Posted on 11/05/2015 10:05:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Libs don’t want God exists so they can live guilt-free in all their sins.
A good answer too.
Thanks again.
I think you’re confusing me with someone who disagrees with you.
I wasn’t trying to obfuscate. I think of laws (other than manmade laws) as things that exist whether man does or not. Logic doesn’t exist without us (OK, God is logical, but that’s a different discussion) so I refer to them as rules. It’s just semantics.
And in thinking logically, we follow the rules of logic, by definition.
Which came first, our ability to think logically, or the rules of logic? How were we able to think logically before there were rules of logic? Where did the rules of logic originate, by which we are able to think logically?
If math and language are “natural results” why is math often difficult for people to understand? Do dolphins whales and chimps arrive at the same natural mathematical results?
I disagree. Logic still exists without man: A rock could not be completely black and completely white.
Sure, that’s the question that’s begged. But the larger point is that people are people.
No, the question is NOT begged. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in order to prove the argument.
It is not a “people are people” question, either. Nothing is lower, imo, than clergy who do not believe in God. Notice, my argument is not for a sinless clergy - if it was, your comment would be on point.
Truth exists without man. Logic is the thought process by which we derive non-imperical truth. Thought process doesn’t exist without a thinking being.
IMO: Logic is not the thing, it’s the way to get to the thing. Truth is the thing. And, yes, truth exists without anyone to observe it, which is another way of saying God exists without anyone (else) to observe Him.
No, the question is NOT begged. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in order to prove the argument.Wow! You must be a ton of fun at parties. My sincere apologies that I did not parse the meaning properly of "begging the question."
I assume the clergy in the 20% or so of agnostics fall into that thinking much like others do -- where they have a series of terrible experiences with people who purport to be Christians, but who do not love the way God loves them. They then begin to entertain agnostic arguments, and over time stop looking for or considering the evidence of God's enormous love for them, and they lose their faith.
The arc for this is probably the same for most people. I have no proof nor data to support it, just my two cents. Not looking to argue about it, if that makes sense to you, great. If it doesn't, no big deal.
I argue, as others have done before me, that mathematical concepts and ideas exist objectively, outside of the physical world and outside of the world of consciousness. We mathematicians discover them and are able to connect to this hidden reality through our consciousness. If Leo Tolstoy had not lived we would never have known Anna Karenina. There is no reason to believe that another author would have written that same novel. However, if Pythagoras had not lived, someone else would have discovered exactly the same Pythagoras theorem. Moreover, that theorem means the same to us today as it meant to Pythagoras 2,500 years ago.
- Edward Frenkel
Wow, that’s an interesting quote! Thanks for sharing that! I am a quote junkie and that one is going into the pool, lol!
Please note that I said could not *definitively* prove.Of course when one ponders the solar system (just to cite *one* example) a sense of majesty results and such a person must,unless he or she was a strident atheist,recognize that it's highly unlikely to have happened just happen "by accident".
Some no doubt choose a career in the clergy purely for the financial benefits. I knew one fellow who died a few years ago who went from being a Catholic priest to being a Southern Baptist minister and was attending a Methodist church when I met him, I don’t think he was ever a Methodist minister though. He obviously did not take religion very seriously considering some of the things he said to me. He claimed to be an independent politically but he toed the liberal line closely enough that he agreed with the absurd idea that the only reason anyone would not vote for Obama was racism. He was really strange, if you agreed with him on something he would change his own position so that he could have the pleasure of disagreeing with you. I only knew him from seeing him in the gym I attended and I tried to ignore him but he singled me out as someone he wanted to argue with apparently. I remember him saying something once and asking me, “What does that tell you?” I replied that it told me that I was living in the real world and he was living in a fantasy. He went nuts but when he calmed down he came back begging for more so every now and then I would tell him what an idiot he was.
I highly recommend “The Case For A Creator” by Lee Strobel.
I do not say this lightly but he lays out Mathematical Proof for a Creator.
Good read.
Your apology is appropriate, although obviously NOT sincere as you claim. - YOU are the one who initially chose to correct my PROPER phrasing with an improper term. So, apologize for attempting to correct me from your own ignorance. Then thank me for imparting a bit of knowledge to you, and helping you not look ignorant in the future.
If I told you that the buzz was late - would you know for certain that I meant the motor coach was tardy, or might you think I had taken some mind altering product and was waiting for the effects?
If I declared the point mute - would you think the point was silent, or would you understand that I intended to say the point was moot (of no practical importance)?
Words mean things - improper usage of a term destroys our ability to properly communicate. “Begging the question” has a very precise meaning - and it was not the meaning you mistakenly applied to it.
By the way - parsing the phrase is what led you to the error - breaking it in into the component parts (words) led you to believe you understood the meaning of the phrase, because you understood the parts. It is a very common mistake, surprisingly made by many journalists, who definitely should know better.
The proper meaning of the phrase is understood properly only as a whole, not by parsing. You might even say the phrase has irreducible complexity ;)
“...which is another way of saying God exists without anyone (else) to observe Him.”
Exactly right: science, in using logic (which it must), proves the existence of God! In fact, science itself is impossible without God, for this reason.
You have described a small and tragic person. Very sad; one who, no doubt, led many astray in the course his narcissistic path.
Yes indeed - what Pythagoras discovered was very useful information. Mathematics is a language with which we can communicate order and meaning about a seemingly disordered universe.
This information existed, as you rightly point out, before discovery. Information requires a mind as a source - according to Information Theory. That creative mind we call God. So again, science proves the existence of God, because science assumes the truth and usefulness (reliability) of mathematics, without which, science would be impossible.
We know science is possible, therefor we know that the assumptions regarding the information communicated through mathematics is true. Acknowledging the truth of information implies the existence of that information, which requires the creative mind which is the source of the information - ergo, science proves the existence of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.