2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

[+Sherapy]

I can appreciate that people have a belief in a personal god. That is fine. if it gives them peace, if it gives them comfort, I am all for it, regardless of what god that may be. It is not something I have or seek, or feel the need for, so it isnt my cup of tea, but I can appreciate it for what it is. I can see that there are some people that become much better people for their experience with their god(whichever one it may be).

I can also understand that some people have developed a level of certainty in their own minds that they are as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow that there is a god, and it is their own god. Saying 2+2=4, being as sure as that, being the same way. I can undertsand that. Thats great. Again if that gives them a comfort then I am all for it. I think that a one on one relationship with a diety(take your pick) that makes you a better person is a great thing if that is something you feel you want or need; if that enriches your life.

There is a factor about it though, and I dont know what term to use. I am going to use a term and it will probably be wrong, but I will try to define it to make sense.

At a certain point there is a matter of spillover, where that persons personal beliefs and relationship with their god go too far and get tangled up with other people that should not be involved. We see splillover here in the US all of the time where the religious right is so sure of their relationship with their god(That is is the right thing) that they try to enact laws and ordanances based on those religious beliefs; things that effect millions of people that have nothing to do with that personal relationship with their god. They are so sure they are right that they are going to muscle their way into things that effect others that do not have the belief system, or have a different belief system.

I dont mind when folks have that 2+2=4 secure feeling about their own personal god, that is fine. it is the spillover that effects me personally that gets me riled up and makes me want to stand up and draw a line in the sand and say, "Hey, I am glad that you guys have your belief, but when it intersects with my belief or my freedom, it needs to be brought down a notch".

So when a person says that their belief in god is as true to them as 2+2=4, that is fine...for them...it is also important to remember that words like "proof" have a technical meaning that not going to be met by any amount of personal belief, nor does it need to be in my opinion. At that point, it is your own personal belief, for your own reasons. It is like trying to quantify why you love your significant other; you can come up with a list of things in support of why you love them, but you could never "prove" your love.

I had a point when I started...but I lost it along the way...so i will stop here.

fluffy its a very good post, i would agree what ever works for another kool.... my question is on what basis or grounds does religon get to determine what is best for me or others????? i'd say recommend but this is not the word I'd use ,imposed to some degree.. and then being asked to suspend judgment, put reason on hold and stop thinking and questioning. and exclude all other discipliness for one path only ever and worship something that can't be proven or known..I am not ready to sign on any dotted line.

I think need is a good word i also dont' feel a need for the traditon of ritual and worship....what i find valuable i can apply myself.. I dont need to worship or beleive for an idea to have value or be useful........

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[Akadra]

Stop making these kinds of threads everytime, it's almost invoking people to get mad at you and then trying to explaing to you that what you tought you saw, you had understood wrongly.

That man/woman wasn't saying that 4+4=2=God, no, he or she was saying that his/her 'belief' wasn't a belief to him/her, but more a real, solid thing. I can understand that, because he/she was probably raised by religious parents.

I respect that and i don't start complaining and asking dumb/strange questions in threads.

[TheKnight]

At a certain point there is a matter of spillover, where that persons personal beliefs and relationship with their god go too far and get tangled up with other people that should not be involved. We see splillover here in the US all of the time where the religious right is so sure of their relationship with their god(That is is the right thing) that they try to enact laws and ordanances based on those religious beliefs; things that effect millions of people that have nothing to do with that personal relationship with their god. They are so sure they are right that they are going to muscle their way into things that effect others that do not have the belief system, or have a different belief system.

Doesn't every citizen of the United States have the guaranteed right to support any political view/movement they should choose to support based on whatever it is they choose to base their support on? Are you saying that you would prefer that religious people not exercise their right to the fullness of their ability because other people might disagree? This country, the US, is a free country. If the religious right should decide to support legislation, or any other sort of political view/movement/action, it is their right as a citizen of this country to do so.

kaizen :

there are methodologys that we humans have put into place to know things..they are factual, normal, formal and some are normative there are even some things that we may say we 'beleive' do not know......

at a bare minimum for the sake of this post to know is a "justified true beleif"

let me explain:

beleifs are experiential expectations (this is very crucial to understand) true beleifs are "reliable" experiential expectations and justified true beleifs are reliable experiential expectations that are backed up by enough evidence of one kind or another to generate confidence in using. them.....

