Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 6 votes

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god


  • Please log in to reply
1114 replies to this topic

#31    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 8,439 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:14 PM

danielost on Jul 9 2008, 10:47 AM, said:

All Iamson is saying is he knows that god exist, like he knows that 2+2=4 or like the sky is blue.

I'd like to interject here that it is not a "fact" that 2+2=4.

It is a previously agreed-upon definition of the arithmetic operation we've agreed to refer to as "addition," and nothing more.

Hence, IAmson is twice correct when he claims to know God exists like he knows 2+2=4.

First, he "knows" it through faith.

Second, he "knows" it because he's defined God in the same way we've defined what is meant by 2+2=4.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 09 July 2008 - 06:18 PM.

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#32    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,539 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:20 PM

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 11:06 AM, said:

Daniel how does he know that god exists??? I get the analogy , just  not how  he 'knows' god exists to begin with???? we aren't talking blue skys and counting  tools he is using these methods to prove god correct?????finite human  explanations to deal with infinite nothingness....because  its also  a common statemet that god is beyond human understanding. and has to be taken on faith ........so how does this work ..





@ rave thankyou for your input...



Then you need to ask him for his story.

I am a mormon.  If I don't use mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the mormon faith. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you. http://fremerica.freeforums.net/

#33    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:25 PM

Irish on Jul 9 2008, 09:31 AM, said:

Something's become a personal fact rather than a belief because like the scientific principle it is a repeatable daily encounter ibid it remains a personal experience because it is a relationship and not a physical object. As science could not begin to prove love, love can not aid science in any way.
Many demand proof and receive proof daily yet fail to recognize it. They seek truth in physical substance yet truth is in spirit not matter.
If I claimed to be your brother that you grew up with you probably would not believe me because you would not recognize me. I would recognize Jesus because I have known Him many years and interacted with him.
If he was to return in a physical body I would recognize Him because I already know Him in spirit.
Even though many of you would not recognize me in person many have come to know me by the way I write. And after a brief conversation with me you would conclude that I am the same Irish on UM's forums.

It may well appear as blind faith to the non believer but after the initial step of as you say blind faith evidence is given to the individual. The truth is revealed only after an earnest commitment, much to the chagrin of those that do not believe. Is that you must first come to Christ by faith alone and then the truth is revealed to the individual with no doubts. His persona would be revealed only within our hearts and minds, but again we would have to try to convince others to get to know Him the way we do.


Irish


irish, the first step is to show that such knowldege, if it occurs  in these " special encounters" posits  would  depend on the encounter itself  but also the interpretation  or spin that is put on it...


the great problem with taking these expeririences as transparent  is they require interpretation like all events......

  I can see your point perhaps,  grounds such as consitency , scope , fitting together , fecundity, "non ad hoc ness" ,parsimony  and elegance  which are traditional  for assessing   rival scientific theories  or explanations  might work for  interpretive experiences also...

yet I'd add  we can't  forget  that any  interpretation or belief  can be maintained  if one is willing to alter  ( sometimes extremely) the rest of one's beliefs  in order to accomodate  said interpretation........

Edited by Supra Sheri, 09 July 2008 - 06:48 PM.




#34    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:27 PM

danielost on Jul 9 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Then you need to ask him for his story.




I did ....




#35    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:31 PM

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

Daniel how does he know that god exists??? I get the analogy , just  not how  he 'knows' god exists to begin with???? we aren't talking blue skys and counting  tools he is using these methods to prove god correct?????finite human  explanations to deal with infinite nothingness....because  its also  a common statemet that god is beyond human understanding. and has to be taken on faith ........so how does this work ..

He is not talking about proving God, but about knowing that there is a God. If one experiences God every single day (as myself and many others do) it simply doesn't make any logical sense for a person to even consider that there isn't a God. You say that it has to be taken on faith. This is incorrect, Knowledge of God does not always depend on faith. Sometimes knowing there is a God is based on actual knowledge that there is a God. There's no question about it. You seem to think you have "grown out of the need for a deity". That's well and fine, but Iams is not saying that 2+2=4 therefore there must be a God. He is saying that he knows there is a God just like he knows that 2+2=4.

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

but IMO  in using this statement it is inferring that god is a fact when in essence its a beleif based on a world view by taking a leap of faith  it can't be proven ... if i am following you robbie..please correct where you see fit...

To many people, God is a fact. Something doesn't have to be able to be proved to be a fact, it just has to be able to be known as fact.


#36    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:35 PM

Harte on Jul 9 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

I'd like to interject here that it is not a "fact" that 2+2=4.

It is a previously agreed-upon definition of the arithmetic operation we've agreed to refer to as "addition," and nothing more.

