2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

[Jor-el]

Thats a bit condescending on your part Jor-el! Perhaps if she answered to the best of her knowledge,

that when she looks up the sky is blue. Would that be a logical enough answer for you?

It's all about perception really, one may see the sky as blue where another may see the sky as purple.

Some people understand that the sky is blue do to the Rayleigh factor. But, not everyone does.

Sheri is one of the brightest people on this board, many underestimate her.... her refusal to answer a simple question is demonstrative of the fact that she knew how that converstion would end...

And just so you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I like her very much, she has unique insights into peoples beliefs and how their minds work.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Jor-el

[+Sherapy]

The thing is that those are absolutes, Leo. Science may continue to expand our knowledge so that some things we now consider supernatural will turn out not to be so, but science at least the way it is defined today cannot answer questions of value, morality, or things outside of nature (supernatural). This is not the same as saying that as we continue to expand our knowledge there will not be things we currently consider supernatural which will turn out to be fully natural events.

God is and will remain supernatural, at least the God I know will. God is not part of His Creation, He can interact with it and does so in three different ways/personas we are aware of Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We may be able to scientifically study some portion of God, but we will never be able to use science to understand God.

Yes, Leo, intuiting something is different from knowing it, but you seem stuck on this idea that the only things we can know are those things which can be measured by science, however, this really applies only to those people who choose to be limited only to what science can study. I posit that we can know things which science cannot study, but the key word there is "can" because we have the choice not to know them. I have chosen not to be limited by science, you have chosen to be limited by science, we both chose. I'm satisfied with my choice, I hope you are satisfied with you.

son consider this absolutes are limits, science dosen't, I am not saying that sceince is the end all either, but its pretty good for what it does do.... there are no truths with a capital "T'.....

knowing is a misnomer in alot of ways , because it is common amoung certain schools of thought .. to regard prsonal and inner 'knowledge' as incomparibaly more 'certain' then our knowledge of the external world..yet i see no good reason to except this view...

Son, our spontaineous, unsophisticated beleifs whether to ourselves or about our outer world are often very rash and prone to error... the idea of 'caution" of the most dilligent kind is nessecary in both sceince( where its built in ) and religion where it isn't) ....'knowing' is really various relationships intermingling all of them complex .....

this is easily verified. have someone video tape you for a day, then before you view the tape write down in as much detail what you did in that day your feelings and your reasons etc and have the videotaper do the same then watch the video., vidoe tape allthe results ...you will be astounded at the differences and get an idea on how our sense perceptions this 'knoiwng' is not very reliable as much as we like to think it is.......

then let us on um see it ...

Edited July 20, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[drakonwick]

Sheri is one of the brightest people on this board, many underestimate her.... her refusal to answer a simple question is demonstrative of the fact that she knew how that converstion would end...

And just so you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I like her very much, she has unique insights into peoples beliefs and how their minds work.

I understand where you are coming from now Jor-el! Indeed Sheri is a very intelligent person.

[IamsSon]

son consider this absolutes are limits, science dosen't, I am not saying that sceince is the end all either, but its pretty good for what it does do.... there are no truths with a capital "T'.....

Actually, science DOES consider those to be absolute limits. Yes, there are Truths, Sheri. You may choose not to accept them, which you are completely welcome to, but there are Truths.

knowing is a misnomer in alot of ways , because it is common amoung certain schools of thought .. to regard prsonal and inner 'knowledge' as incomparibaly more 'certain' then our knowledge of the external world..yet i see no good reason to except this view...

I'm sorry you don't. Of course I understand. If you're relying on yourself and only yourself, you should be wary of your internal knowledge, so I encourage you to continue to rely on only that knowledge you have external proof for, it's definitely best for you.

Son, our spontaineous, unsophisticated beleifs whether to ourselves or about our outer world are often very rash and prone to error... the idea of 'caution" of the most dilligent kind is nessecary in both sceince( where its built in ) and religion where it isn't) ....'knowing' is really various relationships intermingling all of them complex .....

I can agree that spontaneous, unsophisticated beliefs can well be rash and prone to error, fortunately, I don't have to worry about that in my personal relationship with God.

this is easily verified. have someone video tape you for a day, then before you view the tape write down in as much detail what you did in that day your feelings and your reasons etc and have the videotaper do the same then watch the video., vidoe tape allthe results ...you will be astounded at the differences and get an idea on how our sense perceptions this 'knoiwng' is not very reliable as much as we like to think it is.......