Uh huh..., well I am not talking about a "justified true belief" I am talking about a sure as 2+2=4 knowledge.

[IamsSon]

Son Quotes:

Sure, it's wonderful to consider possibilities, it's why I love science fiction. But some possibilities, like 2+2=anything other than 4 although interesting, just don't stand up to what we experience. I can consider 2+2=5 for years and it won't change the fact that 2+2=4, so why spend the time with that possibility when there are others much more interesting. It's the same, for me, with God. Yes, I can consider the possibility that there is no god, because I have an imagination. But really,

son quotes further :" since I know there is God, it's just an exercise in imagination to consider otherwise. Since "I know" how He established the personal link with me, I can consider other possibilities, but they are again just exercises in wild imagination..."

now maybe it is me but how does he know that god is a fact and how he established this personal link with son.. ....thas my question....

I have been asking and asking perhaps you can answer this.....

( I have no interest in being right actually to be mistaken is a win win for me because I am interested in learning and growing in my understandings....).

Notice, I stated "for me" because it is impossible because of both the nature of God and the limitations of science for me to present any kind of proof of my relationship with God to anyone else. The fact I can't prove it to anyone else does not make it any less real. I have an incredible amount of love for my wife, and yet I can't prove that to anyone. I can act in ways that others recognize as being "loving," and most will accept that as proof of my love, but from a scientific standpoint the would only be proof of the fact that I tend to act in ways that benefit my wife.

It's not so much a question as an observation, and like I said it only relates to some believers.

When evidence is brought up that conflicts with their beliefs they require you to have a certainty of 100% before they will accept it as fact.

However the same individual will consider anecdotal evidence as "fact" when used to support their beliefs, even when that evidence can not be verified.

I think you will note that "believers" ask for proof of what are considered scientific facts, which any scientist should be happy to provide.

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

I would like to point out that you are right if I am referring to the symbols we have agreed to use to represent the ACT of taking two items, taking two more items and then counting all of them and counting four items. But I am talking about the physical act represented by the agreed-upon symbols and that act does not depend on an agreed-upon format, I will count four items whether you agree with me or not. Because of my experience the reality of God is as solid to me as adding two items to two other items and then counting four.

[Fluffybunny]

fluffy its a very good post, i would agree what ever works for another kool.... my question is on what basis or grounds do you get to determine what is best for me or others?????

I dont think that anyone should choose for another person. It is one thing for parents to take their minor kids to their church, to a certain point, but that is it. Outside of that I wouldnt want to see any influence. It is a one on one decision (or one on many in the Hindu case)...That is a 100% personal choice for whatever it is you want or dont want, and public policy and religion should stay completely apart. That spillover effect has too much of a negative impact, and the people doing it assume that they are doing whats best for people. It is kind of a gentrified spanish inquisition.

I am not sure if I completely understand what you are going for...

I like the way the Hindus and the Buddhists do it; no marketing, no selling. No trying to convert you in line at McDonalds...

[Fluffybunny]

Doesn't every citizen of the United States have the guaranteed right to support any political view/movement they should choose to support based on whatever it is they choose to base their support on? Are you saying that you would prefer that religious people not exercise their right to the fullness of their ability because other people might disagree? This country, the US, is a free country. If the religious right should decide to support legislation, or any other sort of political view/movement/action, it is their right as a citizen of this country to do so.

I am saying that when the religious right inflict their beliefs on others that do not hold the same beliefs, that is wrong. Freedom is a two way street, and the religious right wants to take rights away, not give them. They want to do what they think is right for the country even if the rest of the country doesnt agree. That is wrong.

