The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[Ramo]

So in the supernatural world, 1 + 1 can equal 3

Sure. 1 + 1 = 3 can be true based on the assumptions on what 1, 1, and 3 are, and what addition is. All mathematical systems (and therefore all logicical systems) are arbitrarily constructed systems sometimes based on the physical world and conventions used in previously established mathematical systems. 1 + 1 = 3 may seem like a silly example, but there are some interesting examples if you look at higher level math. For instance, the founders of analysis had to determine if the set of real numbers or the empty set is open or closed, or what integration means. Or the founders of linear algebra had to determine what matrix multiplication means.

and something can be true and false at the same time?

Why is noncontradiction an absolutely good assumption? For instance, if you look at the physical world, something can be both a particle and wave at the same time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is noncontradiction an absolutely good assumption? For instance, if you look at the physical world, something can be both a particle and wave at the same time.

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

[LDiCesare]

I think that the reason is that the real world is complete and self-contained, the simulated world is not.

That is to say that it is theoretically possible to explain why the laws and the constituents of the real world act as they do and are as they are. In a simulated environment you have to input specific variables that have no derivable reason (as far as the simulation is concerned) to be as they are.

If it is possible in theory to explain all the laws and constants of the world, then what prevents one from simulating the same? The simulation would be as self-contained as the original, because it would share all the data, and be self-consistent and complete. It would still be a simulation, or, if you prefer, a creation. And I don't think the world can be explained in totality: why is the speed of light worth that much? Couldn't it be different? It may be the same as Euclidian geometry: the number of parallel lines going through a point can be 1, that is arbitrary, you could simulate a world where it is 0,2,infinity, and it still would be consistent.

World as a game, or an artificial work, is described in some of Stanislas Lem's short storied. 'Non Serviam', in 'A Perfect Vacuum' is extremely interesting for example, as it shows artificial beings, who exist in a mathematical simulation, wonder about whether they should believe in God, and, if so, whether they should worship their creator.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yahweh is a guess. There are no vowels in the big G's name, so exactly how it is pronounced is a mystery. It could just as easily be YaHoo WaHoo!

Where do the YHWH come from? How do we know just those consonants?

[Wernazuma III]

The hebrew writing system knows (generally) only consonants.

And pssst, don't say the name too loud or you'll be stoned!

[Lorizael]

Sounds like the sorta thing I should have already known, given my Jewish heritage...

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Where do the YHWH come from? How do we know just those consonants?

The consonants YHWH appear over 7,000 times in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the OT.

Originally, the entire OT was devoid of vowels, only consanents were present. Vowels were added several hundred years ago by scribes. However, traditions about the use of "the Name", which is represented by YHWH, may have interfered with the recording of the correct vowels for the Name.

Yahweh is a guess. There are no vowels in the big G's name, so exactly how it is pronounced is a mystery. It could just as easily be YaHoo WaHoo!

"Yahweh" is not simply a random guess. "Yahweh" is based on the passage of Ex. 3:14-15. God thrice refers to Himself using "eh heh", which in context means "I will be/I will prove to be/I will cause to be", and is often translated "I am". This is the first person singular. God then chooses His Name. The third person singular of "eh heh" is "Yahweh".

Another school of thought is to use the names of people in the Bible that combine the Name with traits/actions, to see how the original Name was pronounced. For example, "Yehoshuah" (Joshua) means "YHWH saves". The evidence from the combined names line of thinking leads to a three-syllable Name, perhaps "Yehowah".

Either of these pronounciations seems to desreve greater consideration than "YaHoo WaHoo".

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

"Mutaully exclusive" would mean "contradictory" as a state of existence.

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

In one sense. Logic and math are formal disciplines. Logic is constructed out of comon understandings resticted by agreement into narrowly described behaviors. Math is built upon logic the way that senteces are built upon grammar. Neither depends on outside influences to alter its descriptions. OTOH, most sciences, to one degree or another, emphasize the corespondance to observable facts and change as the number of facts increase.

However, it is also true that logic/math is the language of choice for the more objectively observable sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), and it is used to create a model to quantify and predict behavior. While the math itself may not be internally contradictory, if the model it derives is insufficiently predictive (for example, the Euclidean model of space), the model is disarded as easily as any other scientific precept. In that regard, math and logic are very much like other sciences.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Maybe, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for an infinite personal being. In the last two thousand years, whenever science advanced, religion espically Christianity retreated. Things used to be in the realm of the supernatural now have perfectly natural explanations. Still, people are pointing to the gaps in our understanding and yell, "Look, God!"

Perhaps your correct about religion retreating or organized religion, but the vast majority of the world still believes in some sort of divinity. I don't think that religions retreating has meant any vast increase in atheism but simply more people who are unsure or do not see a need to have their idea of divinity rigidly defined. Science has certainly not disproved divinity but put a few chinks in the armor of rigid orthodoxy.

