[Smeggy]

I guess the simplest answer to it all is....

You can't believe in something you don't believe. QED.

 

[jlupine]

I don't agree that set theory is essential to understanding Goedel's Theorem of Incompleteness or that it's the basis of concepts such as the axiom.  Goedel's Theorem states that any axiomatic system is insufficient to prove all true theorems of any formal system.  In my opinion, Goedel's Theorem applies best to math and logic (including set theory), less well to science, and pretty much not at all to anything else.  The simple reason is that math and logic are the most formal of systems; science less so; and life and religion highly informal in this philosophical sense.  Extending the theorem to theology reminds me of the ontological argument used by Anselm, Descartes, et al.  I'd be interested in Bob Smith's comments applying Goedel's Theorem to filter theory, which he's portrayed as, for the most part, a complete science.  The "informality" of science, for me, rests on its pragmatism:  science is always gathering more data and conducting experiments to refine its laws, principles, and concepts.
Math and logic are more active internally, to determine the consequences of theorems and rules.  Newtonian physics had trouble with observations that Einstein predicted;  Einstein had problems with results that quantum physics could explain.  To me, these are less Goedelian than set theory's  problems with Russell's Antinomy or analytic geometry's with Peano's curve.
   Congratulations to everyone for keeping the discussion of such an emotive subject so civilized !

Jan

[ScottMayo]

I do feel that religion is a slow-working poison for the mind and a threat to the progress of humanity though.

Hrm. I've always believed the *lack* of religion was the threat to humanity. Your really major, influential nutcases - Marx and Hitler always fly to mind - abandoned traditional religions in favor of nothing at all, or vague superstitition. Without anything to reign in their philosophies, a fair amount of serious crap ensued.

This isn't so say there aren't some total whackjobs on the religious side of the fence. But I really don't buy the "athiests will lead us away from the madness" sthick. Madness is endemic in humanity; some people just *want* to do evil things. Religion is one of the few things that reigns it in. Given what a lot of what we call "civilization" tends to be like, give me the Ten Commandments over Do As Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of the Law, any day, anytime.

[Smeggy]

Well I certainly don't buy that angle. Religeon has had thousands of years to try to get it right and always failed miserably. I personally feel religeon has been the catalyst for innumerable acts of pure evil from all sides and while people like Hitler have indeed been responsible for a multitude of horrors I doubt it was simply because they were athiest. Sociopaths come in all shapes and sizes *and* religeons. I dislike social engineering, especially the type proffered by religeon. As a concept, religeon does indeed seem like a good idea but it has proven itself to be nothing more than an bunch of excuses for people to inflict their twisted sense of 'morality' on others, usually to the detrement of the vast majority of the general populous.

Most people aren't evel by nature, I'm not and I doubt any of the others in the thread are either, that's not because we need to be told that we shouldn't do bad things, it's because most people are naturally good and good natured. I frankly don't need 'your' set of rules to guide my life and anyone who does need a set of rules is a pretty weak personality if you ask me. If I need telling what is bad and what's not then there is something deeply wrong and nothing religeon can fix. Taking religeon away doesn't mean everyone will instantly become evil, that is a laughable concept and totally wrong in so many ways.

[nathanm]

I feel religion is a threat to the progress of human thought.  I am not necessarily talking about actions committed in the name of religion.  I am talking about people ascribing things they did for themselves and their own willpower to invisible creatures in the clouds.  I am talking about abdicating personal responsibility to a figure who may or may not be real (nobody knows) instead of giving credit where it belongs - to humans.

Madness and committing evil acts are not the same thing.  Earnestly believing the earth was created by a purple two headed unicorn is madness, but not evil.  Shooting somebody in the head because they don't believe the earth is ruled by a purple two headed unicorn is both madness and evil.  We have both kinds of people in the world.  Luckily there are less of the 'evil' kind, but the other kind is the silent majority which allows it to continue unabated.

I don't like to draw comparision between being religious and commiting wicked acts, or committing good acts either.  I find it sad that so many people vigorously pursue ideas that are either blatant lies, highly unlikely, or impossible to know while still alive.  The embrace of fantasy over reality, the pursuit of lies instead of truth and the denial of the most obvious and palpable elements of human existence.