I can understand this, I find as get older I spend much more time in reflection before making decisions. Fortunately, the Lord, who is all-knowing is always ready to provide the guidance He knows I need, as soon as I seek Him.

then let us on um see it ...

You first. Please post the video and the observations, and then I might consider what you're saying.

[Leonardo]

The thing is that those are absolutes, Leo. Science may continue to expand our knowledge so that some things we now consider supernatural will turn out not to be so, but science at least the way it is defined today cannot answer questions of value, morality, or things outside of nature (supernatural). This is not the same as saying that as we continue to expand our knowledge there will not be things we currently consider supernatural which will turn out to be fully natural events.

I have already shown how personal judgements such as value and morality are relative - not absolute. Science is able to determine the relative nature of such things given enough of the variables to work with. If your belief leads to to assume these things as absolutes then please demonstrate this - list those things which have an absolute value and speak an absolute morality which is pertinent to all possible situations - this morality must be intrinsic and to humanity and identifiable as behaviour deriving from having to live in our social groupings, no 'divine morality' included as this cannot be shown as having any basis.

That you have been able to find a website promoting these relative values as absolute does not mean 'Science' necessarily agrees. If you can find the same caveats in other, some would say more authoritative, sites (such as Science Academies, Journals, other Universities) I'd be inclined to think this a Science-wide opinion, otherwise you are building an appeal to authority out of a single source that may not be representative of the greater whole.

Your last sentence is most telling. What today that we consider supernatural truly is? Think carefully before answering.

[Wookietim]

With absolute certanty 2+2=4

2+2=4 (i switched the twos)

4=2+2

2+x=4 X=2

4 / 2= 2

4-2=2 Always has always will no matter what order you put it in, or what loophole you think you found With absolute certainty. it is called a proof.

That is the same amount of certaintly that some believers have that God exists. It cannot be changed for them, because something happened in their spiritual walk that has taken the existance of God out of the path of questioning. Thats not to say that there are not other things left to be questioned.

2 pair of dice + 2 pair of dice = 8 dice.... one instance where 2+2 =/= 4 ....

[IamsSon]

2 pair of dice + 2 pair of dice = 8 dice.... one instance where 2+2 =/= 4 ....

Nice try, but you were talking about PAIRS of dice, so 2 pairs of dice + 2pairs of dice = 4 PAIRS of dice.

[IamsSon]

I have already shown how personal judgements such as value and morality are relative - not absolute. Science is able to determine the relative nature of such things given enough of the variables to work with. If your belief leads to to assume these things as absolutes then please demonstrate this - list those things which have an absolute value and speak an absolute morality which is pertinent to all possible situations - this morality must be intrinsic and to humanity and identifiable as behaviour deriving from having to live in our social groupings, no 'divine morality' included as this cannot be shown as having any basis.

Leo, this whole paragraph indicates you don't understand which absolutes we're talking about. We're not talking about absolute values, we're talking about absolute fields of human understanding. The field of morals cannot be studied by science. Sure, you can study the effects of morals, the impact of morals, but moral values themselves can't be studied.

That you have been able to find a website promoting these relative values as absolute does not mean 'Science' necessarily agrees. If you can find the same caveats in other, some would say more authoritative, sites (such as Science Academies, Journals, other Universities) I'd be inclined to think this a Science-wide opinion, otherwise you are building an appeal to authority out of a single source that may not be representative of the greater whole.

That website was a college website. Take it up with those who teach science if you disagree with the fact that science is limited.

Your last sentence is most telling. What today that we consider supernatural truly is? Think carefully before answering.

I already said God is.

[dzstar]

I agree with Paranoid Android. For me God too is a fact, in fact God is the sole Fact that gives cause or rise to all other facts. While me and Paranoid android dont see eye to eye on most things about God we are both in agreement that God exists definately.

Just because something cannot be proven through equation or via a separate piece of finite proof against the backdrop of the universe, doesnt mean that something has no validity or existence.

Just as consciousness cannot be proven or measured so likewise is God. And for me consciousness and God are one and the same.

Sorry for interjecting into the middle of this conversation---but just wanted to say that GOD (or some higher Consciousness) evidently answers my quest for proof of its existence by constantly giving me answers that I ask of "it" mentally, by giving me proof that I cannot refute but that I cannot PROVE to anyone else either...unless they just take my word of this on FAITH! I guess Faith is the test that we are each being given by this "Consciousness" ---I feel like that I am being given what I need to pass this test! For that I am thankful---even if I am being deceived by all this somehow(??)....what do I have to lose by believing and by having this FAITH? Really, life on this planet is finite and IF there's no God...then what? What have I lost by having the FAITH that I have? To me having Faith in the Consciousness that I REALLY DO BELIEVE in is a Win-Win thing!

[Wookietim]

Nice try, but you were talking about PAIRS of dice, so 2 pairs of dice + 2pairs of dice = 4 PAIRS of dice.

4 pairs of dice = 8 dice.

Just like it is just as valid to say :

1 foot + 1 foot = 24 inches.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Wookietim

[IamsSon]

4 pairs of dice = 8 dice.

Just like it is just as valid to say :

1 foot + 1 foot = 24 inches.

Sorry, like I said before it's a nice try, but just because you changed the units after the = sign doesn't change the fact that you added 1 foot to 1 foot, and got 2 feet. Yes, 2 feet equals 24 inches, but it's still 2 feet. You're supposed to keep the same units throughout the operation.

[brave_new_world]

Sorry for interjecting into the middle of this conversation---but just wanted to say that GOD (or some higher Consciousness) evidently answers my quest for proof of its existence by constantly giving me answers that I ask of "it" mentally, by giving me proof that I cannot refute but that I cannot PROVE to anyone else either...unless they just take my word of this on FAITH! I guess Faith is the test that we are each being given by this "Consciousness" ---I feel like that I am being given what I need to pass this test! For that I am thankful---even if I am being deceived by all this somehow(??)....what do I have to lose by believing and by having this FAITH? Really, life on this planet is finite and IF there's no God...then what? What have I lost by having the FAITH that I have? To me having Faith in the Consciousness that I REALLY DO BELIEVE in is a Win-Win thing!

What sweet thoughts. I also look at God as a higher state of consciousness.

[Dr. D]

Sorry, like I said before it's a nice try, but just because you changed the units after the = sign doesn't change the fact that you added 1 foot to 1 foot, and got 2 feet. Yes, 2 feet equals 24 inches, but it's still 2 feet. You're supposed to keep the same units throughout the operation.

Ah, but here's the real problem . . . . to me your 24 inches is 60.96 centimeters.

I see the same distance as you but in a different reference. My future calculations will be equally different even though, through interpretation they may be equal.

It is in this perspective that people see God in different forms of reference and I am not obligated to convert my centimeters into your inches or your inches into my centimeters.

A supreme power, like sunlight, distributes itself equally among all but is seen by different perspectives.

[+Sherapy]

Actually, science DOES consider those to be absolute limits. Yes, there are Truths, Sheri. You may choose not to accept them, which you are completely welcome to, but there are Truths.

I'm sorry you don't. Of course I understand. If you're relying on yourself and only yourself, you should be wary of your internal knowledge, so I encourage you to continue to rely on only that knowledge you have external proof for, it's definitely best for you.

I can agree that spontaneous, unsophisticated beliefs can well be rash and prone to error, fortunately, I don't have to worry about that in my personal relationship with God.

I can understand this, I find as get older I spend much more time in reflection before making decisions. Fortunately, the Lord, who is all-knowing is always ready to provide the guidance He knows I need, as soon as I seek Him.

You first. Please post the video and the observations, and then I might consider what you're saying.

son stay with me here, your wandering off i... .. you do not have to be threatened by looking at your beleifs if anything your faith can hold you up while you do this.....

there are no absolutes son there are no truths with a capital t.. because truth is relative.....to infer objectivity one has to apply a methodology that is designed to set aside biases that affect the outcome ....

in order for one to test out a 'god theory' you have to employ the methodologys of science and see where you arrive once you have done this...

surely you would agree that alot of things are made up....

[IamsSon]

Ah, but here's the real problem . . . . to me your 24 inches is 60.96 centimeters.

I see the same distance as you but in a different reference. My future calculations will be equally different even though, through interpretation they may be equal.

It is in this perspective that people see God in different forms of reference and I am not obligated to convert my centimeters into your inches or your inches into my centimeters.

A supreme power, like sunlight, distributes itself equally among all but is seen by different perspectives.

Really? You're going to use bad math form and unit conversions. OK, let's do that. If the problem we're working on is specifically asking for feet, using inches and centimeters will not be correct. They may seem to be proper answers, they may be equivalent, but not the right answer, but there is one right answer.

son stay with me here, your wandering off i... .. you do not have to be threatened by looking at your beleifs if anything your faith can hold you up while you do this.....

