# Non-Euclidean geometry and God. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031 "2009-01-19T20:14:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/61 "2009-01-20T22:19:30Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Then maybe one is dead wrong about that part. Then why should we believe what Christianity or Islam has to say about anything? Clearly they are flawed epistemologies. They claim to provide access to the truth, but the process they use to arrive at the truth is broken. > [@](#): > > Well I pick it by moral utility myself. But that is heretical to both religions. Interesting, is it not? Both religions are broken when it comes to uncovering the true nature of the universe. And both also forbid their followers from using other means to find it. > [@](#): > > Right, but that doesn’t mean we were wrong that the entrance we claimed was an entrance, indeed was an entrance. Again, the problem is claiming that your entrance is the ONLY entrance, as both Christianity and Islam do. If Christ has said “Believe in me or not, it doesn’t matter. Everyone goes to heaven.” then I wouldn’t be using this particular example to illustrate my point. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/62 "2009-01-20T22:22:48Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Then why should we believe what Christianity or Islam has to say about anything? Clearly they are flawed epistemologies. They claim to provide access to the truth, but the process they use to arrive at the truth is broken. I kind of feel the same way when people talk about Big Bang Theory, especially what came before the Red Shift. > [@](#): > > Interesting, is it not? Both religions are broken when it comes to uncovering the true nature of the universe. And both also forbid their followers from using other means to find it. As a religion of personal conscience I don’t think it’s necessarily useless. As for the forbidding about finding other means to find it, I don’t see that as being true. > [@](#): > > Again, the problem is claiming that your entrance is the ONLY entrance, as both Christianity and Islam do. If Christ has said “Believe in me or not, it doesn’t matter. Everyone goes to heaven.” then I wouldn’t be using this particular example to illustrate my point. Right. I understand your point, but the thread isn’t about why you should convert to Christianity, but about the efficacy of models and whether you can have two mutually inconsistent models that are internally consistent in parallel. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/63 "2009-01-20T22:24:57Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I kind of feel the same way when people talk about Big Bang Theory, especially what came before the Red Shift. What are you talking about ? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/64 "2009-01-20T22:28:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What are you talking about ? What happened in the early parts of the Big Bang before the spectral shift that we can measure occurred. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/65 "2009-01-20T22:37:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I kind of feel the same way when people talk about Big Bang Theory, especially what came before the Red Shift. I’m not talking about whether particular individual religious assertions are true or not. I’m talking about the capacity for religion _in general_ to undercover the truth. Do you believe that empiricism _in general_ is a flawed epistemology? Does it consistently produce contradictory answers the way that theology and spiritualism do? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/66 "2009-01-20T22:39:07Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > I’m not talking about whether particular individual religious assertions are true or not. I’m talking about the capacity for religion _in general_ to undercover the truth. There is no such thing as ‘religion’ _in general_. There are individual religions with their own epistemologies. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that empiricism _in general_ is a flawed epistemology? Does it consistently produce contradictory answers the way that theology and spiritualism do? No, but it also has a narrower ground to cover. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/67 "2009-01-20T22:44:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What happened in the early parts of the Big Bang before the spectral shift that we can measure occurred. It was a “fireball” for about 100,000 years before that as I recall. Too dense for light to pass through, thus nothing to redshift. Redshift in general has no particular time period associated with it as you seem to think; as the universe is expanding it’s seen all over, for most objects we can see. It’s just an optical effect caused by objects receding. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/68 "2009-01-20T22:48:33Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It was a “fireball” for about 100,000 years before that as I recall. Too dense for light to pass through, thus nothing to redshift. Where does this number 100,000 come from and how is it measuered? > [@](#): > > Redshift in general has no particular time period associated with it as you seem to think; as the universe is expanding it’s seen all over, for most objects we can see. It’s just an optical effect caused by objects receding. Well I admit I don’t really understand it, but as **Sentient Meat** once explained to me, you could measure the frequency of the red shift and thus derive how long it was since the event that caused the initial red shift. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/69 "2009-01-20T22:53:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Where does this number 100,000 come from and how is it measuered? My memory - so don’t take it as a hard number. As I understand it, it comes from calculating how long it would take for the expanding universe to cool and rarefy, until it became transparent enough for light to pass though. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/70 "2009-01-20T22:55:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > My memory - so don’t take it as a hard number. As I understand it, it comes from calculating how long it would take for the expanding universe to cool and rarefy, until it became transparent enough for light to pass though. And how do they know how long it would take the universe to cool and rarefy until it became transparent enough for light to pass through? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/71 "2009-01-20T23:07:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > And how do they know how long it would take the universe to cool and rarefy until it became transparent enough for light to pass through? Plasma physics. ---
**Author:** ![Catchy\_Wins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Catchy\_Wins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Catchy_Wins)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/72 "2009-01-21T00:21:25Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > For one, right off the top of my head, it allows an answer to moral relativism. Believing in an objective moral standard to me subsumes some kind of god concept be it even one that may as well otherwise not exist. Without that one can (successfully I believe) argue that right and wrong do not exist other than arbitrary standards selected for by our selfish genes and by societies that have had the most power and influence. …and you may find that argument unsatisfying(emotionally)… but that has little bearing on it’s accuracy. But you certainly are right… objective morals standards are exactly like god. They are not supported by the evidence. This does not mean that extremely strong and compelling subjective moral standards to not exist… in fact our inbuilt genetic moral disposition is so strong that it is often confused with an objective moral standard. [QUOTE=RaftPeople] System A Assumption: God exists Rational thought: God exists therefore God exists (this is correct within system of beliefs A) System B Assumption: To claim existence of anything requires empirical evidence Rational thought: No empirical evidence for God’s existence, therefore the existence of God is unknown (this is correct within system of beliefs B) [/QUOTE] as you said… the statement is extremely trivial… but there is no equivalence between the utility of these 2 systems. The god postulate is useless, imo. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/73 "2009-01-21T00:50:55Z")
> [@Catchy\_Wins](#): > > This does not mean that extremely strong and compelling subjective moral standards to not exist… in fact our inbuilt genetic moral disposition is so strong that it is often confused with an objective moral standard. And in fact, I will never understand how people cannot be more satisfied with the realisation that we are largely moral in and out of ourselves, rather than being the often failing subjects to some transcendental discipline. It almost seems as if those feeling the need for an external measure of right and wrong can’t be too sure of their internal ones. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/74 "2009-01-21T01:12:04Z")
**Pochacco** you may find the issue of whether or not there is morality that is more than what those who hav won declare to right or wrong to be a trivial concern, but some of us do not. You are also arguing against _religions_ which is not the subject of this thread. No doubt to me that religions are the inventions of humans, are used as tools for good and for evil as are most tools made by humans, and are generally falsifiable. So what? It has nothing to do with this thread other than that some of you have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response every time the word “god” is uttered. This thread is not about any religion per se. Take your religion bashing elsewhere please. **Der** also insists on fighting a fight that is not in this thread - against the revealed truths of specific religions. I do not assume in this discussion that God has communicated moral codes accurately or an interactive God in any form. Merely that they exist; that if Hitler had won the war and had absolute control killing off all those who disagreed, that he’d still be evil by some objective standard. If that seems to be a reasonable belief to you, then to me it follows that some sort of God-concept must also seem like a reasonable assumption. **Catchy** is consistent in his/her reasoning. Yes, that may be true. The existence of objective moral standards is not supported by the evidence. Those of us who believe they exist, for example that in reality there are some truths that “are self-evident”, may be only deluding ourselves. Moral codes may be only subjective products of biologic and cultural selection. It is fair to accept no