Is there any proof of a 'religious' God?

[Latro]

An empty set is a set, as distinguishable from the absence of any sets. We have zeros for necessary and sufficient reasons. “100” is able to replace the Roman “C” due to the decimal system’s ability to reference the tens and the units to the right of the hundreds, even when those sets are empty.

An empty crate or eggtray is not the same concept as a bunch of nothing, IMHO.

There is no empty set to the right of the 1 in 100. That is a misconception derived from the way you write it. 100 is still 99+1 or ‘C’. It is as much a number as 34.

[Svt4Him]

*Originally posted by RoundGuy *
This discussion started with your assertion that “mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract”, and, given your credentials, I am even more confused as to why you would continue to attempt to defend this position.

My definition of “abstract” is – difficult to understand, insufficiently factual, theoretical. As opposed to “concrete” – real, factual, provable.

Are we using different definitions?

Yes we are. For instance, “Real numbers are a mathematical abstraction commonly used when modelling real-world phenomenon. Real numbers are an extension of the rational numbers [64].” Walter Rudin. Principles of Mathematical Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953 (bolding mine). So yoru definition of real and abstract may be different than mine. My credentials have nothing to do with it.

[RoundGuy]

AHunter3
Let’s not forget the original premise of Svt’s that I am questioning. That is, "“mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract”. I am arguing nothing more, and nothing less, than this assertion.

Svt attempted to show that a bunch of nothings, plus a bunch of nothings, does not equal two bunches of nothings, ergo, mathematics is “abstract”. I have simply attempted to show that this is ridiculous.

There is nothing abstract about the concept that “nothing” is equal to zero, and must be treated differently than “something”, which can be defined, and onto which a value can be placed and manipulated.

Now, you have, in a rather blurred and roundabout way, shown that mathematics can be abstract. But that is a far cry from stating that mathematics is abstract, period.

[Polycarp]

Blink, IMHO you’re one of the most promising newbies to show up in a long time; just get a feel for the way we operate here, and you’ll be fine!

Round Guy, it may be quite true and concrete that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples, and likewise that 1 atom + 1 atom = 2 atoms and 1 galaxy + 1 galaxy = 2 galaxies, but to assert that 1+1=2 is either to inductively conclude that this is true for all such cases or to define the arithemetic function as axiomatic.

To cite a counterexample, 1 nucleon (proton) + 1 nucleon (antiproton) does not equal two nucleons, but rather 0 nucleons + approximately 1 million electron volts of energy.

That’s the concrete, real world. Abstractly, keeping them separated in the universe of discourse, yes, they do equal two nucleons, but we’ve moved from concrete to abstract. See the sense behind it?

TVAA, either you’re agreeing with me that what’s subjective proof for me is not objective proof for the world, or you’re asserting your POV as the one which everyone must hold, in which case I’d like to see a cite giving you that authority.

[RoundGuy]

Blink, IMHO you’re one of the most promising newbies to show up in a long time; just get a feel for the way we operate here, and you’ll be fine!

Of this, I will absolutely agree (until proven otherwise). As for the rest of your post, hmmm, need a little more time…

[phila]

*Originally posted by AHunter3 *
**If there were concrete rules-of-physics type proof of God, “God” would cease to be subject matter for religion and would be a facet of the natural world, leaving other things not easily reduced to the attention of empirical data and quantifiable observation to constitute “religion”. **

That was my general feeling as well. Interesting to see this thread has gone. Thanks to all for your comments.

[badchad]

Polycarp:

My first experience was in my mid-teens. I’d come to be somewhat skeptical of the pabulum of the Methodist Sunday School, but like a good kid in the early Sixties, I was at church on a Sunday morning. And, sitting alone in the church balcony, I said a variation on “the Agnostic’s Prayer”: “O God, if there is a god, give me some evidence that you exist, if you really do.” And I felt a sense of inner certainty that had not been there before, and moments after, the service began a hymn that seemed to serve as confirmation that that sense of certainty was “the real thing.”

Now, for both this and the second event (which I’ll describe a couple of paragraphs down from here), our friend Badchad has done a scathing skeptical analysis – with which, from an objective perspective, I agree.

You rang? BTW, when you say I’m right from an objective perspective that sounds a lot like saying I’m right, but that you will continue to pretend otherwise.

Let’s not forget that upon questioning you admitted your subjective assurance was mundane and bland and that you already had the will to believe thus seriously clouding your analysis of the situation. Considering that you continue to mention a hymn remarkably played in church as confirmation of anything only further erodes you credibility. I mean what are the odds that a hymn will be played in church? Darn close to 1 I say.

This was not an objective proof, and any number of interior self-delusive or coincidental phenomena could be adduced to refute it. It was a subjective proof – one that satisfied my need at the time.

Subjective proof that satisfies a need will always be inferior to objective proof that is indifferent to your desires. If you don’t see that as reasonable I hope you don’t blow your retirement on lottery tickets.

The love of my little “honorary grandson” when I fully expected to die childless and alone is for me sufficient proof of God’s goodness

What about all the guys, gals and children themselves who do die childless and alone? What does that say of god’s goodness? Since it happens so frequently shouldn’t that be sufficient proof of god’s badness to you? Or is your world so egocentric that you pay them no mind?

I was to put my hope and trust in Him, in His goodness and lovingkindness towards me – and towards all men.

All right lets juxtapose this quote with what you wrote just a few messages above.

It is, I think, interesting to note that Paul, who was the most ruthlessly logical thinker among the early Christian leaders when he chose to be (much of his work is non-rational, dealing with matters spiritual or moral in terms appropriate to discussing them rather than in logic), asserts that Christians are saved exclusively by the grace of God, and that faith itself is not something that people do but His gift to them, what He equips them with to accept that grace on a personal level and begin the interior transforming process of conversion/sanctification.

