Mathematicians have been at it for thousands of years too, and they&#39;ve produced a new body of knowledge…<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> And yet noone has ever been able to provide any kind of proof for say, the 4(+1) axioms that Euclidean geometry is based on(although attempts have been made, similar to, for example, squaring the circle or constructing a perpetual motion machine). Still, no deductible proof. They are taken as true and the whole &#39;Euclidean Geometry&#39; construct is built on them as such.<br /> <br /> So what do you say, Euclidean geometry is illogical, seeing as is it based, as a whole, on statements that cannot be proven? Is it circular? Or just axiomatic? As in, choose those axioms, you get Euclidean, choose others, you get hyperbolic geometry? <br /> <br /> Can you prove the parallel postulate? Or any other of the axioms? What&#39;s the difference between an <a href='&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom&quot;'>Axiom</a> and a theorem? Notice this?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Wow, that would be a great argument, if indeed it made any sense.<br /> <br /> Mathematics is <span style="font-weight:bold;">not</span> about absolute truth. It just chooses some truths (the axioms) and builds from there. Mathematics never pretend that 1+1=2. It could be 0, it could be 1, it could be 2, or anything else. The only reason we take 1+1=2 is because it happens to coincide most often with what we observe in reality (but not always). The application of mathematics to reality is science, not mathematics. You don&#39;t need to explain that to me.<br /> <br /> So, why did I bring up mathematics? Simple, read my post, you&#39;ll discover that I was just saying that producing a huge amount of <span style="font-weight:bold;">coherent</span> &quot;texts&quot; over a huge amount of time is not unheard of, it&#39;s nothing magical, and therefore is not a proof of god&#39;s existence.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="mikeman"><br /> <br /> <blockquote><br /> <br /> <br /> [font=&quot;sans-serif&quot;]Almost every modern <a href='&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_theory&quot;'>mathematical theory</a> starts from a given set of non-logical axioms…<br /> [font=&quot;sans-serif&quot;]</blockquote><br /> <br /> I&#39;m not implying anything about God&#39;s existence as such here, just playing a bit with the &#39;logic&#39; notion that some seem to misunderstand here, and the notion that &#39;religion&#39; is, necessarily, &#39;illogical&#39;. It might not fit a certain individual&#39;s beliefs or desires, but it can be quite rational, logical, and self-consistent. If some parot established dogmas without questioning or thinking about them, they don&#39;t really have much difference than some so-called &#39;scientific minds&#39; that do the same in their fields. And vice versa.<br /> <br /> Shall we bring Goedel to the table too while we&#39;re at it, or something?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> You may. It sounds intriguing. Let me try:<br /> <br /> Proposition P: Mikeman cannot prove P.<br /> <br /> It seems that P is true, yet you cannot prove it. But I can. Ok… what now? Have I established my superiority or something?<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="mikeman"><br /> <br /> Some people ask &#39;proof&#39; of God when there&#39;s no proof for some very simple geometric axioms that most of geometry is based on. Just think about that for a second. I&#39;m not saying one should believe in God based on those thoughts(it wouldn&#39;t be a belief anyway), but it&#39;s interesting nonetheless. Is the 5th postulate a magic pink flying hippo?<br /> <br /> <br /> </blockquote><br /> That makes so little sense in the context of this discussion. Again, proving axioms is absurd. And saying that it is a &quot;hole&quot; in our knowledge or anything like it just indicates a hole in your understanding of mathematics. Again: mathematics live in their own world, have <span style="font-weight:bold;">nothing</span> to do with reality, and whether or not there are &quot;holes&quot; in it (there indeed are), does not matter here.Try to understand this nuance: there are indeed world-views that are consistent. But what I am doing, is merely pointing out the inconsistencies of a very particular world view. That is all.<br /> <br /> Let me be more specific. Since you have not been clear about your actual beliefs, I&#39;m going to make the following assumptions: you have mentioned a mystical experience, which convinced you of the existence of the christian god. Now, about this mystical experience, good for you. And if that convinces you, great. If I were to have a mystical experience however, I wouldn&#39;t be so quickly convinced. To <span style="font-weight:bold;">me</span>, it means nothing. But again, that&#39;s just me. Now, what I want to point out is, how does this mystical experience show that there-was-a-guy-named-jesus-who-did-this-and-that-and-that-there-is-some-holy-trinity-which-noones-understand-and-some-absolute-morality-and-…. Did this mystical experience contain all this information? No, you just had a special feeling, which might be divinely inspired or not, doesn&#39;t matter, but to suddenly jump to the conclusion that it must be the christian god is where I don&#39;t follow. If you lived in a muslim country, you would have interpreted it as a sign from allah, and you&#39;d be a muslim now. You have chosen the religion closest to home. People of <span style="font-weight:bold;">every</span> religion have had mystical experiences, and strangely, they all concluded something different. Now read this carefully: I am merely pointing out this fact, I am not saying here that there is no god, or that the jews are the ones who got it right, or anything absolute. I am only saying that to me, it seems that your choice of religion is actually arbitrary. And to me, that doesn&#39;t make any sense when it comes to such fundamental questions. Enlighten me.<br /> <br />