god as a postulate if you believe that and I respect that. But if you accept that some objective moral standards do exist then it is fair to accept a god postulate (that has little to do with any of the “revealed truths” of any organized religion). And I respect that as well. Empiricism is the way to go for understanding our physical world. Scientific method rocks for making predictions of what will happen in the future and how to influence events. A god postulate should stay out of science’s way in these matters. Call this Euclidian space. But while the scientific method can perhaps explain the means by which various moral imperatives became engrained in our genetic heritage and in our cultural heritage as well, it has no ability to comment on what _is_ ethical or moral. For these questions we need to rely on postulates, even if they come not from religions but from secular texts, such as the Declaration of independence or the UN’s declaration of human rights. And accepting those postulates as objective implies the god postulate. This is non-Euclidian space and science has little role here. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/75 "2009-01-21T01:23:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Bryan** I am curious about your contention that reports of personal experience are not evidence. Do you believe that scientist can study pain? Isn’t pain a reported personal experience? Personal reports are not perhaps the highest quality evidence, but to dismiss it as no evidence at all is too far. Pain typically has some observable biological cause. It responds to medication. The field is not wholly explored, of course, there’s a mysterious psychosomatic aspect to it, but I see no reason even that won’t eventually be analyzed by our increasing understand of the brain and how it works. The kinds of personal experiences relevant to this discussion, however (I thought), are those along the lines of people who claim to have had epiphanic communications with deities. A person claims, for example, to have spoken to Jesus or angels who advised him to write a book that supplements the New Testament. Do these beings exist and is the person a prophet? Is the person delusional? Is the person lying? Does the person think he’s lying or delusional but is actually inspired? What conceivable test could we run to find out? Please tell me how you, if presented with a KJV version of _Genesis_ and my alternate version in which God rests on the _eighth_ day, would know which (if either) truly told the story of creation? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/76 "2009-01-21T01:45:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Please tell me how you, if presented with a KJV version of _Genesis_ and my alternate version in which God rests on the _eighth_ day, would know which (if either) truly told the story of creation? What if it just so happens to be correct that God rested on the seventh day, and yet there is no possible way to verify it? The problem with science is that it examines the mechanism from within the clockworks. So all you can see is gears and shafts and such, but not to what purpose they exist. It may also be true that there is no ultimate purpose, but it might be true that there is. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/77 "2009-01-21T01:54:47Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Pochacco** you may find the issue of whether or not there is morality that is more than what those who hav won declare to right or wrong to be a trivial concern, but some of us do not. And you haven’t answered the question : How does God change that ? > [@DSeid](#): > > You are also arguing against _religions_ which is not the subject of this thread. No doubt to me that religions are the inventions of humans, are used as tools for good and for evil as are most tools made by humans, and are generally falsifiable. So what? It has nothing to do with this thread other than that some of you have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response every time the word “god” is uttered. This thread is not about any religion per se. Take your religion bashing elsewhere please. God is a purely religious concept; bring up God, you are bringing up religion. > [@DSeid](#): > > **Der** also insists on fighting a fight that is not in this thread - against the revealed truths of specific religions. Of course the so-called “revealed truths” of specific religions matter in this thread. “God” is one such “revealed truth”. You might as well bring up transubstantiation and pretend that Catholicism is irrelevant to the thread. > [@DSeid](#): > > I do not assume in this discussion that God has communicated moral codes accurately or an interactive God in any form. Merely that they exist; that if Hitler had won the war and had absolute control killing off all those who disagreed, that he’d still be evil by some objective standard. If that seems to be a reasonable belief to you, then to me it follows that some sort of God-concept must also seem like a reasonable assumption. First, your unknowable non-interventionist version of God means that his moral opinions are irrelevant since they by definition cannot be communicated to us. And second, even if God showed up and started talking, so what ? What makes you think that God’s opinion on morality is better than ours ? Assuming that there is a God AND absolute morality, how do you know he follows it ? And assuming that there is an “absolute morality”, so what ? Are you going to follow it if it disagrees with your own ? If this “absolute morality” held that Hitler was in the right would you say "Oh, well then, ‘Go Nazis !’ " ? Somehow I doubt it. > [@DSeid](#): > > **Catchy** is consistent in his/her reasoning. Yes, that may be true. The existence of objective moral standards is not supported by the evidence. Those of us who believe they exist, for example that in reality there are some truths that “are self-evident”, may be only deluding ourselves. Moral codes may be only subjective products of biologic and cultural selection. And why isn’t that good enough ? We are the product of our biology and our culture; it makes sense that any morality relevant to us is at the least going to be heavily influenced by those things. > [@DSeid](#): > > It is fair to accept no god as a postulate if you believe that and I respect that. But if you accept that some objective moral standards do exist then it is fair to accept a god postulate (that has little to do with any of the “revealed truths” of any organized religion). Once again, that makes no sense. What makes you think that absolute morality implies a god of any kind ? > [@DSeid](#): > > But while the scientific method can perhaps explain the means by which various moral imperatives became engrained in our genetic heritage and in our cultural heritage as well, it has no ability to comment on what _is_ ethical or moral. For these questions we need to rely on postulates, even if they come not from religions but from secular texts, such as the Declaration of independence or the UN’s declaration of human rights. And, we need to rely on science, not religion for good moral decisions. Science can tell us what the real consequences of our actions are; religion tells us to factor imaginary things like souls and God’s will into our moral judgements. Therefore, religion inevitably undercuts good moral judgement. > [@DSeid](#): > > And accepting those postulates as objective implies the god postulate. This is non-Euclidian space and science has little role here. Wrong, and wrong. There is no connection between objective morality and God; if God think something is moral, that’s just his opinion - and again, you assume that God’s moral in the first place. And God is either real or not, which is an objective fact and therefor relevant to science; and if you are right and objective morality exists, again, that means it becomes a subject for science. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/78 "2009-01-21T01:56:45Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What if it just so happens to be correct that God rested on the seventh day, and yet there is no possible way to verify it? Then it doesn’t really matter, can’ affect us and we can’t even meaningfully argue over it. > [@mswas](#): > > The problem with science is that it examines the mechanism from within the clockworks. So all you can see is gears and shafts and such, but not to what purpose they exist. It may also be true that there is no ultimate purpose, but it might be true that there is. And assuming that’s true, so what ? Do you have any evidence that religion can do better ? Or even anywhere near as well as science ? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/79 "2009-01-21T02:00:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Then it doesn’t really matter, can’ affect us and we can’t even meaningfully argue over it. I agree. > [@](#): > > And assuming that’s true, so what ? Do you have any evidence that religion can do better ? Or even anywhere near as well as science ? Religion and science are not in competition. What if say about 201 decades ago, some being from the outside opened the clock face and wound the clock? We have records of him doing it but the standards of record keeping at the time were rather low. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031/80 "2009-01-21T02:03:15Z")
**Bryan** your response assumes that pain exists. But all you have to base that belief on is your own personal experience of that sensation and others reports. You cannot measure pain, or any other qualia for that matter. You can only measure that which correlates with reports of the experience of that sensation. Yes, it is reasonable and rational to take your personal experience of pain and the reports of others, as evidence that pain exists. It would be rational for me to consider your report of painful personal experience as evidence of pain’s existence, even if by some freak of nature, I had never myself experienced it (maybe I have some neurologic disorder). Similarly others’ personal experiences that they attribute to communication with god(s) are evidence. High quality evidence certainly not, but evidence nonetheless. I may choose to dismiss that evidence, accepting a more worldly hypothesis than a religious one, but that is a different question than whether or not it is evidence at all. As to your _Genesis_ question … do I need to shout? This thread is not discussing the veracity or fallaciousness of any so-called revealed truth contained in any organized religion’s sacred texts. I do not claim or defend as rational any belief that any religion’s texts actually represent the word of God or gods. See the post above yours. Falsifiable fictions. No debate from me. And that opinion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-euclidean-geometry-and-god/482031.md?page=5)