[+Sherapy]

Notice, I stated "for me" because it is impossible because of both the nature of God and the limitations of science for me to present any kind of proof of my relationship with God to anyone else. The fact I can't prove it to anyone else does not make it any less real. I have an incredible amount of love for my wife, and yet I can't prove that to anyone. I can act in ways that others recognize as being "loving," and most will accept that as proof of my love, but from a scientific standpoint the would only be proof of the fact that I tend to act in ways that benefit my wife.

I think you will note that "believers" ask for proof of what are considered scientific facts, which any scientist should be happy to provide.

I would like to point out that you are right if I am referring to the symbols we have agreed to use to represent the ACT of taking two items, taking two more items and then counting all of them and counting four items. But I am talking about the physical act represented by the agreed-upon symbols and that act does not depend on an agreed-upon format, I will count four items whether you agree with me or not. Because of my experience the reality of God is as solid to me as adding two items to two other items and then counting four.

yes but son you said you have a personal relationship with god,

I have no trouble understanding the love for your wife it could be called reasonably justified and provable IMO for one i could see you demonstrating your love and she could tell me how she experinces your love and your kids can offer comments that could support that you are a loving person, I could see you huig her and conclude accurately that you liove her I could go on and on with this son......... also I can relate personally ..

i am not sure i buy irish's analogy that love is so obscure and abstract it can't be articluated let alone felt or seen with our senses...

I asked my son once when he was 8 or so how do you know I love you?? he said you act in a manner that is loving

. Sex is also a physical expression of love hugging is, kissing is so we can exepince love with our senses its tangable......and we certainly know when someone dosen't love us...how, well by the way they treat us.....

..

Edited July 9, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[TheKnight]

I am saying that when the religious right inflict their beliefs on others that do not hold the same beliefs, that is wrong. Freedom is a two way street, and the religious right wants to take rights away, not give them. They want to do what they think is right for the country even if the rest of the country doesnt agree. That is wrong.

I agree. I do not believe they wish to take rights away, but I suppose that depends on how you look at it.

[+Sherapy]

I dont think that anyone should choose for another person. It is one thing for parents to take their minor kids to their church, to a certain point, but that is it. Outside of that I wouldnt want to see any influence. It is a one on one decision (or one on many in the Hindu case)...That is a 100% personal choice for whatever it is you want or dont want, and public policy and religion should stay completely apart. That spillover effect has too much of a negative impact, and the people doing it assume that they are doing whats best for people. It is kind of a gentrified spanish inquisition.

I am not sure if I completely understand what you are going for...

I like the way the Hindus and the Buddhists do it; no marketing, no selling. No trying to convert you in line at McDonalds...

I iddnt mean you personally i was generalizing i went and reworded it to reflect that but I guess you already posted..lol...

i concur with you and you bring in an element I had forgotten and its valid to weigh..

i think we should teach our kids how to think and then let them think period and decide what is best for themsleves.....period...

[danielost]

no, because No One can. what makes you so special? how are you given this gift? my mind can comprehend the idea of god, and that we made one up. and its understandable if you still believe.

*if no response its because im leaving for work*

Who are you or sheri to tell anyone what they can know or not know for sure.

Edited July 9, 2008 by danielost

[IamsSon]

yes but son you said you have a personal relationship with god,

I have no trouble understanding the love for your wife it could be called reasonably justified and provable IMO for one i could see you demonstrating your love and she could tell me how she experinces your love and your kids can offer comments that could support that you are a loving person, I could see you huig her and conclude accurately that you liove her I could go on and on with this son......... also I can relate personally ..

i am not sure i buy irish's analogy that love is so obscure and abstract it can't be articluated let alone felt or seen with our senses...

I asked my son once when he was 8 or so how do you know I love you?? he said you act in a manner that is loving

. Sex is also a physical expression of love hugging is, kissing is so we can exepince love with our senses its tangable......and we certainly know when someone dosen't love us...how, well by the way they treat us.....

..

