlier "proven" facts, and their replacement by later "proven" facts. Do you seriously think ours is the age of final enlightenment, and all is now revealed?

Originally Posted by porphyry5 I don't have a god, and lost all faith in science and math in my teens. The attached essay describes my disenchantment with math, and describes several of them.

I don't mean to be rude and attack something you believe in, but this 'essay' was the stupidest thing I've ever read. If you're going to attack the work of one of the most influential minds of the last 500 years, at least have a functional idea of what your talking about. These ridiculous imaginary, irrational and negative numbers have applications in any area of engineering or physics and have allowed humanity to do some incredible things.

The final part where he attempts to show contradiction in Euler's forumla is incorrect. See here.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 That which you quoted from my previous post "Whether we can perceive, or even conceive of, such a boundary, says nothing as to its actual existence, or non-existence." is my answer to your question.

That is unrelated to my question.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 Whether that is actually so is unknowable,

Which means that paragraph #2 won't work in finite space with no boundaries. Plus you haven't provide proof for paragraph #1.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 Do you seriously think ours is the age of final enlightenment, and all is now revealed?

And that's an attempt to derail discussion.

Okay, I get it. That was another weak argument.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 I don't have a god, and lost all faith in science and math in my teens. The attached essay describes my disenchantment with math, and describes several of them.

Ok. I thought you were trying to prove God in the first post i commented.

Also, regarding the essay. It's quite clear that you never had any math beyond high school. That explenation that was linked a few posts ago I found quite difficult. It can be explained a lot easier without using the complex plane.

e^{i pi} = -1

Square both sides:

e^{i * 2pi} = 1

Eulers identity: e^{ix} = cos x + i*sin x

Substitute:

cos (2pi} + i*sin (2pi} = 1

cos {2pi} = 1 and sin {2pi} = 0

1 + i * 0 = 1

1 = 1

CONGRATULATIONS!

Before claiming math is inconsistent, you should probably know more than basic algebra.

Edit:
Obs, it's 4 in the morning and I'm working the night shift, so it turned out to be a little ranting. That wasn't the plan initially :P

Originally Posted by SigTerm That is unrelated to my question. Which means that paragraph #2 won't work in finite space with no boundaries. Plus you haven't provide proof for paragraph #1. And that's an attempt to derail discussion. Okay, I get it. That was another weak argument.

You're asking me that I provide you with a "proof" on your terms and within your frame of reference, mathematics. Not being a mathematician, I do not argue in that frame of reference. Instead, I pointed out that reality is unknowable to us, because it is first interpreted by our sense organs, and then rearranged by the mind into various models of reality, religious models, scientific, mathematical, astrological, etc. They all suffer the same defect, they are all constructs of our minds, they are not reality. Your preference is for the mathematical model, probably, as you mention the word so often, because it gives you the illusion of "proof". But any "proof" it gives you is entirely self-referential, it admits no other source but itself.

Apparently you are no more eager to argue within my frame of reference than I am in yours, as witness your persistent evasion of the issues that I raise.

Originally Posted by Dinithion Ok. I thought you were trying to prove God in the first post i commented. Also, regarding the essay. It's quite clear that you never had any math beyond high school. That explenation that was linked a few posts ago I found quite difficult. It can be explained a lot easier without using the complex plane. e^{i pi} = -1 Square both sides: e^{i * 2pi} = 1 Eulers identity: e^{ix} = cos x + i*sin x Substitute: cos (2pi} + i*sin (2pi} = 1 cos {2pi} = 1 and sin {2pi} = 0 1 + i * 0 = 1 1 = 1 CONGRATULATIONS! Before claiming math is inconsistent, you should probably know more than basic algebra. Edit: Obs, it's 4 in the morning and I'm working the night shift, so it turned out to be a little ranting. That wasn't the plan initially :P

Thank you, you've given another demonstration of a major theme of my essay, the essential dishonesty of mathematics. There is no error in the mere basic algebra that I applied to Euler's equation, and it leads inevitably to -1 = 0. You go about it a different way and find that 1 = 1. Doesn't that tell you anything about the essential nature of mathematics?

And no, I need nothing beyond basic algebra to criticize mathematics, as witness my essay. Have I made any claim in that essay that is untrue? I needed nothing else because of the peculiar structure of mathematics. Everything derives from what has gone before, higher math from lower, and lower from those original self-evident assumptions. Those assumptions are the foundation of the entire edifice, and no matter how reasonable they may seem, they necessarily are flawed, as witness that string of "difficulties" that derive from them which I discuss in the essay.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 Thank you, you've given another demonstration of a major theme of my essay, the essential dishonesty of mathematics. There is no error in the mere basic algebra that I applied to Euler's equation, and it leads inevitably to -1 = 0. You go about it a different way and find that 1 = 1. Doesn't that tell you anything about the essential nature of mathematics?

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it inconsistent. If you remember when dealing with absolute values and squaring you always have to check the solution. Basically you have showed that a pure imaginary number doesn't consist of any real part. Or in other words. The imaginary axis and the real axis are orthogonal.

Like you stated in your essay, mathematics is a language. It would be pretty rude of me to (falsely) start telling you that your English are wrong, when I obviously am very poor at it and you have it as your native language.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 There is no error in the mere basic algebra that I applied to Euler's equation.

This is untrue. As your dealing with complex numbers incorrectly, leading to your erroneous contradiction.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 Your preference is for the mathematical model, probably, as you mention the word so often, because it gives you the illusion of "proof".

You're avoiding the question.

You provided two paragraphs separated by "or". You haven't proven the first one (if universe is infinite then everything we could think of already has happened), and second one (if universe is finite, then it has bounds) works only with finite space WITH bounds. I gave you a primitive example of finite boundless space which your explanation can't handle. This makes argument rather shaky.

