Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Belle.

If you have '2+2=4' certainty, where does 'faith' come into the equation?

Or do I have it wrong and it isn't 'faith' to smooth over lack of evidence, but faith in another sense?

Interesting thread and replies btw :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury
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?

You are ignoring the main point of my post, why would you demand that participants on one side of a discussion be 100% certain before you accept their evidence as fact, and at the same time accept hearsay from the other side of the discussion. Do you not see a fundimental ( no pun intended ) problem with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
If you have '2+2=4' certainty, where does 'faith' come into the equation?

Or do I have it wrong and it isn't 'faith' to smooth over lack of evidence, but faith in another sense?

Interesting thread and replies btw :)

The faith comes in several areas.

First, God reveals Himself fully only after you approach Him by faith. I believed God was there, I acknowledged that I am a sinner and that I could do nothing from my end to approach Him, accepted that Christ died and rose again to provide the way to approach Him, and that's when God began to reveal Himself to me.

Second, it also has to do with what we define as faith. I know God is there, I know He loves me, and I trust (have faith) that He has my best interest at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
I actually have more problems with these rules than IamsSon does.

Well, I wish I could say I'm a better person, but I know how I am and how I would act/react in certain situations if left to my own devices, which is why I trust in God more and more and on myself less and less.

^ Hey MMW, that'd be my take on the 11 rules. If someone's in my lair, and they disrespect me, I won't "destroy them", nor would I do so if walking in open territory. But generally, they sound fine (number 7 is the only one i completely disagree with and the caveats you have put on the others I'd agree with.

Yeah, number 7 was the one I just can't accept at all, the others, well, if I was living exactly like Christ wants me and could to it all the time, I would probably have more issues with them, but unfortunately they reflect not my ideals but the way I end up acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chaoszerg

I acknowledged that I am a sinner and that I could do nothing from my end to approach Him

So you have to put yourself down as a way for god to accept you? That don't sound too good. :o

that's when God began to reveal Himself to me.

You should get him arrested for that I am sure that is illegal in most countries :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
If you have '2+2=4' certainty, where does 'faith' come into the equation?

Or do I have it wrong and it isn't 'faith' to smooth over lack of evidence, but faith in another sense?

Interesting thread and replies btw :)

Belle, you got me thinkin.....lol

i often feel that slapping a label such as 'faith' or intuition has become a practice for those who can't explain something .. and to some degree I think that is okay ..as long as one isn't mislead into beleiving they know something when they really don't..saddly thats not the case but, I am optimisitc so i'd like to see a whole lot less of "I know" therefore you should or else and a lot more of embracing others and coming together and celebrating our differences....

we most definitely have different benchmarks of analysis that are not only useful but sound...and we can't create a separate catagory because its been dubbed 'sacred' and therfore free of any sort of critical applications....or above reproach....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
You are ignoring the main point of my post, why would you demand that participants on one side of a discussion be 100% certain before you accept their evidence as fact, and at the same time accept hearsay from the other side of the discussion. Do you not see a fundimental ( no pun intended ) problem with that?

Because each side needs to abide by the rules they are working under. Someone arguing from the point of science must present evidence which can be validated using the scientific process because otherwise they are not actually arguing from the point of science. Someone arguing from the point of spirituality can't always use science because of the limitations of science. The thing is that science is not the definer of reality, it's just a tool with which we try to understand the "natural" part of reality. So, just because science can't be used to "measure" something does not define that as unreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell
Well, I wish I could say I'm a better person, but I know how I am and how I would act/react in certain situations if left to my own devices, which is why I trust in God more and more and on myself less and less.

Yeah, number 7 was the one I just can't accept at all, the others, well, if I was living exactly like Christ wants me and could to it all the time, I would probably have more issues with them, but unfortunately they reflect not my ideals but the way I end up acting.

It's not that I wouldn't accept number 7, but it would be like asking me to believe in something like ESP, or astral projection or UFO's. All of which seems silly to me. It also implies something ritualistic, additionally something I don't believe in... and that includes Christian rituals, rites and sacrements.

And perhaps this is why I have no problem with Atheists or other faiths at all. Asking them to believe in God would be like asking me to believe in magic. It's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
I like this post...

This too is a good post. I think most Christians can live without seeing the 10 commandments on the front of a courthouse. In fact, when considering how you put it (ie "I see the torture that my Navajo ancestors went through forced on them by christians") I think that it is nothing less than dutiful for the Christian to take the commandments off of the courthouse. After all, the greatest commandment according to the christian demi-god himself is to love your neighbor. Most certainly that comes before a display of something that Paul calls a curse to people anyways.