I don't understand why some mythological ideas are completely dismissed across the board as being fictional but yet the Christ\God story is taken for hard fact.  My comment about faeries was not entirely a joke.  It's a piece of old mythology that everyone knows is false, but yet at the highest levels of our society we have people with power and influence who are promoting ideas from equally incredulous sources.  If I run for President and say that I am an Odinist and will do whatever I can to make sure our troops make it into Valhalla if they die in battle people will laugh their asses off.  But if I say I am following Christ I am a hero to the people and oh what a great leader I am. Is this not completely ludicrous?  Why is God not equally as silly as Odin?  Is not the 'evidence' for both gods on equal ground?

[Aether Audio]

I think a few folks missed a basic premise in my original posting.  I stated,

“So…with regard to the discussion of religion – we are limited. You, the reader and contributor, will establish those limits to the degree that you permit new axioms within the context of the discussion. If you are willing to set aside what you think you “know” and consider the possibility of your own limits, then we may discover more truth beyond those limits. This may not be easy or even possible for some. At the root of the matter we often find the greatest hindrance to such “thinking outside the box” to be an individual’s own vanity. Knowledge is the source of great power and ability. It is also the greatest source of pride. Power and pride are familiar and committed bedfellows. The only problem…it is a parasitical relationship. Pride feeds on power like a tapeworm and in so doing, limits power’s (i.e. knowledge’s) growth.”

The very title of this post included the term “madness.”  To the mind that WILL NOT permit the possibility of a new axiom, i.e., the possibility of an extra-natural realm, such thinking is madness so we have no basis for discussion.

Besides, scripture of the Christian faith referring to such debate admonishes believers to not “enter into vain disputations that profit nothing.”  If we discern that an individual is not “open” to the possibility that our faith is based on truth, then we are not to enter into any form of argument, as that will undoubtedly do that individual more harm than good.  God is a gentleman and will not violate a person’s free will by badgering them with his will or presence.  Free agency is His greatest gift and if he refuses any attempt to “over throw” it, then who are we as His followers to attempt otherwise?

My posting and position was and is not intended to open a debate with regards to the existence of the super-natural.  Our purpose here is to offer potential answers to questions posed by those that are willing to consider the existence of God.  Our reference to physical nature is only to suggest that it offers a "hint" that there may be more that lies beyond the physical - not proof.  This super-physical realm would also include our continuum as a subset so cosequentially, any "entities" that reside in the higher "set" would have the ability to interact in our world but the reverse would not be true.  Hence - Angels, demons etc. would possibly be manifest as physical at times and not at others.  Very many have claimed to see and experience such throughout the millennia.  But then again, I haven't so what do I know?

I will say this though; I believe the entirety of the continuum was set up such that any observer within it could not directly prove God’s existence.  The whole purpose was to create a condition where the attribute of “seeing beyond the natural” would have an opportunity to develop and flourish within those souls whose innate nature possessed the potential.  At the core of that nature is the free will choice of surrendering one’s own finite understanding and replacing it with a willingness to receive “revelation” from outside himself.  Those that will – will.  Those that will not – will not.  “Ask and it shall be given, seek and you will find, knock and the door shall be opened unto you.”  All of the previous requires action on our part.  From my own experience I will say that letting go of your own understanding and opening yourself up the potential for a direct line of communication with God will be the hardest thing you will ever do – and the most rewarding.

Although I will be treading on the knife’s edge of violating my own restriction with regard to avoiding debate, in the spirit of “sharing” I will respond to a few of your comments.

“The cycles and infinities and such, bear "no" proof of anything other than their own existence and in many cases comparisons.”

I’ve already responded to this above.

“The reality of existence after physical death, is a certainty, in that energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

How do you even know this is true?  Yes, that’s the First Law of Thermodynamics but that law appears only to be valid under common conditions.  At the extremes we have both the Big-Bang theory of creation and black holes.  In the Big-Bang, all energy came from an apparently infinitely small point of “nothing.”  From that theory we are forced to say that energy (hence matter) was created at that moment.  Prior to that moment, the space-time continuum existed as a “singularity” – of what? - we have no way of ever knowing.  Our very concept of energy is based on our observations within the continuum in which we reside.  We are fish in a fishbowl attempting to guess at what we look like from outside the fishbowl.

Then there’s the black hole, a type of reversal of the Big-bang.  It is the complete annihilation of not only matter but space and time as well.  We possess no vocabulary to discuss what lies beyond the event horizon, nor will we ever – unless of course, we can ever transcend the physical.  Sort of reminds me of the “bottomless pit” in scripture.  I can argue that energy is destroyed in the black whole and there isn’t a single shred of evidence that you can offer that suggests otherwise.  We have a draw here.