Enlighten me.<br /> <br /> <br /> I can&#39;t. <br /> <br /> All I was trying to say is that religion is a world view that is not, necessarily, illogical or irrational or a &quot;fantasy land&quot;. Not that it is the only correct world view that explains reality. Correct for whom? Obviously not for you and for many other people. Of course I don&#39;t expect anyone to be convinced because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> have been convinced. Or anyone to believe because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> believe. That would be, of course, completely irrational. We all make our choices, and have our own lives to live. You can&#39;t do that with borrowed experiences. Don&#39;t we agree on that? It&#39;s not my fault if you&#39;re used to judgemental or fundamentalists Christians or whatever. I believe, for instance, that the bible is not &quot;infallible&quot; per se, it&#39;s a compilation of books describing events thousands of years ago, re-written, translated, compiled a thousand times over, but still believe it contains great truths(especially from Jesus), so that&#39;s what I get from it. That&#39;s me. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Me</span>. End of story. I was merely defending how &#39;rational&#39; religion can be. I believe it can. I also believe that everyone has the right to think the opposite. Ok?<br /> <br /> And the experience wasn&#39;t that mystical anyway <img src='http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> And yes, I chose to give it the meaning I did. So what? That&#39;s all anyone can do. So?<br /> <br /> And with that, I said pretty much all I had to say about all this, so I retreat…

Enlighten me.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I can&#39;t. <br /> <br /> All I was trying to say is that religion is a world view that is not, necessarily, illogical or irrational or a &quot;fantasy land&quot;. Not that it is the only correct world view that explains reality. Correct for whom? Obviously not for you and for many other people. Of course I don&#39;t expect anyone to be convinced because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> have been convinced. Or anyone to believe because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> believe. That would be, of course, completely irrational. We all make our choices, and have our own lives to live. You can&#39;t do that with borrowed experiences. Don&#39;t we agree on that? It&#39;s not my fault if you&#39;re used to judgemental or fundamentalists Christians or whatever. I believe, for instance, that the bible is not &quot;infallible&quot; per se, it&#39;s a compilation of books describing events thousands of years ago, re-written, translated, compiled a thousand times over, but still believe it contains great truths(especially from Jesus), so that&#39;s what I get from it. That&#39;s me. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Me</span>. End of story. I was merely defending how &#39;rational&#39; religion can be. I believe it can. I also believe that everyone has the right to think the opposite. Ok?<br /> <br /> And the experience wasn&#39;t that mystical anyway <img src='http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> And yes, I chose to give it the meaning I did. So what? That&#39;s all anyone can do. So?<br /> <br /> And with that, I said pretty much all I had to say about all this, so I retreat…<br /> <br /> As a Christian, I&#39;d like to say that I really wish more Christians had your attitude toward non-believers. Too many get so wrapped up in main-stream Christianity, to the point that they get <span style="font-weight:bold;">uncomfortable</span> associating with non-Christians. It&#39;s ridiculous, judgmental, and sinful.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, I have to respectfully ask… how do you rationalize your worldview? If I understand correctly, you are a Christian but believe that other religions which teach things contradictory to yours can still be correct.

You look at two people like Einstein and Oppenheimer, essentially good guys, but you take them solely in the context that they created a device to completely annihilate two japanese cities to dominate an enemy who executed attacks on American soil, and you could argue that they were unjust, unforgiving, blood thirsty, racist, malevolent, vindictive, pestilential, sadomasochistic, mass murderers.

In college, Oppenhemer tried to poison his tutor (an eventual Nobel Prize winner) because the tutor made him attend lectures on experimental physics, which he didn't like (his gift was for theoretical physics)...

Einstein might've hated puppies, for all we know, too.

