God exists

[Timsup2nothin]

The person who experienced the mouse in every way, but sight; has a fourth option:

- I know that there is an invisible mouse.

One could still accept, reject, believe, or disbelieve that person's experiences.

Observation as proof. I always like that myself, though technically all that this person knows for sure is that there was an invisible mouse. Unless they were experiencing the mouse continuously, which I believe would be extremely tiring for the mouse...and illegal in most states.

 

[warpus]

I would rephrase that as 'I have no beliefs either way about the invisible mouse'.

Yeah, technically my 2nd point includes my 3rd point. The way you rephrase it eliminates that - and the 3 points become mutually exclusive.

It's just easier to say, I guess - and it's something someone like me might say - "I do not believe that God exists".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, technically my 2nd point includes my 3rd point. The way you rephrase it eliminates that - and the 3 points become mutually exclusive.

It's just easier to say, I guess - and it's something someone like me might say - "I do not believe that God exists".

I have no beliefs one way or the other about that invisible mouse either.

 

[timtofly]

Observation as proof. I always like that myself, though technically all that this person knows for sure is that there was an invisible mouse. Unless they were experiencing the mouse continuously, which I believe would be extremely tiring for the mouse...and illegal in most states.

If humans experienced God continuously they would probably be in a worse condition than the mouse.

 

[Harv]

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:20

And that's how you know.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah. But you know... Revelations...all that!

You don't have to delve very far into that before you come across plain gibberish.

 

[Naokaukodem]

so when you're talking "human spirit", what exactly are you talking about? a dualistic mind? a soul? or what?

Dualistic mind ? What is that ? Soul ? No. More like conscience.

citation needed

At the end of one of your link, they say that real is not countable. (as an example) I guess that it's just so you can't describe it with sole numbers. Like, an apple isn't 1, and an orange isn't 2. Cells composing them alike.

i'm not worried.

I still don't see your point. Even if i consider the "data" countable, knowing that I know that I know that I know that I know (...) X is still infinite.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Transferable evidence. In other words, evidence which we both can look at and draw similar results.

Its one thing when you want to do that regarded material objects (physical science) its more complex to do concerning people (mental-psychological complexity) and its naturally even much more problematic abstracted into Absolute reality. To do that by human senses or intelect is impossible. We need to develop some more potent instruments for perception and understanding. May be thats the next step in evolution?

The whole world functions outside the frame of an Absolute because any property makes only sense in comparison with another property.
Also, I might buy a rear-view mirror for not breaking my legs.

Thats impossible by definition. Also only the Absoute can become limited (self-limited)not the other way around.

 

[Borachio]

At the end of one of your link, they say that real is not countable. (as an example) I guess that it's just so you can't describe it with sole numbers. Like, an apple isn't 1, and an orange isn't 2. Cells composing them alike.

A countable set is defined a there being a one-one mapping between the set and the natural numbers.

The natural numbers (1, 2, 3,....) are countable (in fact countably infinite) because there's plainly such a mapping from the natural numbers to itself.

For the real numbers (e.g. 12.345987 is an example of a real number), on the other hand, there is no such mapping. In fact, you can prove it with some diagonal jiggery pokery; which I forget.

Hence, the real numbers are not countable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A countable set is defined a there being a one-one mapping between the set and the natural numbers.

The natural numbers (1, 2, 3,....) are countable (in fact countably infinite) because there's plainly such a mapping from the natural numbers to itself.

For the real numbers (e.g. 12.345987 is an example of a real number), on the other hand, there is no such mapping. In fact, you can prove it with some diagonal jiggery pokery; which I forget.

Hence, the real numbers are not countable.

The real numbers are not countable because for any pair of real numbers you can identify another real number that lies between them. Doesn't take any triangles.

 

[Borachio]

Well, I'm thinking of some other proof, then. And your "proof" isn't really rigorous, I think.

edit: here it is! See! See! Proof that the reals aren't countable!

Yeah! Witchcraft! Pure and simple.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I'm thinking of some other proof, then. And your "proof" isn't really rigorous, I think.

edit: here it is! See! See! Proof that the reals aren't countable!

Yeah! Witchcraft! Pure and simple.

My proof is observational.

P1: "Okay, there's the first real number, and there's the second real number, and there's the thir..."
P2: "Wait. There's on there in between the first one and the second one. You missed it."
P1: "Ooops. My bad. Okay, so that's the first one but that's the second one, which makes this the thi..."
P2: "Wait. There's another one there. Between the first one and that new second one."
P1: "Bugger. Okay, so this is the first one, that new one is th..."
P2: "There's another one."
P1: "Too bad these aren't beers."

 

[Borachio]

OK.

Algebraic numbers on the complex plane colored by polynomial degree. (red = 1, green = 2, blue = 3, yellow = 4). Points becomes smaller as the integer polynomial coefficients become larger.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

OK.

Algebraic numbers on the complex plane colored by polynomial degree. (red = 1, green = 2, blue = 3, yellow = 4). Points becomes smaller as the integer polynomial coefficients become larger.

Much prettier!

Mine had humor going for it though!

 

[warpus]

I think that was basically an informal proof by induction. (and/or contradiction)

 

[Harv]

Yeah. But you know... Revelations...all that!

You don't have to delve very far into that before you come across plain gibberish.

Here is another one:

Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near.

Revelation 22:10

This was over 1900 years ago if you accept "before 100AD" as the time the book was written. What do they mean by, "the time is near?"

 

[bhsup]

I think time works differently for God, or maybe he's just never in a huge hurry.

7 And the Lord said: “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. 8 So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.

Four hundred years + before he noticed or did anything about it. You can't rush God.

 

[Angst]

Naokaukodem, trying to prove God is against the nature of good faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard

The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God.[196] Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world".[197][198]

 

[warpus]

Four hundred years + before he noticed or did anything about it. You can't rush God.

I hope he doesn't punish us for what happened to Jesus while I'm still alive.

 

[bhsup]

I hope he doesn't punish us for what happened to Jesus while I'm still alive.

Whew, Earth's getting hot, isn't it?