Do you not see it that way as well IamsSon? When considering the pain that such a visage might cause certain people, don't you think that maybe we can do without them on the building? I mean, think about, does it change anything whether or not the tablets are there on the courthouse? Does it stop corruption from entering? Does it stop judges from making mistakes every once in a while? Not at all.

If something causes your brother pain, don't you think that maybe you can do without the placitude that it gives you. If you don't, isn't it selfish to keep your placitude despite his pain?

very well said and lets face it they aren't working every single one of them has been broken a million times....

the only guiding principle you need are do no harm and see alittle bit of yourself in everyone and you will not seek to harm or hurt anyone or anything ....(I think the buddha said this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish
If you have '2+2=4' certainty, where does 'faith' come into the equation?

Or do I have it wrong and it isn't 'faith' to smooth over lack of evidence, but faith in another sense?

Interesting thread and replies btw :)

Hi Belle, A faith analogy for your consideration!

Your belief that I really exist as a human is faith based, built on the evidence presented on my virtual presence and writings here in the virtual world of the internet.

In order to absolutely confirm my true existence as fact you would need to find and meet me in person.

If I were to tell you exactly were I am located in the real world and drew you a map on how to get to my house. The oneness would be on you to follow my directions in order that we may meet in person. Then our relationship would have changed from mealy faith based to a fact based reality.

However our meeting would only be our own reality as we could never prove to anyone else that we really met in person, which brings the experience back to faith in others eyes.

Hi Belle, A faith analogy for your consideration!

Your belief that I really exist as a human is faith based, built on the evidence presented on my virtual presence and writings here in the virtual world of the internet.

In order to absolutely confirm my true existence as fact you would need to find and meet me in person.

If I were to tell you exactly were I am located in the real world and drew you a map on how to get to my house. The oneness would be on you to follow my directions in order that we may meet in person. Then our relationship would have changed from mealy faith based to a fact based reality.

However our meeting would only be our own reality as we could never prove to anyone else that we really met in person, which brings the experience back to faith in others eyes.

Irish

The key factors here to change from faith to fact are;

1. An honest desire to actually meet me in person.

2. A willingness to follow my directions for that meeting.

Irish

Edited by Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury
Because each side needs to abide by the rules they are working under. Someone arguing from the point of science must present evidence which can be validated using the scientific process because otherwise they are not actually arguing from the point of science. Someone arguing from the point of spirituality can't always use science because of the limitations of science. The thing is that science is not the definer of reality, it's just a tool with which we try to understand the "natural" part of reality. So, just because science can't be used to "measure" something does not define that as unreal.

I agree with you 100% on what you have written, however I am not saying that science is perfect, nor am I saying that scientific evidence is "superior".

It's not a trick question, all I am saying is: Is it reasonable to ( and I'm going to introduce a new word for clarity ) dismiss evidence because it cannot be verified to a certainty of 100%, and then use hearsay and anecdotal evidence to support the alternate view?

So are you saying that there are different rules for those who argue the side of spirituality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

nice Shaftsbury... very well thought out post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
I agree with you 100% on what you have written, however I am not saying that science is perfect, nor am I saying that scientific evidence is "superior".

It's not a trick question, all I am saying is: Is it reasonable to ( and I'm going to introduce a new word for clarity ) dismiss evidence because it cannot be verified to a certainty of 100%, and then use hearsay and anecdotal evidence to support the alternate view?

No, I don't think we should dismiss evidence because it's not 100% certain, but if it isn't 100% certain, is it reasonable to expect everyone will just fall in line and accept it?

So are you saying that there are different rules for those who argue the side of spirituality?
I'm saying that since science is incapable of "measuring" things outside of it's limited scope it's not proper to dismiss the evidence presented by those arguing from the spiritual side. I'm not saying it should be accepted without question, but it also should not be automatically dismissed simply because it can't be measured with science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell

Oh interesting... I think I read Shaftsbury's post with the incorrect context... maybe.

But like always, I'm desperately trying to keep out of science vs spirituality debates because it's my belief that never the twian shall meet. One has nothing to do with the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
No, I don't think we should dismiss evidence because it's not 100% certain, but if it isn't 100% certain, is it reasonable to expect everyone will just fall in line and accept it?

I'm saying that since science is incapable of "measuring" things outside of it's limited scope it's not proper to dismiss the evidence presented by those arguing from the spiritual side. I'm not saying it should be accepted without question, but it also should not be automatically dismissed simply because it can't be measured with science.

great posts shaft.....

