to the atheists on the board

Quote from harrytrader:

I don't see the link between God and the martians :D

In mathematics there is a logic which is called "trivalent" logic where there is 3 states:
true, false ... or UNDETERMINED

a bit like buy, sell ... or DO NOTHING

As for God, I say that the question is a logical one, and that Science like Cosmology deals in fact with the question of God but the answer is still UNDETERMINED. That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically.

In Stock Market it is different because what is sure is that in Stock Market there are Human Interests and God has nothing to do with the Order that could exist there so that the term "Natural Order" associated with some divine order is ridiculous.
More...
There may be a logic which says "UNDETERMINED" in respect to a question of God, but for you to then add .....

"That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically"....

Come on Harry, that is rubbish, you of all people should know that !

So you are saying are you, that an irrational statement bears no less value of rationality than a rational one because science does not disprove the rational or irrational statement !!??

It is simply incorrect because God is not known scientifically, that there is no difference in the rationality between believers and non believers.
The rationality of believers and non believers has nothing to do with whether or not science can prove or disprove a question of God.

Under scientific standards, or even under the most primitive basis of logic and rationality, the rather vacuous and platitudinous phrase used by ARogueTrader....

" By definition, these states are the nature of God. In the same way water is wet, God is infinite, eternal, omnipresent"....

is meaningless, illogical and irrational. No surprise it “is not known scientifically” Any rational system would disown a statement like that one!!

If that is the nature of God , then it is nonsensical, irrational gibberish and there is a difference between the rationality of believers and non believers, but that is nothing to do with a scientific knowledge of God.

Non believers don't have to be irrational, but going off ART's phrase, believers do.

Science, and forms of logically based systems, would have no interest in proving or disproving God, especially when no two believers seem to be able to agree on what God actually is, and where there is no one who can meaningfully define God or what it is, other than an irrational, illogical, imaginary belief.
 
It would be most difficult to talk to a 2 dimensional object about a 3rd dimension unless they were willing to use their imagination and begin to think conceptionally beyond their flat world view.

Frankly speaking, they would lack the depth of experience required for such discussions.

Then imagine the outrage and incredulity when you began talk of a fourth dimension to the two dimensional thinker.

Now imagine discussion of a Divine dimension, God's dimension which by definition exists at all places at no particular time to one who is locked into a concept of time space as the only possible logical reality.

Clearly you have a great aversion to using your intellect to examine metaphysical topics.



Quote from stu:

You say "God by definition is not bound by time and space. Then God is not defined.

There is no definition present or possible in 'anything' outside of time and space. Everything that is definable must be within time and space, otherwise it is simply indefinable.

If you say God is not bound by time and space then God does not exist. Existence is only within time and space.

Anything else is playing around with meaningless concepts and words. A time without time.... is gobbledegook. Space without space....is rubbish.

The rest of your response is an over emotional appeal to the nonsensical side of religious illusion which may be appealing to a naive observer, but has no useful meaning which explains anything outside of fantasy. If you like only fantasy then by all means remain in there, but making any sense out of an unknown always has and always will continue to require a lot more than that.

I think I need only refer to this which is so ironic



Bingo. You got it !!
More...
 
>So you are saying are you, that an irrational statement bears >no less value of rationality than a rational one because science >does not disprove the rational or irrational statement !!??
No I'm not saying that I will explain an other day:). But shortly did you ever read Descartes or Pascal about the question of God ? Both are mathematicians and believers in God, Descartes is even THE guy who is associated the most with the use of LOGIC in mathematics. Saying what you said above ressembles a tautology since you have decided to put in the premisce the conclusion that such or such statement is irrational or rational: this is not about using logic. As I said I'm not believer in God in the sense that when an answer is undetermined I prefer the no-choice state, so I am neither for one camp or another, but it depends not only on logic system chosen but also on definitions, if some people consider that Nature is God, since Nature seems to be real well it's not a question of logic here, it's a question of choice of definition, if more abstractly God means determinism I remind that Einstein is for determinism and that more and more today the very existence of randomness is more and more questionable scientifically speaking.

Quote from stu:

There may be a logic which says "UNDETERMINED" in respect to a question of God, but for you to then add .....

"That some people chose to believe in God is not more irrational than those who chose not to believe in God since the nature or existence of God is not known scientifically"....

Come on Harry, that is rubbish, you of all people should know that !

So you are saying are you, that an irrational statement bears no less value of rationality than a rational one because science does not disprove the rational or irrational statement !!??

