The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by keefaz I guess it's a matter of point of view Seriously, I still find there is an analogy, for example zero will define positive and negative while God defines good and bad.

I don't get your drift here. Zero afaik does not define positive or negative things but only the absence. In the simplest logical diagram where we have a circle defined as "A" and everything outside that circle is "Not A" it can be said that relative to each, the other is Zero (0) since none of it is included within. It matter not whether either of them has a positive or negative value when considering this relative state.

The first time it is known that humans contemplated "absence" or "zero" was around 650 AD in India and it was a dot referred to as "sunya" which means "empty" or "kha" which means "place". We sill use it in this fashion as both a real number denoting the absence of any quantity and as a placeholder. It never has a positive or negative value which is partly why dividing by zero is meaningless, with the sole exception of Riemannian objects where zero has a fuzzy definition.

While a 0 in binary code can express a positive or negative number, but that is only because it is used symbolically and not as a discrete value, like "off and on" or "yes and no". Even in binary arithmetic 0 only means zero when it stands alone. When used in combination it is more like the placeholder sort of lik the college geek joke

"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world....
Those who understand binary...
and those who don't. "

Again, on it's own, zero is neither positive nor negative, only absence of quantity and has nothing to do with whether a Supreme Being exists or not. Humans can imagine all manner of things that do not and even can not exist.

It is possible to further argue that "good" and bad" are defined by being alive, which defines a system of values, especially within a community, and not by any "god" though obviously religion exists partly to reinforce such systems.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Therefore, where do we get the concept of God, if He is not real, since we have no other reality to base it on?

It seems to me that the concept of God breaks down into a human (known) who is unseen (known) with powers over known phenomena. This is even more obvious with pagan gods (which typically drop the unseen part, and are each limited to a subset of known phenomena).

Originally Posted by enorbet I don't get your drift here. Zero afaik does not define positive or negative things but only the absence.

You intrigue me. A negative thing is negative from what? Same question for the positive...

Originally Posted by ntubski It seems to me that the concept of God breaks down into a human (known) who is unseen (known) with powers over known phenomena. This is even more obvious with pagan gods (which typically drop the unseen part, and are each limited to a subset of known phenomena).

I'll agree with you that many 'religions' have a man-made image of a god or gods. However, the concept of an infinite, un-created being seems, to me, outside the realm of human comprehension - yet we still have the natural (it seems) ability to understand and embrace such a concept.

Originally Posted by keefaz I still find there is an analogy, for example zero will define positive and negative while God defines good and bad.

That's quite a wild analogy. I hope that you are aware that positive numbers are not "good", and that negative numbers are not "bad".

Originally Posted by OregonJim I disagree. The very fact that we are able to conceptualize imagine) something is proof that it has some basis in reality. It is impossible for us o imagine a thing that is entirely unknown - for example, we can imagine and conceptualize a mythical unicorn - but that is simply a composite image between a (known) horse and a (known) rhinocerous horn. I would challenge you to imagine something, no matter how fantastic, that cannot be broken down into reality-based components. Therefore, where do we get the concept of God, if He is not real, since we have no other reality to base it on?

Having "some basis in reality" is not sufficient for a concept to prove that there's a corresponding object in the real world, or for a statement to prove that there's a corresponding fact. Basically, you're saying that just being able to conceptualize something would prove that it exists. However, that makes no sense, as your criterion would remove the need of actual verification, i.e. the need to check in the real world if that statement is true. The theory of evolution has a great amount of shareable evidence that supports it, and according to your criterion it has at least "some basis in reality": therefore, it would include in itself the proof that it is true, and I'm not sure that you would still agree about this. The same would hold for every other theory that has "some basis in reality", including those that contradict each other. Therefore, either your law is wrong, or not all statements are equal before it. But then, who's the judge? You?

It is fairly unprecedented, as such things go, that the Judaeo-Christian God was not imagined as a "person." We have records of neighboring cultures having real problems with that: "Well, where is your God?"

It might be said, though, that in the Roman period, this God did become corporeal. Jesus, obviously, is a living man ... "Son of" God and, according to Paul et al, in every way co-equal with Him.

Meanwhile, Mary, in the Catholic tradition, very much became the long-missing "Goddess." And we have some very interesting images over there ... the "Sacred Heart of Jesus," the "Immaculate Conception," Mary ascending to heaven just as her son did, and so on. Some believe that she is also a deity, and that she is "the way to salvation." (As I understand it, imploring her son not to destroy everything. Fortunately, this son obeys her mommy.)

A Jewish friend of mine once very-calmly said, "I do not recognize this version of my God."

I'm afraid that it does get very murky, very fast. "The Official State Religion of Imperial Rome" is a designation not easily expunged. And, without judging the observation that I just made, I'll leave it to be what it is: an observation. Because, these things, too, are the part of the history of this thing we call, "Christianity."

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Having "some basis in reality" is not sufficient for a concept to prove that there's a corresponding object in the real world [...]

I think you've gotten my inference backward. I was inferring that all concepts have some basis in reality, not that any concept proves that a corresponding object exists.