Hence, IAmson is twice correct when he claims to know God exists like he knows 2+2=4.

First, he "knows" it through faith.

Second, he "knows" it because he's defined God in the same way we've defined what is meant by 2+2=4.

Harte


..... and i concur because its the  common ontological argument. I see so often.......

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

the problem with the logical form of this argument is that it relies on the assumption that God (or something like its supernatural cousin) exists.

Edited by Supra Sheri, 09 July 2008 - 07:07 PM.




#37    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:45 PM

~Kaizen CJM~ on Jul 9 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

He is not talking about proving God, but about knowing that there is a God. If one experiences God every single day (as myself and many others do) it simply doesn't make any logical sense for a person to even consider that there isn't a God. You say that it has to be taken on faith. This is incorrect, Knowledge of God does not always depend on faith. Sometimes knowing there is a God is based on actual knowledge that there is a God. There's no question about it. You seem to think you have "grown out of the need for a deity". That's well and fine, but Iams is not saying that 2+2=4 therefore there must be a God. He is saying that he knows there is a God just like he knows that 2+2=4.


To many people, God is a fact. Something doesn't have to be able to be proved to be a fact, it just has to be able to be known as fact.


kiazen for something  to be called a fact,  it has  to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....



2+2 +4 because   have  defined it as such , . they are the derivatives of the definitions of the systems that they come from....they arent' static, they are made up also based on the need of the culture So .2 plus 2 is 4 because that is how we have defined it based on cultural need......

Edited by Supra Sheri, 09 July 2008 - 06:47 PM.




#38    Irish

Irish

    “The Mod Father”

  • Member
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta

  • Practice Random Acts of Kindness, they return to you!

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:48 PM

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

kiazen for something  to be called a fact,  it has  to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....



2+2 +4 because   have  defined it as such , . they are the derivatives of the definitions of the systems that they come from....they arent' static, they are made up also based on the need of the culture So .2 plus 2 is 4 because that is how we have defined it based on cultural need.......

The big question that remains, is personal  evidence valid outside of the individual experience?

Most people do not want to know the truth they only want confirmation for what they think is truth.

#39    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:50 PM

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

kiazen for something  to be called a fact,  it has  to be supported by 'evidence' .. it can be called a belief or a claim or an assumption.....

No Sheri, for me to tell you a fact, I have to support it by evidence. However, I don't need to have evidence to prove it for it to be proven to me. It's like...the color blue for instance. Forgetting the scientific meaning of the color blue, to a color blind person there is no blue. Yet we see blue. We can't prove to a color blind person that blue exists, yet it does. I can know something, and you can not know something. Just because you don't have evidence of it, doesn't mean that I don't.


#40    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:59 PM

Irish on Jul 9 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

The big question that remains, is personal  evidence valid outside of the individual experience?

that is a great question irish......
because  how can system that  claims inerrancy( saying it knows all there is to know therefore eliminating the need for self correction of any kind  and  disregard all other disciplines or avenues for input   be  sound in application????

how are we determining value and quality to begin with with no other  input well i say imo we aren't we are simply obeying on hearsay....or the operative word here is 'faith' at best....




#41    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:04 PM

~Kaizen CJM~ on Jul 9 2008, 11:50 AM, said:

No Sheri, for me to tell you a fact, I have to support it by evidence. However, I don't need to have evidence to prove it for it to be proven to me. It's like...the color blue for instance. Forgetting the scientific meaning of the color blue, to a color blind person there is no blue. Yet we see blue. We can't prove to a color blind person that blue exists, yet it does. I can know something, and you can not know something. Just because you don't have evidence of it, doesn't mean that I don't.

kaizen,

you are just  saying you do  not require proof to beleive something....

and this is your reason why..
because  a person  who is colorblind can't see blue( and for you  there is no other  explantion possible )  therefore  god. is a fact..

its another  version of the  ontological argument model I posted a few posts up......

you must have  something in place to discriminate sound data from garbage.....so i really dont think this is what you mean.... thumbsup.gif

Edited by Supra Sheri, 09 July 2008 - 07:09 PM.




#42    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:13 PM

Supra Sheri on Jul 9 2008, 12:04 PM, said:

kaizen,

you are just  saying you do  not require proof to beleive something....

and this is your reason why..
because  a person  who is colorblind can't see blue( and for you  there is no other  explantion possible )  therefore  god. is a fact..

its another  version of the  ontological argument model I posted a few posts up......

you must have  something in place to discriminate sound data from garbage.....so i really dont think this is what you mean.... thumbsup.gif

No Sheri, what I am saying is, I don't need to be able to prove something to you to know that it is true. I have enough evidence. I have enough proof. There is no need for me to doubt what I know because you don't know it too. That is what Iams was saying in his post about 2+2=4.