It is simply incorrect because God is not known scientifically, that there is no difference in the rationality between believers and non believers.
The rationality of believers and non believers has nothing to do with whether or not science can prove or disprove a question of God.

Under scientific standards, or even under the most primitive basis of logic and rationality, the rather vacuous and platitudinous phrase used by ARogueTrader....

" By definition, these states are the nature of God. In the same way water is wet, God is infinite, eternal, omnipresent"....

is meaningless, illogical and irrational. No surprise it “is not known scientifically” Any rational system would disown a statement like that one!!

If that is the nature of God , then it is nonsensical, irrational gibberish and there is a difference between the rationality of believers and non believers, but that is nothing to do with a scientific knowledge of God.

Non believers don't have to be irrational, but going off ART's phrase, believers do.

Science, and forms of logically based systems, would have no interest in proving or disproving God, especially when no two believers seem to be able to agree on what God actually is, and where there is no one who can meaningfully define God or what it is, other than an irrational, illogical, imaginary belief.
More...
 
The following statements by Stu amused me so much that I was overcome with 'fanatical religious emotional humor' and could not resist butting in to the discussion.

<<You say "God by definition is not bound by time and space. Then God is not defined.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUE, a characteristic of God is that He is indefinable. Indefinable means that something cannot be COMPLETELY defined. It does not mean that certain attributes of God can not be partially defined and thus partially understood in the same way that our universe is not fully understood and thus not truly definable, yet we have understood partial attributes of our universe and have made attempts to define them. I maintain hope that you are finally getting the hang of this conceptualizing/philosophizing thing and that you have a better understanding of the DEFINITION of INDEFINABLE.

<<There is no definition present or possible in 'anything' outside of time and space. Everything that is definable must be within time and space, otherwise it is simply indefinable.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, there are abundant partial definitions of non-mechanistic attributes. And a big FALSE for the something in a fourth dimension cannot be given a definition for the purpose of conceptualizing, philosophizing and discussing. Uh Oh, I am losing hope in my "stu's beautiful mind theory"

<<If you say God is not bound by time and space, then God does not exist. Existence is only within time and space.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, here you want to interchange the terms indefinable and nonexistence. I know this attempted interchanging of definitions most likely was a non religious emotional oversight. However, if it was not then I have truly lost hope in your ability to assign definitions and must conclude that it is not possible to continue to have a logical discussion. BTW I was wondering with your infinite conceptualizing intellect if you wanted to go ahead and apply your Laplace-es (existence=definable) like theory to the market while you are at it. I am waiting for your 100% definable, 100% profitable "it's within time and space" trading system.

You know stu, there are infinitely more things not understood than understood in our universe. What to speak of things outside of our empiric area of experiencing jurisdiction and thus to blanketly state that things not understood are thus indefinable and therfore do not exist is highly illogical.

If you don't already have it you might might want to purchase the book "Encyclopedia of Ignorance"(Duncan & Smith 1979) It is a good read.

On a side note, it is amazing how some people can subscribe to "Scientific American" magazine, most likely read it while they are seated on the toilet, and accept all the latest transitory speculations printed therein as irrefutable facts.

Here is a quote from a great scientist that should be considered by the seated on the toilet "Scientific American" subscriber before he pompously pontificates his fallacious fanciful arguments du jour:D

"How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? ...how do you know that in 10,000 years one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?" LOUIS PASTEUR

Oh yea, last time I checked the scientific method included hypothesis, experimentation, observation and then demonstration. But it seems there is not one scientist that can demonstrate in his laboratory that life comes from matter!

I think it would be extremely logical for me to refrain acceptance of tomorrow's newest scientific theory.

Be scientific in you quest for reality. Keep an open mind!
 
Quote from harrytrader:

the very existence of randomness is more and more questionable scientifically speaking.
More...

Now this got me curious. Are you referring to the fact that many think 1) the only truly random process in the universe is quantum mechanical or 2) a number theory thing (that almost all numbers using standard techniques are random but can't be proven to be random) or 3) a chaos thing, i.e. most systems are chaotic and are therefore (theoretically) deterministic but pragmatically random or 4) none of the above??

Any sources on what you're talking about, I'd be intersted in...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

It would be most difficult to talk to a 2 dimensional object about a 3rd dimension unless they were willing to use their imagination and begin to think conceptionally beyond their flat world view.

Frankly speaking, they would lack the depth of experience required for such discussions.