Here you write that grace and faith are a gift from god, which we both know he does not give to all, and according to Jesus, without it people are punished really bad for a really long time. Doesn’t it seem unreasonable for you to assert that god displays “goodness” and “lovingkindness” for “all men” when his gift of faith is only for some and as Paul says (and as I recall that you agree) there is nothing we can do to influence whether we get this gift or not.

I know you have refused to explain this and a few other discrepancies to me in spite of your promise to do so (thus making you a big fat non-truth teller) but perhaps you could tell Meatros why you worship a god who punishes/fails to reward people for not displaying a gift they can’t earn and have no chance of receiving.

I’ll not mention the fact that you are licking Paul’s boots here for being so logical while on an earlier thread you called him and “idjit.”

Sorry for the essay in response to a yes-or-no question. But that’s Great Debates for you!

Nope, that’s Polycarp for you!

[Svt4Him]

*Originally posted by RoundGuy *
**AHunter3
Let’s not forget the original premise of Svt’s that I am questioning. That is, "“mathematical certainty deals only with the abstract”. I am arguing nothing more, and nothing less, than this assertion.

Svt attempted to show that a bunch of nothings, plus a bunch of nothings, does not equal two bunches of nothings, ergo, mathematics is “abstract”. I have simply attempted to show that this is ridiculous.

There is nothing abstract about the concept that “nothing” is equal to zero, and must be treated differently than “something”, which can be defined, and onto which a value can be placed and manipulated.

Now, you have, in a rather blurred and roundabout way, shown that mathematics can be abstract. But that is a far cry from stating that mathematics is abstract, period. **

If I implied my pile of nothing was what made math abstract, I was wrong, and I didn’t mean it. As for it being ridiculous, let me put it in a math term. Let x=pile of nothing. 1x+1x=2x. Now let x=0 and a pile of nothing =0. 1x+1x=2x. My pile of nothing may or may not be real, but I have made it real by assigning a value to it (and by real I mean exist). But when you use terms like real and abstract, they imply different things when using math logic then they do when talking about the pile of nothing.

If that’s all you got from my post, or it’s simply being pedantic, I’m not sure.

[RoundGuy]

I have made it real by assigning a value to it

But you can’t do that Svt. And that’s the whole point. You cannot put a value on something that doesn’t exist!

1x+1x=2x. Now let x=0

And what do you end up with? Zero! You started out with nothing, and end up with nothing.

Very apropos in a discussion of the existence of God – which is, afterall, the point of this thread.

[Svt4Him]

Well actually you can put a value…ok, let me back up, you can not put a value on something that doesn’t exist, like, let x=something that doesn’t exist (once you do that, you make it exist, and that’s not good…), but you absolutely can assign a value to something that you can’t have, like a pile of nothing, as I did, and there is no mathematical error in my formula. But again, it is quite possible to get hung up on this point, and miss what I was saying as a whole.

[RoundGuy]

Well, Svt, this was one new thread away from getting sent off the front page, but no, ol’ RoundGuy has to bump it one more time.

Well actually you can put a value…ok, let me back up, you can not put a value on something that doesn’t exist, like, let x=something that doesn’t exist (once you do that, you make it exist, and that’s not good…)

Finally, we make some progress. You admit your error.

But again, it is quite possible to get hung up on this point, and miss what I was saying as a whole.

Which was what, again?

You see, I’ve been watching your posts for months, and rarely have they been more than parroting BS from other sites concerning topics which I am convinced you don’t really understand. Now, we get to a point where, by your credentials, you should make clear and perfect sense – and I still have no clue what your point is. What gives?

[Svt4Him]

You’ll have to give me reason to assume you know what you’re talking about. I thought we were talking about a pile of nothing, not talking about a pile of something that doesn’t exist. So I fail to see what you are getting at, as I stand by what I said. I’m flattered by the ‘watching’ of my posts. So let me say it again: The op asked if there was proof of God. My point is what kind of proof he’s looking for. There was another thread that used mathematical logic to prove, but that is an error, since it deals with an assumption and reaches a conclusion based on the assumption. If you assume God exists, and can prove that assumption, you haven’t really proven that God exists, only that, based on your assumtion, the probability is great that you can be correct. I don’t have to assume my son exists in order to determine the probability that he made the mess in the living room, because one could then assume he doesn’t exist and come to another conclusion based on their assumption. That is why mathematical logic will not prove the existance of God. But is there other ways? I believe I was pretty clear when I asked what proof is required. Now, for the last time, I’ll address “my error”. If is state x=pile of nothing, then in my example x=pile of nothing. x can equal a pile of nothing, in the same way I can say let x=a pink unicorn that comes over to my house every night. If you have 2x, how many pink unicorns that come over to my house every night? You have two. Now there is a difference between something that doesn’t exist…oh, maybe I wasn’t clear…and I do see what you’re getting at. Here is where my error was, and I’ll try and reword it in. Let x not exist. If you have 2 x, what do you have? That is what I mean by let x=something that doesn’t exist, and you are right, that is my error.

As for the bs, that’s a fairly general statement, and I don’t really have any way of addressing it. Sorry, but I think that’s an unfair statement, as if it was in a specific thread, the best time to question my ‘knowledge’ would be in the thread. I think it’s a little unfair, unless of course you can prove my math statement is untrue, which you haven’t, and I stand behind it.

[Zenster]

No.

If there was, this devout agnostic would be a believer.