.

son, argument plays a crucial role in sorting out what is not transparent or self explainatory , so any argumnet that purports to sort out whether or not there is a god must surely meet some minimal standards of some sort....

good evidence (and noone is going for 100 percent certainty or asking that of you because there is no such thing, we are asking for everyday workable data...).

some guidelines: good evidence is typified by a reasonable number ( though it doesn't always mean all these characteristics....) things such as relevance, non circularity, non equvication, replicability and testability , with controls for limiting conditions all artculated in a powerfully persuavive theoretical frame....( I have included both formal and informal logic in these characteristics))

most arguing is informal....and persuasive..

when you argue 2=2=4 therefore means a certainty of relationship with god for instance ( using a hypothetical) saying i dont know how to explain it or how to articulate it is the same as an illogical posit..... because it can't get us from disbleief to belief to fact how can it....there is no data to consider.....

I hope this helps .....

one more thing you are using the ontological argument or trying to... and for your consideration Decartes and St Anslem have two really quality ones if you ever get a chance read them ..

(there are arguments you can craft that could help you convert or spread a message ( theodicys) of salvation if that is what you are seeking to do.....but so far i have not seen any that go anywhere.......but there are no fool proof ones anywhere you have to acount for the human element also....)

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury
No, I don't think we should dismiss evidence because it's not 100% certain, but if it isn't 100% certain, is it reasonable to expect everyone will just fall in line and accept it?

I don't expect people to accept ANY evidence at face value, I certainly don't. If our ancestors hadn't broken away from the mainstream and started thinking for themselves, we'd still be writing on parchment and plowing our fields with a piece of wood.

I'm saying that since science is incapable of "measuring" things outside of it's limited scope it's not proper to dismiss the evidence presented by those arguing from the spiritual side. I'm not saying it should be accepted without question, but it also should not be automatically dismissed simply because it can't be measured with science.

Agreed, as it has been emphasized many times on UM, science is incapable of measuring the supernatural. The opposite is also true in my opinion, spiritually is best left to explaining the supernatural, not the natural world. Simply because we have no current method of gauging it's accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
Someone arguing from the point of spirituality can't always use science because of the limitations of science.

.

Someone arguing from the point of spirituality is not limited by science but only by the material he is arguing with

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Hi Belle, A faith analogy for your consideration!

Your belief that I really exist as a human is faith based, built on the evidence presented on my virtual presence and writings here in the virtual world of the internet.

In order to absolutely confirm my true existence as fact you would need to find and meet me in person.

If I were to tell you exactly were I am located in the real world and drew you a map on how to get to my house. The oneness would be on you to follow my directions in order that we may meet in person. Then our relationship would have changed from mealy faith based to a fact based reality.

However our meeting would only be our own reality as we could never prove to anyone else that we really met in person, which brings the experience back to faith in others eyes.

Hi Belle, A faith analogy for your consideration!

Your belief that I really exist as a human is faith based, built on the evidence presented on my virtual presence and writings here in the virtual world of the internet.

In order to absolutely confirm my true existence as fact you would need to find and meet me in person.

If I were to tell you exactly were I am located in the real world and drew you a map on how to get to my house. The oneness would be on you to follow my directions in order that we may meet in person. Then our relationship would have changed from mealy faith based to a fact based reality.

However our meeting would only be our own reality as we could never prove to anyone else that we really met in person, which brings the experience back to faith in others eyes.

Irish

The key factors here to change from faith to fact are;

1. An honest desire to actually meet me in person.

2. A willingness to follow my directions for that meeting.

Irish

I get and enjoyed the analogy Irish, and now for your consideration: I'd say the stakes aren't real high or important in this context..... so the degree of certainty doesn't really matter unless you ask to borrow money ..lol

something as important and requiring such a commitment and a way of life that is exclusivist holding ideas that are questionable and that have lead to harm such as 'god' would and rightlty so need to have some benchmark of verification or explaination and perhaps justification in place (and I am not saying absolutely because i stay away for absolutes myself) ..but 'faith' at some point has to be backed up by some sort of evidence of some kind simply for confidence in use....IMO...

and obviosusly its not enough because many leave behind "god" all the time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SunDogDayze
Well, I wish I could say I'm a better person, but I know how I am and how I would act/react in certain situations if left to my own devices, which is why I trust in God more and more and on myself less and less.

Iams, this is sad to me. :(

I know that it is part of Christianity to lose your sense of self to a point where your own self esteem doesn't matter. I want to give you an example and see what you think. Obviously it's hypothetical, but it's simple and explains my thought pattern.