The error is in making the leap to "individuality" (that is I will still be "me") after physical death. This, my friend, is an impossibility and there is nothing in any cycle or science to support that a bodiless, sensory less, brainless, existence can or is possible.

Neither can science prove there is not – another draw.

While infinite existence is a certainty, infinite awareness is not known nor can it be even guessed at with any "real" evidence that we have at our disposal.

Evidence is much a matter of individual observation.  One man looks at a beautiful sunset or green valley and sees nothing more than the principles of physics and biochemistry at work, another sees the signature of the Creator.  Ralf Waldo Emerson wrote, “All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all that I have not seen.”  I will give one small example although I’m sure you will reply that the “worm doesn’t really die,” but how about the chrysalis?  Not proof but maybe a hint.

The concept of a Supreme Being playing such a game, with the Son dying for everyone's sins, and all that, is not only implausible, but down right silly.

Try telling that to the Pope…or even Mel Gibson.

Why would God even permit such foolishness? There is no intellectual argument sufficient to answer that.

If you knew the mind of God you might have a different perspective.  If He does exist, you’ll probably get a chance to debate that with Him someday.  I wouldn’t advise it at that time though; He has a certain profound way of making His point that doesn’t leave much room for debate.

There is no right or wrong, only perspective.

Correct:  At least as far as one individual to another is concerned.  If there is a God though, I would suppose His opinion trumps the rest.  Maybe that’s why we don’t want to believe in God.  Since our arms are too short to box with Him, we can just dismiss His very existence and go our merry way, living our lives as we damned well please.  That’s the vanity I warned you about, working its selfish ways.  I see one major drawback to this philosophy as well; I would compare it to trying to run from the IRS - sooner or later…

What I find really interesting is that some one as well read and as aware as you (judging by your essay above) would remain shackled to the constraints of an ancient "belief system" pieced together over time.

Well, the Old Testament part is pretty ancient but the New Testament part is relatively new as far as religions go.  In fact, the concept of God reaching out to man through Christ is totally different from all previous religions that require man to “work” his way into God’s favor.  By the way, I still believe in Newton and Archimedes too and they’re pretty ancient.  Science will back me up on that one as well.  Thanks for the compliment though.

I don't need anyone to tell me what "is", "was", or "will be".

Nobody is trying to “tell” you anything John.  We’re just sharing with those that are INTERESTED.  If you aren’t, then why waste your time responding to a nut such as myself?  We’re all going to find out in the end anyway so where’s the debate?  Unless… you fear my form of fanaticism is contagious and feel the need to try and stop a potential plague.

I think a basic belief in God is pretty innocuous though.  We have a country full of churches that are full of people that seem to believe in God and are pretty harmless.  In fact, you’d never even know that many believe in God by watching their actions.  Many even cheat and lie, have affairs and go out of their way to do harm to others – no differently than those that profess no faith.  They’d never admit to a belief in God either, unless you backed them into a corner or offered them money to admit it.  I suggest that its not the fanatics that threaten our world but the spineless that won’t stand up for what they claim to believe.  As I have said before, I’d rather live in a world full of materialists that at least understand and live by what they believe than a world full of ignorant sheep that don’t have the courage or conviction to live by their professions.  In the last days, many will “have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.”  I sure see a lot of that now.

Sharing is fun, and I hope you felt this note was a sharing of my concepts,

Your “sharing” is accepted as such and I hope you receive mine in the same spirit.  As for everyone else that has posted so far, I’m doing the best I can and will try to respond ASAP.

God bless and take care,
-Bob

[Marbles]

Being confirmed a Catholic, I have a deep distrust of all religions.....

That being said, if I totally disassociate man made religions from the possibility of a supreme being, it is easier for me to accept the possibility of a SB.

As long as man made religions enter the equation, I cannot beleive in their version(s) of a SB.

I suspect others are confusing religious dogma with an unassociated (from religion) supreme being.