But from a scientific standpoint those are all acts, we call them acts of love, but there is no way to prove the love that drives us to act in that way. At best scientists can study the areas of the brain which are activated when a person says they are experiencing the feeling of love, but that is still not the feeling of love. There is no scientific way to prove love, but few question it's reality. I can't prove God is real, or that I have a real relationship with Him. But I am not the only one who does, Irish, PA, Jor-el, Mr. W., Miss Mels, and plenty of others here in UM have relationships with Him also.

[danielost]

I will say it. No one can provide viable evidence to prove the existence of [G-d]. Likewise, no one can provide viable evidence to disprove the existence of [G-d]. No one can prove or disprove any abstraction.

2+2=4 is an undeniable fact that can be easily proven by most 2 year-olds. Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining.

The validity of personal evidence is slippery at best. It's not considered "hard" evidence. The credibility of the person becomes essential to the validity of the claimed evidence.

It is hard evidence to the person who experienced it. For anyone else to dismiss it out of hand because they didn't have the experience is just wrong. Unless you know said person to be a lier.

[danielost]

I am saying that when the religious right inflict their beliefs on others that do not hold the same beliefs, that is wrong. Freedom is a two way street, and the religious right wants to take rights away, not give them. They want to do what they think is right for the country even if the rest of the country doesnt agree. That is wrong.

The same goes for the religious left. Those who believe that science is perfect. In this case science is a completely made up religion by man. Science is supposed to be a tool for use by man. Not an end all be all replacement for God.

[Fluffybunny]

The same goes for the religious left. Those who believe that science is perfect. In this case science is a completely made up religion by man. Science is supposed to be a tool for use by man. Not an end all be all replacement for God.

You are mistaken. You will not find anyone in science who says science is "perfect". Science is learning and changing and growing all of the time, that is the entire idea of science. It uses what it learns to improve on itself.

That cannot be said of the religious right.

[Shaftsbury]

(Shaftsbury @ Jul 9 2008, 12:15 PM)

It's not so much a question as an observation, and like I said it only relates to some believers.

When evidence is brought up that conflicts with their beliefs they require you to have a certainty of 100% before they will accept it as fact.

However the same individual will consider anecdotal evidence as "fact" when used to support their beliefs, even when that evidence can not be verified.

I think you will note that "believers" ask for proof of what are considered scientific facts, which any scientist should be happy to provide.

No I agree, in most cases scientists are more than willing to provide the evidence, what I have a problem with is when a "believer" demands that the evidence be 100% certain before they will except it as fact, and then counter subsequent evidence with hearesay.

I think we can both think of instances on UM where that has happened.

To me if you are going to accept personal experience, or anecdotal evidence as fact, then you must also accept scientific evidence as fact if it has been verified by scientific method, you can't demand a higher certainty from one side of an argument than you do the other.

[danielost]

You are mistaken. You will not find anyone in science who says science is "perfect". Science is learning and changing and growing all of the time, that is the entire idea of science. It uses what it learns to improve on itself.

That cannot be said of the religious right.

+

I have been told that science is the only thing worth learning. Just as the Catholic church stated that all you needed to know was Gods love, and our priest will tell you how and where it comes from.

[churchanddestroy]

+

I have been told that science is the only thing worth learning. Just as the Catholic church stated that all you needed to know was Gods love, and our priest will tell you how and where it comes from.

And old Joseph Smith can tell you that too, right after he reads it from some stones in a hat that no one else can see!

Drop the Catholic stuff danielost, I'm tired of defending my old faith from your blatant ignorance in regards to Catholicism. End of Catholic discussion. Please.

[Fluffybunny]

+

I have been told that science is the only thing worth learning. Just as the Catholic church stated that all you needed to know was Gods love, and our priest will tell you how and where it comes from.

Learn them all Daniel. Be aware of everything. You are acting like you have to choose one over the other. I have studied the bible, as well as science. I made an educated decision based on what I found over years of study. I dont know why you are phobic of science. It really does offer much to you.