Let's say you are walking down the street and someone starts picking at you. You are getting really irritated, and they won't stop, and you try to tell them to leave you alone, but they won't and you are getting to a point that you are about to take drastic measures to stop this person.

At that point, you want to punch them in the face, but you know that's not a very Christ-like thing to do. So you quickly ask God to give you the strength to resist punching him in the face, and to just keep ignoring him til you get where you're going.

Suddenly, you are able to quit wanting to punch him in the face and you are able to ignore him until he quits on his own, and you walk away with a sense of gratitude to God for giving you that strength, when it was YOU who was able to restrain the whole time.

Why do you give the credit so someone/something else? You actually said you trust in God more than yourself. The actions were you, you did them, so why are you not giving yourself the credit for the restraint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irish
I get and enjoyed the analogy Irish, and now for your consideration: I'd say the stakes aren't real high or important in this context..... so the degree of certainty doesn't really matter unless you ask to borrow money ..lol

something as important and requiring such a commitment and a way of life that is exclusivist holding ideas that are questionable and that have lead to harm such as 'god' would and rightlty so need to have some benchmark of verification or explaination and perhaps justification in place (and I am not saying absolutely because i stay away for absolutes myself) ..but 'faith' at some point has to be backed up by some sort of evidence of some kind simply for confidence in use....IMO...

and obviosusly its not enough because many leave behind "god" all the time....

Sheri you are probably old enough to remember the old hippie phrase “if you love something set it free if it returns it is yours if it doesn’t it never was” We are born into this world for a limited amount of time and have a decision to make on our own existence outside of this life. If our creator was in our face before we make that decision it would not be a free choice but one reduced to the necessity of basic survival.(as you say a fear based construct). :D

Life is a gift of God you have chosen to accept the finite version of it or you would not still be with us. Live it to the fullest, laugh, play and make friends and leave a lasting legacy of your life toward the pursuit of goodness, not for any eventual rewards but because it is the right thing to do.

I believe If you like the gift of life you have an opportunity to keep it, seek out matters of spirituality, don’t ever stop if you are uncertain of the conclusions you arrive at because that uncertainty is a red flag that you have not found the truth. Seek and you shall find it, knock and the door will be opened.

Remember you are under no obligation to do so if you choose to not pursue a renewal of life. This mortal life may be plenty enough living for some and eternity may not be enough for others.

There is an element of peace in believing in a certainty and I pray that all that read this find that certainty of spirit. Then carry on laughing and loving and living the rest of this life with joy and hope. :tu:

Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
I have a converstation going on another thread about this

( lady R's jesus came for the jews.....)

.

many christians on here say I know god just as i know 2+2=4....therefore there is a god..

perhaps with the help of the many brilliant members on here you can help me understand what I am not getting about this..

I personally am not seeing how this can be a foregone conclusion that supports a knowing or personal realtionship with god..

all comments are welcomed ....

Sheri,

You don't get it simply because it is a comment resting somewhere beyond the logical mind. The 2+2=4 equation can also be used to disprove God since it merely suggests that the concept is so basically sound that it must be true.

The fact is that god is probably a power far greater than the one portrayed in man's efforts to describe him. The Michaelangelo image on the Cistine Chapel ceiling typically represents the human view but true logic suggests that this supreme power rests somewhere beyond these feeble attempts.

We find immediate conflicts in an omnipotent god who needs to rest on the seventh day. An all-knowing god who repents the creation of mankind. And writers of a Bible who claim to know what god said before the creation of man.

2+2=4? The very suggestion that the god Christians have created is too believable to be denied speaks only of the arrogance of the faith, not the existence of their idea of a creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Iams, this is sad to me. :(

I know that it is part of Christianity to lose your sense of self to a point where your own self esteem doesn't matter. I want to give you an example and see what you think. Obviously it's hypothetical, but it's simple and explains my thought pattern.

Let's say you are walking down the street and someone starts picking at you. You are getting really irritated, and they won't stop, and you try to tell them to leave you alone, but they won't and you are getting to a point that you are about to take drastic measures to stop this person.

At that point, you want to punch them in the face, but you know that's not a very Christ-like thing to do. So you quickly ask God to give you the strength to resist punching him in the face, and to just keep ignoring him til you get where you're going.

Suddenly, you are able to quit wanting to punch him in the face and you are able to ignore him until he quits on his own, and you walk away with a sense of gratitude to God for giving you that strength, when it was YOU who was able to restrain the whole time.

Why do you give the credit so someone/something else? You actually said you trust in God more than yourself. The actions were you, you did them, so why are you not giving yourself the credit for the restraint?