[Smeggy]

Hi Bob,
I don't think you really need to concern yourself with addressing the points of anyone here (not me at least) who has posted in this thread, we're all just putting forth our observations and thoughts, not as a contest or to dispute the existance of god or whatever. We all believe what we believe and I for one am happy you have your belief system, I'm also happy I don't. We all have our 'mental' needs and generally fulfil them in our own ways. I certainly don't think it's my mission in life to try to prove or disprove or even dispute what people believe in, that would be both futile and somewhat arrogant on my part. You're an intelligent guy who is obviously very passionate in what you believe and I don't want to kick sand on your fire. If I gave that impression I apologise.  

[Marbles]

Well said Smeggy!!!

(But my God can still beat up your God!)

[nathanm]

Ralph Richardson is the Supreme Being!  Didn't you people know that?  What the hell's wrong with you?

[Tyson]

Bob, your response (and original post, along with John's response) is a good example of why science and religion simply should not be mixed.  Science simply has nothing to say about religion or god, since science deals exclusively with the natural world, not the supernatural world.  Religion and science deal with different fields entirely and really need to be kept seperate from each other.

Following on that note, this is the very reason I am no longer an atheist, but I tend to hover somewhere between the atheist and agnostic viewpoints.  When I was a hardcore atheist, I basically was saying "There is nothing in the natural world which would support the idea of a supreme being or a point to a supernatural world".  Which is entirely correct if you only look at the natural world.  It will by its very nature never support anything supernatural.

But I realized the error of that thinking, that since the natural and supernatural would not overlap, I could not point to the natural world as "proof" that there is not a supernatural realm.  Which lead to the realization that the only possible manner to "get at" the supernatural is via direct revelation or communion w/god.  If that happens, then it is all the proof needed.  If it does not, then no other proof is possible, and everything else is just talk.

Since I've not had this direct revelation or communion, I have to say "I don't believe in a supernatural realm because I don't have any reason to believe in it", but on the other hand I have to say that I am open to the possibility of direct revelation or communion.  So, am I open to the possibility?  Yes.  Do I believe in god or the supernatural right now?  No, I have no reason to.

[Smeggy]

That's 'Sir' Ralph Richardson to you riff-raff!

 

[Aether Audio]

Smeggy,

You're cool man, no need to apologize.  Everybody here on AC is cool in my book.  I'm not one of those touchy-feely, sissy assed kind of guys that can't roll with the punches and gets easily offended - not at least when it comes to an exchange of ideas anyway.  If you're trying to cause trouble or hurt relationships though, that's another story.  I get pretty indignant when someone has no other purpose than to degrade or disrespect others.  

I guess you could say I'm one of those fanatical Christians that believes in justified war.  If you try to hurt one of my family, friends or innocent members of my society, you'd better watch out.  I respect everyone regardless of religion, but if you're religion teaches you to kill or terrorize others in its name - as some form of one-way ticket to Allah - I'd just as soon send you to him direct and save us all the trouble.

On a lighter note, I enjoy it when people challenge my thinking.  It forces me to re-examine why I believe as I do.  And you know what?  I learn a lot from that process.  I respect it when folks have their own thoughts.  Nobody has all the answers (not even me! ) and I know I can learn from others even if we do believe quite differently.  

So...as long we all share our thoughts in a spirit of friendship, say what you will, I won't get offended.  All I want is for people to be real, wherever they're coming from.  By the way, the God I worship treats me the same way.  It's called love.

PS.  Marbles, my God is the referee!

-Bob

[John Casler]

On a lighter note, I enjoy it when people challenge my thinking. It forces me to re-examine why I believe as I do. And you know what? I learn a lot from that process. I respect it when folks have their own thoughts. Nobody has all the answers (not even me!  ) and I know I can learn from others even if we do believe quite differently.

I think this is the most valuable of all attitudes and while both you and I certainly have differing views, (on some things) I am always hungry to find the paths and pilings that lead to, and support those with different opinions to mine.

I consider my present postion, as the one that is supported by my total accumulated awarness at that moment.

If there is one thing that is certain, if we close our minds and block or repel the ideas of others, we will not have as much information (awareness) from which to maintain our personal positions and convictions.

Winning an argument by "outlasting", or "out talking", or "out smarting" our fellow debator is not winning.  Winning is asimilating the points of debate and letting them either support, dismantle, or compliment our awareness and positions.

Opinions, words and concepts are "not" threatening to the truth.  They simply offer building blocks or food for thought.

In fact, all with conviction should welcome that which "tests" current dogma as a tool to make (or break) the ideology we all find so fragile yet think so strong.

I find that it is contrary to my nature to be "told" or convinced that one must "yield" to an unknown, because it is written or spoken by someone before me.