Instead of providing better arguments(you could try to prove that space of the real universe is different from model I provided) you decided to fall back to "everything might be a hallucination/dream, because we get information through our senses" theory. "Great" idea which doesn't support your position in any way.

Originally Posted by porphyry5 Instead, I pointed out that reality is unknowable to us,

If reality is unknowable, then I can always declare that you do not exist, completely ignore your opinion and "live happily ever after". Which might actually be a good idea.

Originally Posted by SL00b If you accept this idea, then you would have to include God. If you decide that God can have been created by himself, then you've invalidated your own premise.

In general when we talk like that, we dont consider GOD. HE is beyond these. If there is something else who created GOD, then GOD is not GOD himself. and who created GOD will be considered as GOD and again question will raise who created him... no end to that... Definition of GOD is "He neither begets nor is born".

I think, instead of asking If GOD exists, you should search for the question, who created everything? Probably this will lead you to understand there is GOD.

Originally Posted by Arcane One more thing i find wierd is..if 2 or more people meet from different religions they start fighting trying to claim their God is real, better and only one and other religion is nonsence. Again - if there is God - why make 100 versions of it and fight for it?

That has happened, and its about as stupid as fighting over which distro is the best, etc..

IMO the wars over religion are not about god. They were (and are!) about control

Originally Posted by sycamorex Yet another reason for supporting the claim that all religions are man-made. The origins of religions' fragmentation is probably the same as that of political parties, ie. difference of opinion.

I'd disagree. Politicisation has little to do with truth, and making religion political has had a great payoff for leaders and politicians of all types, right up to the present day.

Originally Posted by Dinithion Not only that, but the three most brutal religions, which cause the most suffering on the planet, believe in the same God. Quite ironic.

Monotheism can be twisted for political ends.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Originally Posted by ShaanAli True. There is only one GOD. I would think that there are several religions out there that disagree at this point.

More religions are polytheistic than montheistic.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli I am sure 100%. like me there will be millions. You read GOD's scripture, you also will be 100% sure. When you read GOD scripture, you will realize this can not be written by any extraordinary person or even group of persons, that too 1500 years ago. I am talking about Quran here. Bible was also GOD's word, but unfortunately now its not in its pure form, we human being changed that to suit our need.

Gods word? Who says? Wait a sec-

Originally Posted by Dinithion Ok, I can't sit and watch this silently. In the end it all sums down to 1. The Bible/Quran is the word of God. 2. Why? Because the Bible says so. 3. How can we be sure the Bible/Quran is true? Goto 1.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Unfortunately u r right. We say GOD is unique, there is nothing like HIM. The moment we say there are several GODs it means GOD itself is not unique, which is incorrect definition of GOD.

Again, who said? Just because theres a few books around saying 'god is this' does not mean that is correct.

ShaanAli Quote: {...}How can we assume nature got created by itself.{...} We have enough proof it was possible - do you have enough proof it was not possible?

Please go ahead and share that proof with us. We dont have proof.

ShaanAli Quote: {...}When baby get born, in 30 minutes who teaches him how to suck milk... {...} Natural survival instincts(reaction) passed through DNA from generation to generation?

survival instincts DNA huh..... survival instincts... means millions of years before babies wont be knowing how to suck milk, how to breathe, how to cry.... i wonder how they managed to survive... think of baby got born dont know anything....how his mother make him survive..? natural survival are just theories, there is no proof...

DNA is proved by science, it carries the information. agree... But where first DNA came from? do science have any answer for this? dont tell me it got generated by itself... Can now science create new DNA? or insert any new information to DNA? OMG science can not do that... but nature can do... great... means nature is more powerful than our current science....

: ShaanAli Quote: {...}I believe in Quran thats why i believe in GOD.{...} This is discussion key! You believe! You don't know! You can't claim it to be true untill you have valid evidence to support your claim. And again..read previous posts and watch videos and movie i and others suggested before continue. P.S.What about Alien theory? Maybe there is even more..

I believe thats why I know. Reason of my believe is Any verse of Quran couldn't be proven wrong till date. This book could not be written by any human being. Book is intact from last 1500 years. Quran itself challenge no human being can write even single verse like Quran has. No one could break this challenge so far. If its not written by GOD, who else could write that...

Let me watch that video.....

Please see this link

Originally Posted by Arcane LIf God exists as you say then answer some questions like: Why is he ignoring people who is praying to him?

HE is not ignoring anyone. who prays or even dont pray. HE fulfills all your prayers, may be not in the form you wish. You even don't know that how and when HE helped you.
If there is no death, you get whatever you ask for, you know your future how that life would be... just think.....

Originally Posted by Arcane Why he allow evil people be kings and good people suffer?

Who says only evil people are kings and good people are suffering.
GOD asked us to give charity, help poors, be kind to mandkind.
Who has got enough money and never give charity, will be questioned more than a poor guy.

Originally Posted by Arcane Does Devil also exist then(if you believe in God you automatically believe in Satan aswell)?

Yes, devil exists.

Originally Posted by Arcane How come he can't handle money or fake believers who make money out of church business?

Indeed HE knows everything. HE knows what you are going to do next. But your actions are made by you. You are solely responsible for them. On judgment day, each and everyone will be presented to GOD. Any good or bad deed even size of atom will be presented. Based on deeds you will be rewarded hell or heaven. This life is nothing but a test for us.

Originally Posted by Arcane Why does he allow religic wars? If he allows free will then why punishes for it later? etc.

Religious wars were to establish the truth and spread the word of GOD. War was against devils who refused to accept the commandments of GOD. Punishment/reward will be for your deeds.