As for proof, I've never seen any, but I've always found the fact that all societies have some form of religion or belief in the supernatural as compelling evidence for something, though I'm not sure what.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see how Christianity argues for "an order" and "an explanation" for this universe. What it argues for is exactly the opposite. There is no order to this universe, because YHWH can rearrange things whenever He pleases. There is no explanation, because YHWH is forever beyond our comprehension.

God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints. Human beings may not understand his actions but they can trust in his goodness. In his goodness and his power there lies the order and the explanation. I didn't say it was a complete explanation or an order that would satisfy everyone, but neither is our scientific understanding of the world.

[Lorizael]

But science is a never ending search to better our understanding of the world. Personally, I cannot accept an explanation of the universe that is based on a being whose existence leaves no mark and cannot ever be proven.

[gsmoove23]

The idea that science can't work with religion is false. It certainly doesn't work with certain fundamentalist or orthodox religions but these forms are what tend to give religion a bad name. You can believe in God and still be a scientist, most of our great scientists have.

As for leaving no mark, isn't God everything, according to christians. How can you expect a deity who is everything to leave a mark. Every scientific explanation for mysterious phenomena could simply be revealing how He carried out His will. In the end it only comes down to faith. I simply have faith that there is no God, because I certainly can't prove there is no God.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints. Human beings may not understand his actions but they can trust in his goodness.

Human beings can, theoretically, trust (i.e., believe) in anything. That doesn't make it true, of course. As I see it, the most appealing thing about the idea of an infinitely benevolent God isn't any evidence for the theory, but how nice it would be (or is) if it were (or is) true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The idea that science can't work with religion is false.

Inherently so. One wonders why it pops up so often given the evidence against the idea.

[gsmoove23]

John, why do you think that. For many it isn't nice to believe in a good supreme being and an afterlife where sins may be punished. It brings to mind all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the life you're leading and it also brings up the possibility of their being a real true Evil and a real struggle in the world between Good and Evil. For me certainly it has sometimes been preferrable to believe in no God.

[JohnM2433]

I think that the idea that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven is referred to as "strong agnosticism". Not everyone holds this belief, not even all agnostics. Of course, it all greatly depends on what one means by "proof", not to mention "God". (Myself, I'm not even sure that I exist. I have very high standards for what I consider "proof". )

[gsmoove23]

I think proofs for or against God for the most part are circular arguments that only work for people with the ideology of the person putting forward the proof. For instance, many people use science to explain away miracles when the religious can simply retort, "You just revealed the process by which He worked." The question that I think has been brought up here already is if you were given seriously solid proof that went against what you believe would it change your mind, I'm not sure it would change mine? I would love to hear a really good argument for or against God that would prove me wrong though.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
John, why do you think that. For many it isn't nice to believe in a good supreme being and an afterlife where sins may be punished. It brings to mind all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the life you're leading and it also brings up the possibility of their being a real true Evil and a real struggle in the world between Good and Evil. For me certainly it has sometimes been preferrable to believe in no God.

I was thinking about a God like this:

Originally posted by gsmoove23
God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints.

I don't think that such a God would punish anyone just because that person did wrong. The punishment would have to serve some sort of good. But on the other hand, it is true that many claim to believe in both an infinitely benevolent God and in eternal damnation. There are a variety of usually absurd ways in which organized religions reconcile these teachings. Somehow, I doubt that most of the faithful even bother to think hard enough about it, or many other things about their religions that make no obvious sense, to realize that anything needs reconciling.

Anyway, I reckon most religious people consider themselves to be "good", and feel glad to have God on their side. The notion of a world divided into good and evil also has a certain appeal, because it's so convenient to be able to put everything on one side or the other, or at least know that everything goes on one side or the other, even if you don't know which one, and will eventually be dealt with accordingly.

[gsmoove23]

While I can certainly see where you're coming from I know a lot of devoutly religious people who have put themselves through torment over how they are leading there lives. Plus, seeing the world in black and white is a human failing IMO and has nothing to do with religion.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I think proofs for or against God for the most part are circular arguments that only work for people with the ideology of the person putting forward the proof. For instance, many people use science to explain away miracles when the religious can simply retort, "You just revealed the process by which He worked." The question that I think has been brought up here already is if you were given seriously solid proof that went against what you believe would it change your mind, I'm not sure it would change mine? I would love to hear a really good argument for or against God that would prove me wrong though.

Well, a perfect being would never allow an imperfect universe, which is clearly what we have. Therefore, no such being can exist. QED.

If you're going to try to prove or disprove the existence of God, a lot really depends on what you mean by "God". "Existence", too, if you want to be really rigorous about it. To be able to construct a rigorous proof, then you must first rigorously define your terms.