I am pretty much convinced that should that type of enlightenment be "real", that it would be an inate and internal manifestation, rather than external.

Maybe you could say, I like the view, but I don't like the window or the window dressing, blocking it.

In that vein, I certainly am curious of why others seem to read or listen to specific aspects of a religious belief, and that can provide them with the information to hold a belief.  In fact, I would love to beleive my childhood teachings, but alas, at this time, they do not hold up under the intellectual scrutiny I have developed.

Its all interesting and I trust my "sometimes" inability to express this well, was not "off putting" or offensive.

I have concluded that religious belief is generally developed to supply three key elements:

1) offer a security in an insecure world
2) offer answers to the unanswerable (where did we come from?, why are we here? and where are we going?)
3) provide parental guidance, morals and laws after our own parents have gone as far as they can go

Thanks Bob, for your responses and forum for such discussions.

[Aether Audio]

Tyson,

I respect your point and understand.  I am not strictly referring to science as a source of any evidence for considering the super-natural, per se.  Science is only concerned with "how' - not "why."  As a formalized system of natural study, science cannot provide any direct evidence either pro or con concerning this issue.  My intent is to relate the discoveries of science in a way that stimulates one's mind to step back from the details and take a look at the bigger picture. Science is nothing more than a way of looking at nature - a tool, so to speak.  There is more than one way to do this and/or more than one tool, though.  

Natural Law is a way of processing the information that science and our experiences provide.  Its basic premise is that nature has "nested" within it "clues" to more than the individual axioms that science makes as its business to discover.

Imagine the universe as a type of 'hologram" such that even the very smallest particle has to some degree, the image of the whole imbedded within it.  As we observe larger "pieces" of this hologram, we get a clearer picture of the whole.  Neither the entire hologram nor any individual piece offers direct evidence of the super-natural or God.  Yet, buried within the complex majesty of its framework is a set of inter-connected principles that suggest a type of "divine reason" or "logos" guiding its very operation.  We find that these inter-connected principles cross over boundries, from one discipline to another and extend in every direction.

As we come to understand them, we see even deeper into this framwork and how the logic extends into the purpose and meaning of our lives.  Stepping back from it all, we then can see that such logic could not possibly be the by-product of chance, but rather the result of a greater and more divine master plan.  It is not strictly science that such thinking is rooted in, but true science and divine reason are always in agreement and extend one another further than each can go alone.  This is true at least as far as understanding of the natural world is concerened and hints at the super-natural as well.

Many great scientific discoveries of the past were the result of their discoverer's "tapping into" this type of thinking.  It is often referred to as "the spark of genius" or "geometric thinking" rather than linear deductive logic.  Even though the researcher may not have realized it at the time, he or she made a leap in their understanding that simple linear logic would not have produced.

So, I guess I'm saying that science is involved in our belief system and we make use of its discoveries to further understand the whole.  I believe that the workings of the entire universe metaphorically reflect the divine nature of God, but no single component provides distinct proof of His existence.  Scripture teaches us that: Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:  

Truth is truth. Science and religion are not opposed, but rather reinforce each other.  In order to see the connection though, we must look past the veil of the obvious and open our minds to possibilities that are greater than ourselves.

-Bob

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/
http://radicalacademy.com/philnaturallaw.htm
http://home.primus.com.au/bonno/evolutionTEXT.htm
http://www.natural-law.org/index.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
http://jim.com/rights.html

[nathanm]

Today's thread is brought to you by the letter D

[Aether Audio]

and...

[nathanm]

That's right, only a dunce would think that science and religion are not at odds with each other.  

You don't believe the universe was created by a purple two-headed unicorn Bob, (which in FACT it WAS), so who's the dunce here?  Anyone that doesn't believe in the purple two-headed unicorn isn't opening their mind to all the possibilities!  And the unicorn had help too, cause it's not easy building a universe lemme tell ya.  Bingyschnuzzle the Dei-Cat also had a hand in universe formation.  And you don't wanna get on the wrong side of Bingyschnuzzle that's for sure.  When you die and you had offended Bingyschnuzzle during life, watch out - he'll have you suspended head first over the pool of curdled milk for all eternity (+\- 300,000 years)

[Aether Audio]

Here we have a perfect example of Divine Reason.  I rest my case.

[Marbles]

Try to forgive Nathan, he's another product of the Catholic church......