Then imagine the outrage and incredulity when you began talk of a fourth dimension to the two dimensional thinker.

Now imagine discussion of a Divine dimension, God's dimension which by definition exists at all places at no particular time to one who is locked into a concept of time space as the only possible logical reality.

Clearly you have a great aversion to using your intellect to examine metaphysical topics.
More...
I do not see why a 3 dimension thinker should necessarily find it difficult to talk to a 2 dimension thinker.

The concept of a 3rd dimension should be interesting enough if the notion was shown to be founded upon something other than only the 3 dimensioner's blinded insistence that there was an extra dimension.

Were the 3 dimensioner able to explain rational and meaningful reason why it should be possible to sail around the globe without falling off it, then the 2 dimensioner should be intellectually interested enough to consider the idea further. Enough supporting substantial information, even if only based upon meaningful assertion, may even convince the 2 dimensioner there is a plan!

Were the 3 dimensioner able to demonstrate 3 dimensions, then they have the clincher.

Same goes for 4 dimensions , 11 dimensions, divine dimensions, fantasy dimensions, non dimensions.

The big problem is, there never has been anything further than an insistence that there is a divine dimension. There is no rational and meaningful explanation or reasons how or why there would be a divine dimension.

It is therefore equally as valid to say there isn't one.

It is a little more valid to say there isn't one, because there is nothing substantial or meaningful to give reason as to why there should or would be one.

It is even more valid to say there isn't one, for the explanations given as to what a divine dimension would be, are nonsensical.

In any case, there must be some caution in believing everything one is told, as there is a possibility the proponents for a divine dimension of God may be deluding themselves, or simply lying.
 
Quote from They:

The following statements by Stu amused me so much that I was overcome with 'fanatical religious emotional humor' and could not resist butting in to the discussion.

<<You say "God by definition is not bound by time and space. Then God is not defined.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUE, a characteristic of God is that He is indefinable. Indefinable means that something cannot be COMPLETELY defined. It does not mean that certain attributes of God can not be partially defined and thus partially understood in the same way that our universe is not fully understood and thus not truly definable, yet we have understood partial attributes of our universe and have made attempts to define them. I maintain hope that you are finally getting the hang of this conceptualizing/philosophizing thing and that you have a better understanding of the DEFINITION of INDEFINABLE.

<<There is no definition present or possible in 'anything' outside of time and space. Everything that is definable must be within time and space, otherwise it is simply indefinable.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, there are abundant partial definitions of non-mechanistic attributes. And a big FALSE for the something in a fourth dimension cannot be given a definition for the purpose of conceptualizing, philosophizing and discussing. Uh Oh, I am losing hope in my "stu's beautiful mind theory"

<<If you say God is not bound by time and space, then God does not exist. Existence is only within time and space.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, here you want to interchange the terms indefinable and nonexistence. I know this attempted interchanging of definitions most likely was a non religious emotional oversight. However, if it was not then I have truly lost hope in your ability to assign definitions and must conclude that it is not possible to continue to have a logical discussion. BTW I was wondering with your infinite conceptualizing intellect if you wanted to go ahead and apply your Laplace-es (existence=definable) like theory to the market while you are at it. I am waiting for your 100% definable, 100% profitable "it's within time and space" trading system.

You know stu, there are infinitely more things not understood than understood in our universe. What to speak of things outside of our empiric area of experiencing jurisdiction and thus to blanketly state that things not understood are thus indefinable and therfore do not exist is highly illogical.

If you don't already have it you might might want to purchase the book "Encyclopedia of Ignorance"(Duncan & Smith 1979) It is a good read.

On a side note, it is amazing how some people can subscribe to "Scientific American" magazine, most likely read it while they are seated on the toilet, and accept all the latest transitory speculations printed therein as irrefutable facts.

Here is a quote from a great scientist that should be considered by the seated on the toilet "Scientific American" subscriber before he pompously pontificates his fallacious fanciful arguments du jour:D

"How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists... to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? ...how do you know that in 10,000 years one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life?" LOUIS PASTEUR

Oh yea, last time I checked the scientific method included hypothesis, experimentation, observation and then demonstration. But it seems there is not one scientist that can demonstrate in his laboratory that life comes from matter!

I think it would be extremely logical for me to refrain acceptance of tomorrow's newest scientific theory.

Be scientific in you quest for reality. Keep an open mind!
More...
If you take as much care in checking scientific information as you do to checking your posts are complete, then it is not surprising you reach the conclusions you do.
 