#43    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,714 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • The giving of love is an education in itself.
    ~Eleanor Roosevelt

Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:29 PM

Irish on Jul 9 2008, 11:07 AM, said:

How valuable is personal truth and experience? Although many would deny the fact that we all rely on others life's experiences and are therefore we have FAITH in others experiences in life. It is faith up until we experience it for ourselves and then in our minds it now a fact but in reality it may not be fact as others may have not had the same experience! As an example an astronaut can only relate his experiences to you, who have never traveled in space and you as an individual have three choices in which to form an opinion.
1. Except his/her testimony as reliable personal experience. (Belief that is faith based on a few facts)
2. Reject his/her testimony as unreliable. (Denial of a personal truth and experience)
3. Acquire the experience for yourself and become an astronaut. (Your very own personal truth for others to except or reject)

The common denominator in all our beliefs is accepting and questioning what we believe is the truth. But what actually constitutes evidence of "the truth". We as humans are very passionate about truth because the mirror of it consists of lies and deceit, something we all wish to avoid because deception equals self delusion and quite possibly self destruction.

Within the physical sciences we have a solid measure of what is considered proof within the 'scientific method' of repeated experiments that concur the same results every single time. Yet when we apply the scientific method toward our art, music, dance, literature, philosophy, politics and religion it becomes apparent that we often end up with many different ideals of truth that are of a personal understanding. Some end up concurring with the status quo and some end up within smaller groups of people that arrive at similar conclusions yet are considered to be out of the "norm" of conventional belief. While some individuals arrive at conclusions that are so 'out there' as others may consider them to be socially damaged or deranged. You probably know a few of them on these boards. rolleyes.gif

The truths within art, literature, philosophy, politics and religion are often very subjective toward the personal experience and understanding of truth that they become nothing more than individual opinions that are shared by many or just a few, and in some cases by them alone.

If the truth equals proof what constitute that "proof"? Personal truth and experience or evidence explained by those who seem to grasp it, scientists, wise men or clergy.

The most common sentence on UM is "I need proof" or "where is your proof?" In reality it would be extremely difficult for me to prove that I even exist in the physical world, blink.gif  let alone non human entities outside of our own experiences. Most will just accept the small evidence of my written words without question.

Truth is defined as evidence, but any good layer worth his salt will tell you that 'evidence' can and is often used by the plaintiff and defendant is subjective to their own needs and desired results.
Evidence has to be weighed by the individuals involved who intern lobbies others for their definition in order to strengthen their own beliefs. The opposite reaction is often not very desirable as it can shatter the individuals world view as well as turn their lives completely around. Yet at the same time the truth can be liberating, enlightening and rewarding.
To some people proof is good enough in the personal experience to others evidence must be agreed on by a majority of those we hold in esteem in order to be any kind of proof.

Some only accept evidence in the form of physical subjectiveness and often become entrapped within a paradigm of their own making. While others are more willing to explore the esoteric evidence of their own experience as well as others?

Irish

irish this  is a good post  , what are ones standards for something to  be  valid or sound?????
gosh as a parent this is  the first place  we start.. establishng  standards for making good decisons as mature self reliant adults..........

I think the more methods we have  in place the better...IMO...great post ...


how well do they hold up when tested out????




#44    Agent. Mulder

Agent. Mulder

    Only man to have fought Sasquatch. And lived...

  • Member
  • 15,163 posts
  • Joined:08 Feb 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:london, ontario

  • ...highly unlikely, but not outside the realm of Extreme possibility.

Posted 09 July 2008 - 08:08 PM

~Kaizen CJM~ on Jul 9 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

No Sheri, what I am saying is, I don't need to be able to prove something to you to know that it is true. I have enough evidence. I have enough proof. There is no need for me to doubt what I know because you don't know it too. That is what Iams was saying in his post about 2+2=4.


not quite. IMO, youre meaning to say "i have enough Faith. i have enough Belief". if there was proof, we wouldnt be having this argument here, because we'd know god exists.

the truth is out there....

#45    TheKnight

TheKnight

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 July 2008 - 08:22 PM

Agent. Mulder on Jul 9 2008, 01:08 PM, said:

not quite. IMO, youre meaning to say "i have enough Faith. i have enough Belief". if there was proof, we wouldnt be having this argument here, because we'd know god exists.


I believe you say that because your mind cannot comprehend that I can know that there is a God when you cannot. That is understandable. As I was telling Sheri, "Because I don't know, you don't know either" is not an argument.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users