Enlighten me.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> I can&#39;t. <br /> <br /> All I was trying to say is that religion is a world view that is not, necessarily, illogical or irrational or a &quot;fantasy land&quot;. Not that it is the only correct world view that explains reality. Correct for whom?<br /> <br /> Obviously not for you and for many other people. Of course I don&#39;t expect anyone to be convinced because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> have been convinced. Or anyone to believe because <span style="font-weight:bold;">I</span> believe. That would be, of course, completely irrational. We all make our choices, and have our own lives to live. You can&#39;t do that with borrowed experiences. Don&#39;t we agree on that?<br /> <br /> We do agree on that.<br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="mikeman"> <br /> <br /> It&#39;s not my fault if you&#39;re used to judgemental or fundamentalists Christians or whatever.<br /> <br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> There does not lie my problem and it has nothing to do with the discussion. <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="mikeman">I believe, for instance, that the bible is not &quot;infallible&quot; per se, it&#39;s a compilation of books describing events thousands of years ago, re-written, translated, compiled a thousand times over, but still believe it contains great truths(especially from Jesus), so that&#39;s what I get from it. That&#39;s me. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Me</span>. End of story. I was merely defending how &#39;rational&#39; religion can be. I believe it can. I also believe that everyone has the right to think the opposite. Ok?</blockquote><br /> I never said the opposite.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <blockquote class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-username="mikeman"><br /> And the experience wasn&#39;t that mystical anyway <img src='http://public.gamedev.net/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> And yes, I chose to give it the meaning I did. So what? That&#39;s all anyone can do. So?<br /> <br /> And with that, I said pretty much all I had to say about all this, so I retreat…<br /> </blockquote><br /> The problem with these discussions is that the two debating sides are arbitrary and merely illusions. Every member of each side has his/her own arguments which are not necessarily consistent with what the others on the same side say. And when attacking the other side, people focus on the weak arguments, which keep popping up because new people enter the discussion with old arguments they think are brilliant such as Pascal&#39;s Wager, which have to be discredited <span style="font-weight:bold;">yet again</span>.<br /> It reminds me of a previous religious thread where the atheist side subsided and suddenly the christian side split into two and they started arguing fiercely among themselves. I guess discussions among groups are doomed to failure as long as the groups are not coherent themselves.<br /> <br /> Goodbye.

Mathematicians have been at it for thousands of years too, and they&#39;ve produced a new body of knowledge…<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> And yet noone has ever been able to provide any kind of proof for say, the 4(+1) axioms that Euclidean geometry is based on(although attempts have been made, similar to, for example, squaring the circle or constructing a perpetual motion machine). Still, no deductible proof. They are taken as true and the whole &#39;Euclidean Geometry&#39; construct is built on them as such.<br /> <br /> So what do you say, Euclidean geometry is illogical, seeing as is it based, as a whole, on statements that cannot be proven? Is it circular? Or just axiomatic? As in, choose those axioms, you get Euclidean, choose others, you get hyperbolic geometry? <br /> <br /> Can you prove the parallel postulate? Or any other of the axioms? What&#39;s the difference between an <a href='&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom&quot;'>Axiom</a> and a theorem? Notice this?<br /> <br /> That&#39;s silly. Mathematics makes no claims at all about the real world. Mathematics is all about &quot;what-if&quot; type question in entirely abstract logical settings. The fact that conclusions in mathematics are often useful in the real world is just a nice side effect.<br /> <br /> The parallel postulate is actually a very good example of that &quot;what-if&quot; thinking. People were uncomfortable with the parallel postulate for a very long time, because they thought they should be able to prove it from the other axioms. Eventually somebody said &quot;Hey, let&#39;s try and see what happens if we replace the parallel postulate with something else&#33;&quot; That&#39;s how non-Euclidean geometry was invented, and it turned out to be quite interesting.<br /> <br /> Let&#39;s continue with that theme. Your question &quot;Can you prove the parallel postulate?&quot; is, by itself, meaningless. You have to clarify what you really mean by it. Did you mean to ask &quot;Can you prove the parallel postulate from the other axioms of Euclidean geometry?&quot; The answer to that question seems to be no, given that we have models for non-Euclidean geometries, i.e. geometries where the parallel postulate is false. Another question you could ask is &quot;Is the parallel postulate true in the physical world we live in?&quot;, or some variation thereof. However, this is no longer a mathematical question, but a question of physics. It has nothing to do with axioms and theorems, just like the question &quot;Is C12 radioactive?&quot; has nothing to do with axioms and theorems.<br /> <br /> There are actually much, much more examples of those &quot;what-if&quot; type questions in mathematics or logic. You may want to read up on the different axiomatizations of sets, for example.<br /> <br /> In that sense I would like to disagree with SamLowry slightly. Mathematics <span style="font-weight:bold;">is</span> about absolute truths. It&#39;s just that the absolute truths in mathematics are ultimately of the form &quot;If … then …&quot;, when you really drill down and formalize them, e.g. &quot;If we work in that system of axioms, then such and such is true&quot;. Even more important, mathematics is not about the real, physical world we live in, whereas any claims of the existence of a God ultimately are about the world we live in, and therefore different rules apply to them.