There you go making wild assumptions. Nice try, but I'm not threatened. I think the one who feels threatened is you which is why you often refuse to answer questions. You fear where those answers will lead you, so you avoid going there by not answering questions. I think the way you refused to answer Jor-el's simple question was a dead give away about just how fearful you are about the fragility and falsehood of your construct.

there are no absolutes son there are no truths with a capital t.. because truth is relative.....to infer objectivity one has to apply a methodology that is designed to set aside biases that affect the outcome ....

Sure, when talking about scientific methodology you are correct, there are no capital "T" truths, which is why anyone asserting that something like evolution is the truth they are no longer being scientific or using science, but have stepped into the realm of pseudoscience. However, outside of science, in those oh-so-large areas of the human experience where science is incapable of treading, there are Truths. You need to understand that you have chosen to adopt a construct which allows only non-capital "T" truths, but in doing so, you have severely limited your ability to experience real life.

in order for one to test out a 'god theory' you have to employ the methodologys of science and see where you arrive once you have done this...

Ah, see that's the rub, I've no need to test out anything because I'm not working on a theory. I don't have a family love theory, I just love my family, I don't have to test and observe to verify that I love my family because I Know (Capital "K") the Truth (capital "T") of my love for them. Similarly, I don't need to test whether I believe in God, or whether the God I'm following is the real one, I Know He is.

surely you would agree that alot of things are made up....

I most certainly do agree. But the only way we know some things are made up is because we know that some things are True.

[Dr. D]

Really? You're going to use bad math form and unit conversions. OK, let's do that. If the problem we're working on is specifically asking for feet, using inches and centimeters will not be correct. They may seem to be proper answers, they may be equivalent, but not the right answer, but there is one right answer.

My unit conversion was wrong? How?

Only in the closed-minded absolute world would you demand that your answer be in feet. The same measurement would be seen differently by others having different references.

This is the attitude of many religious based equations . . . . what is demanded as the result is seen to be the only correct one.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Expatriate

[IamsSon]

Really? You're going to use bad math form and unit conversions. OK, let's do that. If the problem we're working on is specifically asking for feet, using inches and centimeters will not be correct. They may seem to be proper answers, they may be equivalent, but not the right answer, but there is one right answer.

My unit conversion was wrong? How?

Only in the closed-minded absolute world would you demand that your answer be in feet. The same measurement would be seen differently by others having different references.

This is the attitude of many religious based equations . . . . what is demanded as the result is seen to be the only correct one.

I never said your conversion was wrong. I said bad form AND unit conversions, not bad unit conversions.

I guess you never took an advanced math or physics course. I'm going off the fact that if I'd ever turned in work in one of my college math or physics courses where I gave answer with the wrong units, I would get points taken off if not have the problem counted wrong. You don't go around just changing units willy-nilly because that's how errors happen. If you start out with inches, you finish with inches, unless the problem is a conversion problem.

Edited July 21, 2008 by IamsSon

[Dr. D]

I never said your conversion was wrong. I said bad form AND unit conversions, not bad unit conversions.

I guess you never took an advanced math or physics course. I'm going off the fact that if I'd ever turned in work in one of my college math or physics courses where I gave answer with the wrong units, I would get points taken off if not have the problem counted wrong. You don't go around just changing units willy-nilly because that's how errors happen. If you start out with inches, you finish with inches, unless the problem is a conversion problem.

That would be fine if the topic was limited to mathematics or physics but in this case it was used as an example to demonstrate a point referenced to religion. In that relation my response was totally valid since it deals with perspective, not equation.

Incidentally, I did study physics . . . . it was required for a doctorate.

[IamsSon]

That would be fine if the topic was limited to mathematics or physics but in this case it was used as an example to demonstrate a point referenced to religion. In that relation my response was totally valid since it deals with perspective, not equation.

Incidentally, I did study physics . . . . it was required for a doctorate.

Great, then you know it's improper to change units for no reason.

[+Sherapy]

Really? You're going to use bad math form and unit conversions. OK, let's do that. If the problem we're working on is specifically asking for feet, using inches and centimeters will not be correct. They may seem to be proper answers, they may be equivalent, but not the right answer, but there is one right answer.

There you go making wild assumptions. Nice try, but I'm not threatened. I think the one who feels threatened is you which is why you often refuse to answer questions. You fear where those answers will lead you, so you avoid going there by not answering questions. I think the way you refused to answer Jor-el's simple question was a dead give away about just how fearful you are about the fragility and falsehood of your construct.