Quote from harrytrader:

>So you are saying are you, that an irrational statement bears >no less value of rationality than a rational one because science >does not disprove the rational or irrational statement !!??
No I'm not saying that I will explain an other day:). But shortly did you ever read Descartes or Pascal about the question of God ? Both are mathematicians and believers in God, Descartes is even THE guy who is associated the most with the use of LOGIC in mathematics. Saying what you said above ressembles a tautology since you have decided to put in the premisce the conclusion that such or such statement is irrational or rational: this is not about using logic. As I said I'm not believer in God in the sense that when an answer is undetermined I prefer the no-choice state, so I am neither for one camp or another, but it depends not only on logic system chosen but also on definitions, if some people consider that Nature is God, since Nature seems to be real well it's not a question of logic here, it's a question of choice of definition, if more abstractly God means determinism I remind that Einstein is for determinism and that more and more today the very existence of randomness is more and more questionable scientifically speaking.
More...
Harry,

If you could ask of Descartes or Pascal about the question of God today and given a wider understanding of the universe, they may well come to different conclusions . They would surely come to different conclusions and understandings of mathematics as it is applied today.

You accuse me of tautology because you say that I ..."have decided to put in the premisce the conclusion that such or such statement is irrational or rational".

But you say both Descartes and Pascal were believers in God, presumably therefore, contained within their thinking, was the premise that assumed God existed!! Well if it's good enough for Descartes then it's good enough for me :)

I think it is reasonable for people to hold the premise that logic is a useful assistant in the making of conclusion.

You say this is not about using logic, then fine. Let it remain that way. And if I were to say just that - God does not exist - that it is true or false or simply remains just my opinion, is not open to the application of logic, discussion or reason. By this, is my statement then correct?

People say - God exists – is it true or false or does this statement simply remain opinion. Is it not to be opened to logic, discussion or reason? By this, is that statement wrong?

Why should it not be a question of logic?

I agree, a question of definition is essential. It would be using logic though, would it not, to first start with a definition of what this God thing really might be.
 
>you say both Descartes and Pascal were believers in God, >presumably therefore, contained within their thinking, was the >premise that assumed God existed!! Well if it's good enough for >Descartes then it's good enough for me :)
Maybe you are fooled by the use of terms and by the use of scholastic :). When I say "believers in God" I use the common expression instead I should have used "they have deduced by logic reasoning that God should exist". So I don't mean they are believer in the sense that they have no rational reasons, I have only used the common expression since there is no choice in common langage expression to say that. Words are just proxies for thoughts and pretending that you don't understand what I really mean behind that expression applied to Descartes and Pascal implies that you focus on scholastic instead on metaphysics and logic debates per se.

But I only speak of them, I don't mean that ALL believers in God are rational, I say that it CAN be rational but some people would believe in God either by faith because they have been "illuminated" by some "revelations" - they are only a few of course - others by education and tradition, others because they can reason as if it was a bet on God "I have nothing to lose in believing in God but everything to win: if I'm wrong nothing happens, if I'm right I will go to paradise" :D (that's why perhaps you have people crashing planes for Allah), others because they are ignorant and only gullible so that they will even enter a sect (this last category is the extremist believers in stric sense) and any other categories I can forget to mention.

(As for the rest about Science and God It will be too long to answer so I postpone for another day).


Quote from stu:

Harry,

If you could ask of Descartes or Pascal about the question of God today and given a wider understanding of the universe, they may well come to different conclusions . They would surely come to different conclusions and understandings of mathematics as it is applied today.

You accuse me of tautology because you say that I ..."have decided to put in the premisce the conclusion that such or such statement is irrational or rational".

But you say both Descartes and Pascal were believers in God, presumably therefore, contained within their thinking, was the premise that assumed God existed!! Well if it's good enough for Descartes then it's good enough for me :)

I think it is reasonable for people to hold the premise that logic is a useful assistant in the making of conclusion.

You say this is not about using logic, then fine. Let it remain that way. And if I were to say just that - God does not exist - that it is true or false or simply remains just my opinion, is not open to the application of logic, discussion or reason. By this, is my statement then correct?

People say - God exists – is it true or false or does this statement simply remain opinion. Is it not to be opened to logic, discussion or reason? By this, is that statement wrong?

Why should it not be a question of logic?

I agree, a question of definition is essential. It would be using logic though, would it not, to first start with a definition of what this God thing really might be.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top