By extension, we must address the question of where we got the concept for an infinite, non-created being, since there is no analogous "thing" or "collection of things" that we could have derived the concept from. I am not claiming any sort of proof, just asking the question. One possible answer is that this is a unique and universal anomaly in human thinking; the other answer is that God is real.

conjunction 1. introducing a conditional clause. synonyms: on (the) condition that, provided (that), providing (that), presuming (that), supposing (that), assuming (that), as long as, given that, in the event that "if the rain holds out, we can walk" 2. despite the possibility that; no matter whether. "if it takes me seven years, I shall do it" noun 1. a condition or supposition. "there are so many ifs and buts in the policy" synonyms: uncertainty, doubt; More

pronoun 1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. "the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted" 2. used to refer to a person of unspecified sex. "ask someone if they could help"

verb 1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of. "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story" synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More 2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose. "I believe we've already met" synonyms: think, be of the opinion that, have an idea that, imagine, suspect, suppose, assume, presume, take it, conjecture, surmise, conclude, deduce, understand, be given to understand, gather, fancy, guess, dare say; More

It is a 1986 horror novel by American author Stephen King.

pronoun 1. used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. "the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted" 2. used to refer to a person of unspecified sex. "ask someone if they could help"

verb 1. expressing the future tense. "you will regret it when you are older" 2. expressing inevitable events. "accidents will happen" synonyms: tend to, have a tendency to, are bound to, do, are going to, must "accidents will happen"

pronoun 1. any thing whatever; something, no matter what: Do you have anything for a toothache? noun 2. a thing of any kind. adverb 3. in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all: Does it taste anything like chocolate?

Or in less words: if they believe it they will anything

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904108.html
http://listverse.com/2009/09/10/10-e...ird-religions/

Originally Posted by OregonJim I was inferring that all concepts have some basis in reality, not that any concept proves that a corresponding object exists.

Yes, but then you implicitly used it as an argument to suggest that a god must exist:

Therefore, where do we get the concept of God, if He is not real, since we have no other reality to base it on?

If this holds for the concept of god, then it must hold for other concepts as well.

By extension, we must address the question of where we got the concept for an infinite, non-created being, since there is no analogous "thing" or "collection of things" that we could have derived the concept from.

It is very easy to add a negation operator (NOT) to simple concepts like "finite" and "created", turning them into something more difficult to grasp. Just a possible example: if one feels limited for whatever reason, then he might dream about something not limited, not finite.

Originally Posted by OregonJim By extension, we must address the question of where we got the concept for an infinite, non-created being, since there is no analogous "thing" or "collection of things" that we could have derived the concept from. I am not claiming any sort of proof, just asking the question. One possible answer is that this is a unique and universal anomaly in human thinking; the other answer is that God is real.

(Shrug ...) It rather sounds like "an pretty easy idea to come up with," to me.

But, let me kick-in "a sideways thought" to this discussion. "If '150% of everything that ever happened to us, in real life,' could always be made to fit into the 'comfy view' that all of us tend to carry around with us every day," then there would be No Problem.™

If we had never seen a ghost. If we had never had a premonition. If we had never heard a "still, small voice" in the night, and had never listened to it.

If we had never, ourselves, witnessed something(!) that was acting with undeniable force and obvious authority ... even if we had no idea what (or who) it was ... co-opting every single thing that we, up until that time, had taken to be "so." We scramble to our feet, realizing: "that was [a?] [gG]od! It couldn't have been anything else!"

If we had never had such an experience, then our theories would be "just hunky-dory." Unchallenged.

If you have never (yet) had such an experience, don't ask me to explain it to you now. I couldn't. (And, even if I did, you wouldn't believe me. "Neither did I ...")

(And, no, I will not discuss it/them further ...)

But, someday, something will challenge you to consider that we might be living in a plane of existence that we cannot see, and that our blind-men's ideas of exactly what it is, might be so-much garbage. This encounter will challenge you, precisely because you cannot explain it ... but you also cannot deny it.

I fully expect that every one of us is confronted with ... or, will be confronted with ... such an experience at several times in our lifetimes. And there's one thing that it will do to you: it will make you a helluva lot (heaven-uva lot??) less ... certain.

"Be still. And know that I am God."

Whether you cling to the tradition from whence that quote came, or not, there is nonetheless a very-real truth to it. (IMHO.)

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix If this holds for the concept of god, then it must hold for other concepts as well.

This is why I challenged you to come up with a concept not rooted in reality.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix It is very easy to add a negation operator (NOT) to simple concepts like "finite" and "created", turning them into something more difficult to grasp. Just a possible example: if one feels limited for whatever reason, then he might dream about something not limited, not finite.

But you failed to recognize the most basic presupposition here: If we did not ALREADY recognize the infinite and the non-created, we would not have realized that created and finite were even concepts! Like a (truly) blind person has no concept of light, we cannot recognize finite without infinite, created without non-created. All must be real - what other option is there?

All intelligence is artificial unlike a tree, unless manufactured.

Originally Posted by OregonJim But you failed to recognize the most basic presupposition here: If we did not ALREADY recognize the infinite and the non-created, we would not have realized that created and finite were even concepts! Like a (truly) blind person has no concept of light, we cannot recognize finite without infinite, created without non-created. All must be real - what other option is there?

created vs non-created: Some things are created by humans, others things humans find without creating them.

finete vs infinte: Some things have an end, like a path from A to B. Other things don't, like a circular track.

Originally Posted by ntubski created vs non-created: Some things are created by humans, others things humans find without creating them.

No. Humans don't create anything. They only transform already created materials from one form into another.

Originally Posted by ntubski finete vs infinte: Some things have an end, like a path from A to B. Other things don't, like a circular track.

One can define a point anywhere on a circle and call it both the beginning and the end. Also, a circle can be measured with a finite result. Thus, a circle is not infinite. Another parallel concept to infinity is eternity, or infinite time.

unless you keep passing the point