[MissMelsWell]

But from a scientific standpoint those are all acts, we call them acts of love, but there is no way to prove the love that drives us to act in that way. At best scientists can study the areas of the brain which are activated when a person says they are experiencing the feeling of love, but that is still not the feeling of love. There is no scientific way to prove love, but few question it's reality. I can't prove God is real, or that I have a real relationship with Him. But I am not the only one who does, Irish, PA, Jor-el, Mr. W., Miss Mels, and plenty of others here in UM have relationships with Him also.

Outward displays are NO indication to an observer that "love" exists. None what-so-ever. In fact, outward signs of love can be extremely deceiving.

So I agree with what IamsSon says here.

I'm still baffled by how simple a concept this is and people are STILL asking others to "prove it" It's ridiculous. Get over it, you're only going to get answers from us like "I can't prove it", or colorful analogies.

Some of you folks act like you should be able to experience what a believer does. Why? Do you feel left out like a kid that didn't get picked for dodgeball in Jr. High? Or are you implying people who do have a relationship are mentally ill or kooky? If you were truly interested in what we have to say, you'd accept it when we are honest and say we can't "prove" it.

Get my drift? The regular religious people around here are getting real tired of "prove it" especially when the answer has been given over and over; "we can't prove it to you"

Sheeesh.

And why don't you ask the Pagans around here to "prove" their Gods and Goddesses. That NEVER happens on UM though.

[danielost]

Learn them all Daniel. Be aware of everything. You are acting like you have to choose one over the other. I have studied the bible, as well as science. I made an educated decision based on what I found over years of study. I dont know why you are phobic of science. It really does offer much to you.

and Your willing to stuff want you decided down everyone elses throat.

[danielost]

And old Joseph Smith can tell you that too, right after he reads it from some stones in a hat that no one else can see!

Drop the Catholic stuff danielost, I'm tired of defending my old faith from your blatant ignorance in regards to Catholicism. End of Catholic discussion. Please.

There were 20 witnesses that saw them. And these stones are named in the bible. Jason and the turtle ships used them to navigate. My blatant ignorance of the catholic church which brought about the dark ages.

[Fluffybunny]

and Your willing to stuff want you decided down everyone elses throat.

Arent you the one who wants the ten commandments outside public buildings? Prayer in school? Teaching ID in school?

[churchanddestroy]

There were 20 witnesses that saw them. And these stones are named in the bible. Jason and the turtle ships used them to navigate. My blatant ignorance of the catholic church which brought about the dark ages.

This is taken from this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

Three Witnesses

The Three Witnesses were a group of three early leaders of the Latter Day Saint movement who signed a statement that an angel had shown them the golden plates, and that they heard God's voice testifying that the book had been translated by the power of God.

The Three Witnesses were Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, whose joint testimony, in conjunction with a separate statement by Eight Witnesses, has been printed with nearly every edition of the Book of Mormon since its first publication in 1830. All three witnesses eventually broke with Smith and were excommunicated from the church he founded,[1] and there are reports that at least Harris may have once denied having seen the plates.[citation needed] However, by the end of their lives, each of them denied ever having ever recanted their witness of the plates, and each of them also rejoined Latter Day Saint movement denominations: Harris and Cowdery joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints soon before their deaths (prior to that, Harris had also been associated with several other Latter Day Saint denominations), while Whitmer founded the Church of Christ (Whitmerite) and remained a member at his death in 1888.

Eight Witnesses

The Eight Witnesses were the second of the two groups of "special witnesses" to the Book of Mormon's golden plates. They were all members of the Whitmer or Smith families: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sr., Hyrum Smith, and Samuel Harrison Smith. Joseph Smith Sr. was Joseph's father, and Hyrum and Samuel H. Smith were his brothers. Christian, Jacob, Peter Jr. and John were David Whitmer's brothers, and Hiram Page was his brother-in-law.[2]

Last I checked, 3+8 does not equal 20.