In that sense I would like to disagree with SamLowry slightly. Mathematics is about absolute truths. It's just that the absolute truths in mathematics are ultimately of the form "If ... then ...", when you really drill down and formalize them, e.g. "If we work in that system of axioms, then such and such is true". Even more important, mathematics is not about the real, physical world we live in, whereas any claims of the existence of a God ultimately are about the world we live in, and therefore different rules apply to them.

Well, I have to disagree with this slightly too. Ok, mathematics is, formally, a logical formulation that is not about the "real,physical world we live in". Except we use mathematics everywhere for real, physical purposes. Economics. Biology. Chemistry. Physics. I hardly consider it a "nice side effect". Mathematics and Geometry were not invented as a nice abstract game, even if many treat it as such today. They were invented, in ancient times, to measure field areas, predict motions, organize economies, communicate to your co-worker about how many rocks you need when you're building your house. When you use mathematics to do a complex and expensive physics experiment, do you admit that there's no way to 'prove' that this tool(Mathematics) is going to work? Do you think that if we weren't using mathematics everywhere, they would still even exist?(and I'm not talking about 'well, practical applications bring us funds for math unis", I'm talking about the trait of most human minds to want to invest time in something when it's worthwhile- not necessarily 'profitable').

It's just this word I have problem with. "Prove". "Prove the existence of God, and I fall on my knees with the rest of you". That is all. If someone secretly put a holographic show on the sky , what, would you believe? Of course you wouldn't, you would search for what is really going on. So would I, because I don't believe "that way". Maybe I was wrong to quote SamLowry on this one, I didn't want to seem like I was debating him, it's just that the thread's name is 'proof God doesn't exist', so all I wanted to say is that all these mind games are futile(and yes, I believe Pascal's wager is a bit silly, and even a bit immoral and opportunistic if you think about it).

On the other hand, I have to respectfully ask… how do you rationalize your worldview? If I understand correctly, you are a Christian but believe that other religions which teach things contradictory to yours can still be correct. <br /> <br /> <br /> As I said. Everyone is different(and I don&#39;t mean that as a punchline, as some do). Everyone has a whole history and background and personality of his own. Since I believe there is God, I believe there are things in life installed for everyone that noone can know. As such, I accept what I said earlier in this thread: That most religions are like different recipes given to different patients. My spiritual needs are not exactly the same as anyone else&#39;s needs, so they will be answered a &#39;different&#39; way. And of course there&#39;s &#39;cause and effect&#39; play here, I was raised a Christian, so I will, probably, translate what I experience through the Christian point of view. If I was born in a Muslim country, I would translate it through the Muslim point of view. It would be illogical, even immoral to consider youself superior just because you happened to be born where you were born, and think that, in order for the other person to be saved, he needs to clash with his family and friends and abandon many of the things he takes for granted, when you on the other hand were born in the &#39;safe&#39; side from the beginning. So, necessarily, I consider religions, as I said, different ways to say the same thing to different mindsets. That&#39;s how I see things anyway. What else can you do, really?

In that sense I would like to disagree with SamLowry slightly. Mathematics is about absolute truths. It's just that the absolute truths in mathematics are ultimately of the form "If ... then ...", when you really drill down and formalize them, e.g. "If we work in that system of axioms, then such and such is true".

That's why I consider them relative. There's always the if-part, the axioms on which everything depends. But other than that, we agree.

First off, kudos for going 14 pages of religion thread with no close.

My spiritual needs are not exactly the same as anyone else's needs,


This rather assumes that people have spiritual needs, which... I disagree with.

As such, I accept what I said earlier in this thread: That most religions are like different recipes given to different patients. My spiritual needs are not exactly the same as anyone else&#39;s needs, so they will be answered a &#39;different&#39; way. And of course there&#39;s &#39;cause and effect&#39; play here, I was raised a Christian, so I will, probably, translate what I experience through the Christian point of view. If I was born in a Muslim country, I would translate it through the Muslim point of view. It would be illogical, even immoral to consider youself superior just because you happened to be born where you were born, and think that, in order for the other person to be saved, he needs to clash with his family and friends and abandon many of the things he takes for granted, when you on the other hand were born in the &#39;safe&#39; side from the beginning.<br /> </blockquote><br /> <br /> Ah, makes sense. I was thinking you were one of those people who believes truth is not absolute. I agree with you in principle, but I don&#39;t see how you can reconcile Christianity and Islam. I recognize there are concepts in Christianity which have been twisted by us humans through the years and are probably incorrect, but the Muslim worldview seems to be fundamentally different. As an example. Nothing against Muslims particularly.<br /> <br /> About the clashing with family and friends, I would say that if a Christian gets through life without doing some serious clashing, to quote lolcats: YOUR DOIN IT WRONG. Which can be said of a lot of us lukewarm American Christians.