Sure, when talking about scientific methodology you are correct, there are no capital "T" truths, which is why anyone asserting that something like evolution is the truth they are no longer being scientific or using science, but have stepped into the realm of pseudoscience. However, outside of science, in those oh-so-large areas of the human experience where science is incapable of treading, there are Truths. You need to understand that you have chosen to adopt a construct which allows only non-capital "T" truths, but in doing so, you have severely limited your ability to experience real life.

Ah, see that's the rub, I've no need to test out anything because I'm not working on a theory. I don't have a family love theory, I just love my family, I don't have to test and observe to verify that I love my family because I Know (Capital "K") the Truth (capital "T") of my love for them. Similarly, I don't need to test whether I believe in God, or whether the God I'm following is the real one, I Know He is.

I most certainly do agree. But the only way we know some things are made up is because we know that some things are True.

son the discouragement of inquiry is basically what you are advocating IMO .....that weighing something for merit or truth or value is a waste of time it seems you are saying.......

how do you know that the 'god' you follow is the real one, if even there at all....your I 'know' really equates to you don't know as far as i can see so far ......

imo this would be and is a valid question ( why I started the thread)..

[Dr. D]

Great, then you know it's improper to change units for no reason.

For no reason, yes.

In this instance there was every reason to make a point that everyone else seemed to understand.

[mklsgl]

How would anyone know the "real one" from any other? Yes, great question, Sheri. If [G-d] can only be known through the only way anyone can experience an abstraction--which is actually by simply declaring it to be so, then equating that declaration as a certainty ("2+2=4") is rendering a non sequitur--it does not follow. It is irrational to think an abstraction can be proven. How do you differentiate 'like' from 'love'?

[+Sherapy]

How would anyone know the "real one" from any other? Yes, great question, Sheri. If [G-d] can only be known through the only way anyone can experience an abstraction--which is actually by simply declaring it to be so, then equating that declaration as a certainty ("2+2=4") is rendering a non sequitur--it does not follow. It is irrational to think an abstraction can be proven. How do you differentiate 'like' from 'love'?

Me I was in the shower thinking why do i love Sean and I had all kinds of reasons, why do i love my best freind let me tell you she wants it articulated in detail .......none of which would be just because i do....

i asked a good freind of mine once what they loved about me and they wrote a page..they knew why.....

...is it just me or does anyones else re evaluate their relationship sit and discuss with each other how we have been touched, inspired or moved profoundly by another's actions qualitys etc.and where we are going from here.......we check with each other allthe time are you happy is there anything each could do to enhance it.....we are not the same people with the same needs or inspirations....

for us this is what keeps the relationship so novel so exciting, its as if sean is a new person all the time...

anyone else on here feelin me?????

[Dr. D]

Me I was in the shower thinking why do i love Sean and I had all kinds of reasons, why do i love my best freind let me tell you she wants it articulated in detail .......none of which would be just because i do....

i asked a good freind of mine once what they loved about me and they wrote a page..they knew why.....

...is it just me or does anyones else re evaluate their relationship sit and discuss with each other how we have been touched, inspired or moved profoundly by another's actions qualitys etc.and where we are going from here.......we check with each other allthe time are you happy is there anything each could do to enhance it.....we are not the same people with the same needs or inspirations....

for us this is what keeps the relationship so novel so exciting, its as if sean is a new person all the time...

anyone else on here feelin me?????

Once there was a small boy flying a kite in the early morning. The morning fog had not yet lifted so the boy held the string but could not see the kite. He knew the kite existed only by the tugging on the string he held.

That is how I view God. I can't see Him but I feel that He's there.

If I do not accept all of man's dressings of God, that does not mean I reject God Himself.

Edited July 21, 2008 by Expatriate

[IamsSon]

son the discouragement of inquiry is basically what you are advocating IMO .....that weighing something for merit or truth or value is a waste of time it seems you are saying.......

I'm glad you pointed out this is your opinion, Sheri, because it's completely wrong.

how do you know that the 'god' you follow is the real one, if even there at all....your I 'know' really equates to you don't know as far as i can see so far ......

I know I do because I have a relationship with Him. I have received various confirmations of who He is and how He feels towards me. Will any of these stand up to scientific review? No, they will not because science is incapable of reviewing events outside of nature. If you are looking for me to provide "proof" I'm sorry to have to tell you that I don't have proof that you can study, it's experiential, not just my experience, the experiences of my family, many friends, and acquaintances.

imo this would be and is a valid question ( why I started the thread)..

Sure, it's a very valid question, however, the expectation that one can scientifically prove something which is supernatural is not valid.