When one asks God for patience, how do you think he gives it to us?

"Here you go, a bit of patience for my child....."

No, he provides you with an opportunity to practice that patience, and the more you practice the more you get...

God will give you what you want but not in the way we most times expect...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Sheri you are probably old enough to remember the old hippie phrase "if you love something set it free if it returns it is yours if it doesn't it never was" We are born into this world for a limited amount of time and have a decision to make on our own existence outside of this life. If our creator was in our face before we make that decision it would not be a free choice but one reduced to the necessity of basic survival.(as you say a fear based construct). :D

Life is a gift of God you have chosen to accept the finite version of it or you would not still be with us. Live it to the fullest, laugh, play and make friends and leave a lasting legacy of your life toward the pursuit of goodness, not for any eventual rewards but because it is the right thing to do.

I believe If you like the gift of life you have an opportunity to keep it, seek out matters of spirituality, don't ever stop if you are uncertain of the conclusions you arrive at because that uncertainty is a red flag that you have not found the truth. Seek and you shall find it, knock and the door will be opened.

Remember you are under no obligation to do so if you choose to not pursue a renewal of life. This mortal life may be plenty enough living for some and eternity may not be enough for others.

There is an element of peace in believing in a certainty and I pray that all that read this find that certainty of spirit. Then carry on laughing and loving and living the rest of this life with joy and hope. :tu:

Irish

Irish i am aware of that saying and interpret it this way, love always seeks to let go it doesn't impose any limitations or conditions because its sufficent unto itslef..... its essence is free by nature, indeed only fear seeks to imprison... so it seems we may be on the same page after all..

many of the things you say are sound but you are also no kid and have had a lifetime to accrue a bit of wisdom and indeed life is a gift and in that awareness one tends to value it and live it to its fullest ..i sure do .. i try to walk gratitude and do use my life to be inspired and inspiration comes from all paths ...for no other reason but because its the right way for me....

nah, eternal life doesnt appeal to this vegan she wants to be wormfood, contribute to the circle of life so others may have as much joy and wonder as I have had ...

be happy ......

as always irish its a great treat to have you contribute to any thread...i haven' seen you postiing too much these days ..glad you are back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
This thread is kooky... but that aside.

I believe that all people have varying abilities to "hear" God.

People like Sheri have no ability.

People like myself have some ability

People like Irish might be a good example of someone who has huge ability.

So, anyone who has even the smallest amount of ability believe God to be fact. Those who have no ability at all like Sheri and others, are confused and probably have every right to be confused. And will remain confused.

It's just the way it is from my point of view.

I have spoken often of the arrogance of "the believers." Your comments simply verify this point.

Those who are the "insiders" and "hear" God are the ones who are not confused. But the "outsiders" who do not hear God are confused and without the "ability" to hear God.

But maybe the "insiders" are so confused about life itself that they "hear" God. Maybe the "outsiders" live in a real world where God has not spoken in countless centuries. In a real world where someone like George Bush says that he hears God and was told to kill more than 150,000 innocents in Iraq.

In that real world, hearing God does not reflect much contact with those realities. But then, I might be confused, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
No, I don't think we should dismiss evidence because it's not 100% certain, but if it isn't 100% certain, is it reasonable to expect everyone will just fall in line and accept it?

I'm saying that since science is incapable of "measuring" things outside of it's limited scope it's not proper to dismiss the evidence presented by those arguing from the spiritual side. I'm not saying it should be accepted without question, but it also should not be automatically dismissed simply because it can't be measured with science.

nothing should be dismissed because it isn't 100% . like evolution , but it does have a huge amount of hard evidence . we could say it's well in the 80% range.

but religion has 0% evidence. personal feelings and opinion is not evidence. so why not dismiss it ?

QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Jul 9 2008, 04:46 PM) *

This thread is kooky... but that aside.

I believe that all people have varying abilities to "hear" God.

People like Sheri have no ability.

People like myself have some ability

People like Irish might be a good example of someone who has huge ability.

So, anyone who has even the smallest amount of ability believe God to be fact. Those who have no ability at all like Sheri and others, are confused and probably have every right to be confused. And will remain confused.

It's just the way it is from my point of view.

and maybe that 'ability' is the side effect of a gene , brain chemistry , or a social lie that's been handed down for centuries.

example --- you can watch a movie you know isn't real yet be so taken with it you cry. That feeling you have doesn't make the movie charecter real.

you could be 'believing ' in something that doesn't exist. chances are really good - at least 50/50 ?

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.