All of my beliefs are subject to evidence. Even the most seemingly basic logical truths could, in theory, be false. After all, I could be completely insane, so that neither my perceptions nor my reasoning is reliable. I seem to myself to be sane, but that could be the case if I were insane, as well, so that doesn't prove anything. Certainty in anything would require discounting the possibility that I'm stark raving mad, and I refuse to do that. If I were wrong, it could have dangerous consequences.

[Japher]

IMO

Categorizing is the arbitrary downfall of both science and religion. The both have the same weakness in that it must, at some level, adhere to the same logical asertion that the initial assumption was correct when addressing new issues. Thus, making religion and science one in the same on the level of defined logic:

Assumption A=B

Issue B=C

Logical Output A=C

In cases were science try to denounce religion by stating that certain events were coincidence, or points out a "scientificly logical" explination, religion merely incorporates that assertation into their initial assumption.

In cases were religion tries to denounce science by realizin "miracles" science does seem to stutter, and in most cases rationalize the events through preset assumptions with arguable logic.

In both cases the logic is undefined, since with science and religion the logic is the initial assumption.

---

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

This is not true. Wave-Particle Duality is not mutually exclusive, yet the behavior is, and this is not

"contradictory" as a state of existence.

but...

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

This is true. It not only was the problem, but it still is. Science never says that it has it explained everything, it just says that it will try. Religion doesn't even bother, and just dismisses it as "Heaven-sent" or some other bull.

As a scientist, myself, I believe in a god. Yet, I do not know if I wish to worship him, for I do not know his nature. What I need is Proof!

Question: Would you consider the lack of proof for "Case A" an indication that "Case A" does not exist?

I think the response most scientist come up with for this question leads that scientist to continue to believe in a god. For it would be ignorant to think that lack of proof is proof for the contrary.

I'm done

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Japher
This is true. It not only was the problem, but it still is. Science never says that it has it explained everything, it just says that it will try. Religion doesn't even bother, and just dismisses it as "Heaven-sent" or some other bull.

This is what I don't understand. Comparing science and religion as if they were mutually exclusive. Religion is a system that requires a number of leaps of faith, nobody hides this. Science is a methodology or some such thing, somebody help me out with terminology here, whose sole purpose is to explain the physical world. There is no relation.

[JohnM2433]

A scientific theory uses a model to predict what we will observe. Scientists, on the other hand, may do a great deal more than that. Do not confuse the scientific community, which has "dogmas" and "doctrines" of its own, with the scientific method. The scientific method need only assume that the evidence gathered is valid. One commonly reiterated statement in science is that a theory can never really be proven, only disproven. So when creationists say that the Theory of Evolution is "unproven" or "only a theory", there is a certain vacuous truth to this. Similarly, science cannot definitively say that anything never happens. Its job is only to describe and predict what does. (At least, that's my understanding of it.)

Originally posted by Japher
IMO
This is not true. Wave-Particle Duality is not mutually exclusive, yet the behavior is, and this is not

Eh? What behavior, exactly? And what does "this" refer to above?

Originally posted by Japher
Question: Would you consider the lack of proof for "Case A" an indication that "Case A" does not exist?

I think the response most scientist come up with for this question leads that scientist to continue to believe in a god. For it would be ignorant to think that lack of proof is proof for the contrary.

Well, if a theory predicts something that does not happen, then we can conclude that the theory is incorrect. But yes, a lack of evidence for something does not in itself disprove that that thing does not exist, and it would be a rather large error to assume otherwise.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- someone or other from SETI, IIRC

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
This is what I don't understand. Comparing science and religion as if they were mutually exclusive. Religion is a system that requires a number of leaps of faith, nobody hides this. Science is a methodology or some such thing, somebody help me out with terminology here, whose sole purpose is to explain the physical world. There is no relation.

A religion is a system of beliefs. Science is a mehodology for describing the world. They are not inherently contradictory. But there is a relation; they both make claims, and these claims may contradict each other. This is where we get into trouble.

Science backs up its claims with evidence. While scientific theories may be wrong, and are indeed frequently disproven and replaced with more accurate theories, the fact that science tries to demonstate its claims generally makes them less suspect than religion's. Hence a "creation scientist" is more convincing than a theologian as he/she at least claims to be doing a scientific investigation.

Atheism isn't really a good scientific theory, because it can't be tested (again, depending on what you count as a "deity"). It's just skepticism: refusal to believe in a spectacular claim without spectacular evidence.

[gsmoove23]

Statements of many theologians of many religions are contradictory to scientific research which leads to the argument that religion and science are incompatible. This discounts the fact that religion is a blanket term for a vast number of differing ideas, even within a single religion. For many people and many schools of religious thought religion simply addresses the soul, God and nothing more, completely separate from the sciences.

The vast majority of Christians don't now believe in a literal translation of the Bible that would conflict with scientific evidence. When you talk about religion conflicting with science you are talking about a certain type of religion where the orthodoxy of faith or scripture or the beliefs of a leader overide all and spill into the understanding of the physical world, but it is not a point you can hold against religion as a whole.

[JohnM2433]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't many religions/sects whose teachings aren't perfectly compatable with current scientific knowledge. I just meant that when science and religion do make contradictory claims, science is usually/probably right.

While some metaphysical claims may be beyond scientific investigation at this point, I'm not convinced that it will always be so. For example, we may one day be able to prove whether or not the functioning of the brain can be explained solely as the result of the behavior of its constituent particles. Think how that would inform our notions of "free will" and the like. If there is a soul, it could be physically detectable with the right technology. (On the other hand, it would be almost impossible to prove that there are no souls.)

"My species has no immortal part. This has been proven by our scientists."
- Nessus explains his race's fear of death in Ringworld

[Ramo]

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

What do you mean?

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

But mathematical (and therefore logical) systems and conventions are often directly based upon corresponding systems in the physical world. Math is often intended to approximate physical systems. My point is that if you change the rules of physics, you'd probably have to change the rules of some math. The wave/particle duality is an interesting example of the physical world contradicting the fundamental mathematical assumption of non-contradiction in logically valid systems. If such exceptions were more prominent/obvious, you have to wonder how math would develop differently. Which brings me to the issue of whether non-contradiction in logically valid systems is an absolutely good assumption.

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

That's probably the most reasonable explanation, but it isn't one grounded in any scientific observation. We could also explain electron diffraction or the photoelectric effect, etc., etc., by significantly changing our classical theories to the point of making them hopelessly complex.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by One_Brow
"Mutaully exclusive" would mean "contradictory" as a state of existence.

As I understand it, you can have mutually exclusive states of existence, but not contradictory ones. AFAIK, contradictions do not occur in reality, just in thoughts.

For example, a figure can be a square or a circle (or a zillion other shapes), but not both at the same time. Therefore, for the state of existence, square and circle are mutually exclusive. Contradictory is something like a figure being both a square and a circle at the same time.

Originally posted by One_Brow
However, it is also true that logic/math is the language of choice for the more objectively observable sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), and it is used to create a model to quantify and predict behavior. While the math itself may not be internally contradictory, if the model it derives is insufficiently predictive (for example, the Euclidean model of space), the model is disarded as easily as any other scientific precept. In that regard, math and logic are very much like other sciences.

Okay, what I am try to say is this. Math and logic are formal structures. They are clear, absolute, and unambiguous. They are built upon an internal system that has nothing to do with outside observations.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The idea that science can't work with religion is false. It certainly doesn't work with certain fundamentalist or orthodox religions but these forms are what tend to give religion a bad name. You can believe in God and still be a scientist, most of our great scientists have.

What about naturalism vs supernaturalism?

To me that is the root of the problem. Science relies on naturalism, while religion is outright supernaturalism. These two seem to be mutually exclusive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
But mathematical (and therefore logical) systems and conventions are often directly based upon corresponding systems in the physical world. Math is often intended to approximate physical systems. My point is that if you change the rules of physics, you'd probably have to change the rules of some math.

My understanding is physical systems are based on math and logic, not the other way around. That's why you use math to approximate physical systems and not use physical systems to approximate math. This shows that math is more fundamental.

If a physical system is changed, maybe new math needs to be invented to describe it, like new words in English need to be created to describe new things.

Originally posted by Ramo
The wave/particle duality is an interesting example of the physical world contradicting the fundamental mathematical assumption of non-contradiction in logically valid systems.

I don't see that as any contradiction per se. Previously, wave and particle were thought to be mutually exclusive based on past observations. What this says is what we saw was incomplete. This is very similar to the idea of Spontaneous Generation before it was completely refuted by Louis Pasteur.

Originally posted by Ramo
Which brings me to the issue of whether non-contradiction in logically valid systems is an absolutely good assumption.

Well, what suggestions do you have?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
As I understand it, you can have mutually exclusive states of existence, but not contradictory ones. AFAIK, contradictions do not occur in reality, just in thoughts.

For example, a figure can be a square or a circle (or a zillion other shapes), but not both at the same time. Therefore, for the state of existence, square and circle are mutually exclusive. Contradictory is something like a figure being both a square and a circle at the same time.

That would be an oxymoron or a paradox, not a contradiction. Contradictions occurs in arguments, not conceptual ideas. For example, you use assumption that lead to the conclusion that the figure is a square and assumptions that lead to the conclusion it is a circle.

Okay, what I am try to say is this. Math and logic are formal structures. They are clear, absolute, and unambiguous. They are built upon an internal system that has nothing to do with outside observations.

I believe I said that in the paragraph above the one you quoted.