Also, lets factor this in:

Several well known critics of the Latter Day Saint movement, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and the Institute for Religious Research, allege that the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be taken at face value. They note that several pieces of evidence exist that call into question the impartiality and credibility of the witnesses, which casts doubt upon the authenticity of their experience. Frequently cited criticisms include the following:

* The three witnesses (Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer), all left the church during Joseph Smith's lifetime,[4][5][6][7] and considered Smith to have transgressed.[8] Although all three of them later rejoined Latter Day Saint denominations, some scholars dispute the sincerity of their conversion.[9]

* All of the witnesses were close to Joseph Smith, being family, close friends, or had a large investment in the movement[10]

* Martin Harris later stated, "I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state."[11]

* After Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer became dissidents, Joseph Smith alleged they both had abused the saints by being thieves and counterfeiters [12]

* Martin Harris was heard saying that the Eight Witnesses never saw the plates, and "hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it"[13]

* Years later, Brigham Young noted that "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel."

Hmmm, at the very least we can say that the reliability of the facts is dubious... at best.

Oh, uh, and if it weren't for the Catholic Church, namely the monks who copied all the books in monastaries, everything we know from the dark ages would have been lost.

God you're ignorant. Remember the debate we had where you tried to claim that Constantine the Great was the first Pope? Enough said.

Please please please stop vomiting out the misinformation that you have about the Catholic Church until you have THOROUGHLY ASSESSED THE FACTS.

[IamsSon]

You are mistaken. You will not find anyone in science who says science is "perfect". Science is learning and changing and growing all of the time, that is the entire idea of science. It uses what it learns to improve on itself.

That cannot be said of the religious right.

Maybe not scientists, but there are people who have taken this tool and turned it into the end-all be-all and have turned it into a religion. If you can't even admit that, then you're not paying attention to what some people even around UM are doing/believing.

I think you will note that "believers" ask for proof of what are considered scientific facts, which any scientist should be happy to provide.

No I agree, in most cases scientists are more than willing to provide the evidence, what I have a problem with is when a "believer" demands that the evidence be 100% certain before they will except it as fact, and then counter subsequent evidence with hearesay.

I think we can both think of instances on UM where that has happened.

To me if you are going to accept personal experience, or anecdotal evidence as fact, then you must also accept scientific evidence as fact if it has been verified by scientific method, you can't demand a higher certainty from one side of an argument than you do the other.

Ah, but see, by it's own definition, science does not require me to accept something as absolute fact simply because it has not been disproven yet. I do NOT have to accept anything simply because ten, one hundred, one million, or even all scientists agree it is so... because the real scientists will freely admit that something may happen tomorrow which will show all of them that what they agreed on yesterday is actually wrong.

Science is a tool used to disprove things, not prove them, so there should be NO problem with someone doubting something, that's how new discoveries are made. If we had all been perfectly happy with the idea that it was not possible to travel in space, we would never have gone, it was because someone decided to just give it a try, because maybe, just maybe you could travel in space that we actually went. Questioning what we "know" is what real scientists do, so why shouldn't we all question it?

Arent you the one who wants the ten commandments outside public buildings? Prayer in school? Teaching ID in school?

No. We're the ones who are saying the commandments were already there, and there is no real legal reason why they should not be there, we are the ones reminding non-scientists that science is not about consensus, it's about questioning what we think we know always.

[Jor-el]

Pa I am not sure yet what i think that is why i started this thread in all honesty i am looking at this at this point I am not concluding anything yet........I appreciate your input, just as I appreciated sons

Pa, how is your beleif in god moved to a knowing of god????

if I am understanding you correctly you are saying this is a measure of beleif in god then???????? except I don't understand god can't be proven .....

Hi Sheri,

I find this whole conversation strange, because in essence, you are asking for proof that God exists when the context is our feelings which can never be used to prove anything.

I can know something, but unless you actualy experience what I have, you can never "know". The most you can ever come to, is understand, but that is not knowing.

I give the example of putting your hand into a fire. If you have never done that, you will never know what that experience feels like although you can understand by parallel, that it must be painful.

Understanding is not knowing...