FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
3 Questions to abandon religion (By Brainout)
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Abrahamic Religions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 445

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:34 am    Post subject:  Reply with quote

brainout wrote:
Mathematically, if relativity exists, then the absolute exists.  One should argue therefore that there is a spiritual counterpart.  If finity exists, an Absolute Creator of it also exists.  Inanimacy does not create animacy, but animacy creates animacy and inanimacy.

Sorry have to interrupt, animacy can exist from inanimacy. Else the first animacy would have never existed. All it takes is for one Animacy to exist from inanimacy.

brainout wrote:

No set can contain itself, but can only be contained within a larger set than itself, or a set which is of the same size as itself:  this is the first rule of math, and really of genetics as well (the offspring can be no greater than the parents, even if "parents" is many generations back).

That is a little simplistic. You did not account for mutations & viruses & adaptation.

brainout wrote:

So if infinite regression or progression, an infinite STASIS must likewise exist.  If -1, then 0.  If 0, then +1.  It becomes, mathematically speaking, a HUPOSTASIS, "hupo" meaning "under", and "stasis" meaning "standing", so you get the understanding of one thing standing under another thing:  union of opposites, with the result that a full spectrum is 'held together' by the larger stasis.

Sorry but that sounds like religious talk to me. Introduce some latin term and then expand on it so the reader feels belittled and respectful of the writer's superior knowledge. Which is often just a quote from a dictionary Smile

brainout wrote:

This means that the infinite progression or regression can keep on going, as the stasis IS a stasis, 'holding' it.  Kinda like your body is moving inside, all those ribosomes and other activity, yet your outer body looks the same (pretend for the sake of this example that your outer body didn't age).

A complicated way to explain momentum?

brainout wrote:

Logically, this would have to mean that the infinite progression and regression are 'under' the Stasis of ALL AT ONCE.  Again, this all-at-onceness would have to be Living, Conscious, else where does our own livingness and consciousness come from?

Sorry I can not follow with this.

brainout wrote:

Notice that science doesn't have to touch "God" issues to evaluate all this, and cannot, since a STASIS of infinity would be wholly undetectable by any physical instruments.  The ultimate existence would have to be immaterial and absolute, personal and alive.  Science would never be able to detect that.  However, again from the oppositeness we can measure materially, its opposite of infinite static Live Immateriality, is 'reflected' so to speak.

Sounds like a strawman to me. You created the concept of Stasis using some malformed If-Then Statements. And now you are accusing Science of not being able to detect that Stasis.

brainout wrote:

Notice you didn't need even one holy book to figure all that out.  Very Happy

So:  if "God" and if "Satan", could they be wholly independent beings?  I'd argue the math says yes, because each 'dot' within a whole is itself independent.  But the pre-existing thing would be Truth, the whole SET, which of course would include bad truth (a subset).

Sorry can't follow. Plz reiterate?

brainout wrote:

Again, mathematically, Truth cannot hang together as a whole set, if incomplete or self-contradicting.  And if the ultimate set must be Living and Conscious (again, because animacy must beget inanimacy, it can't be the other way around), then "Truth" would have to be an attribute of "God".

That is the first flaw I picked on in the first paragraph. Inanimacy does and did create animacy.

brainout wrote:

I wonder if this is the right thread for this line of analysis.  Does it belong in "logic", instead?  In a way it belongs here, to first establish that there OUGHT to be some 'book' out there which "God" caused to be written so we could use our brains given us by this "God", rather than rely on salt stains on Chicago freeway underpasses* or dreams or visions which all can be hallucinated, to decide whether and what "God" might be.  Heh.

There OUGHT to be a book, does not mean there is a book.
If there is a god, then MAYBE there is a book.
If there is NO god, then there is NO book.

As it stands, I did not see or read any book that appeared divinely inspired to me. No books that were written before the last 30yrs anyways.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275

Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, Baal, that's how it seems to you.  I get quite the opposite reaction from others.  I appreciate your comments.  I'll try to elaborate some, here.

It's not simplistic, but a set of principles at the very first level.  Inanimacy has no life.  Life cannot come from no-life.  Life can only come from life.  After that, life can die.  But there must BE life first.  That's a first-level principle.

No set can contain itself is also not simplistic, but the first law of math.  Applied genetically, it means that IN ORDER FOR there to be mutations (permutations, in math), there first must be a data set (i.e., genetic attributes) PRECEDING which exist and are CAPABLE of mutation (permutation).  For example, in actuarial science you have morbidity and mortality permutations of death statistics, which first rely on there EXISTING a number of bodies, and it always starts from the largest set (initial population).

So too, in genetics, there must be genes capable of mutation, and that's adaptation, not evolution (the term "evolution" is abused today).  So nothing comes out of but what precedes, and it's not really an advance, but rather a coming forward of PRECEDING characteristics, i.e., the development of melanin.

I'm sorry that you think that the math definition of infinite progression and regression is religious talk.  It's actually math, and you should be able to find that in any math class in junior high school, where I learned it.  Infinite progression or regression is part of the explanation for momentum, but that's not what I was using it for.  I was using it to show that FINITY FUNCTION means there will be a constant adding or subtracting from what PRECEDED.  Because again, no set can contain itself.

STASIS is not a God concept, but a math concept.  I was using it analogously to show that if math requires stasis to HOLD everything (and it does, else there can be no progression or regression, and no gravity etc. either) -- then the logical thing is that there is a Person or Persons of infinite LIVE CHARACTER in STASIS, which is why we humans can progress or regress, since we too are live characters (obviously inferior and dependent).

You seem to think I'm trying to prove or sell God.  I'm not.  I really don't give a flip if anyone else believes in God.  That's their problem.  I do care about due diligence, and math is a perfect way to demonstrate it, hence my comment about how you don't even need the Bible to know God exists.  (I just made a video about it too, downloadable from Google, Part 1 of "God101:  Trinity".)

Now it's also a math principle that positive has negative offset.  Hence to say God and Satan can independently exist -- especially, if God CHOOSES FREEDOM to be, exist -- hence to say Satan can independently exist, is easy to figure out.  I independently exist.  Independent, because my independence is assured by the STASIS which is really God WILLING that, every second.  For freedom is a CHOSEN thing.  Even we can choose for or against freedom, how much more, God?

I'm not arguing this is palatable.  I'm arguing that math proves it true.  That you didn't need a Bible to know all this, and it's easy to figure out, even when a child.

Hence there ought to be a book.  Because if God creates freedom, then He wants to make freely available, information about Himself. Just because you don't find a book to your satisfaction, doesn't negate that there IS such a book.  Just means, you are not satisfied.

Which dissatisfaction, I empathize with.  It's not satisfying, unless you love freedom, to know that all this badness must be allowed to exist, even as the goodness.  To know that God CAN but WILL NOT alter freedom of the bad.

But dissatisfaction is not grounds for a claim that God does not exist.  You can say instead, "I don't like that idea of God", ok.  That's your free will.  But you cannot logically say that because YOU dislike a thing, it doesn't or shouldn't exist.

I hope I answered the points raised.  "You" was not meant personally, but was the generic "you" common in English these days.  Sorry for the delay.  I will be gone again for awhile, business intrudes.

God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Abrahamic Religions All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum