A Theory of God

Neoperspectives ^ | 1/23/05

[traviskicks]

A metaphysical exploration of Religion, Consciousness, Free Will, Randomness, and, ultimately, the nature of God. Neuroscience, networking (of man, God, and governments), and AI computing are all discussed.

A Theory of God

God has never been defined to the satisfaction of rational man. Indeed, even His very existence has never been universally acknowledged. From Thomas Aquinas's famous '5 proofs of God' (3) and the writings of other great philosophers of the catholic church, to the tautological hierarchical constructions of modern philosophers (1), there has never been a logical argument strong enough to force all the atheists and agnostics of the world to believe.

It has been said that men are only truly passionate about things that are not innately obvious to everyone. (2) The bitter and acrimonious debate over the curvature of the earth that took place in the 15th Century would today be met with laughter and derision because the fact that the earth is a sphere is so obvious to nearly everyone. Although any one religion, or even God Himself, is not universally accepted in the same way, a large majority of people across the world profess a belief in God (over 90% of Americans believe in God (68), (69) ).

However, we must also consider that the vague definitions of God may contribute to His apparent non-universal acknowledgement. If we can't define what something is then how can people communicate their belief in it? It is most interesting is that this lack of definition is present across nearly all the world's religions:

Christianity/Judaism: I am that I am. (Exodus 3, 14) You cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live. (Exodus 33:20)

[tortoise]

Oh, and if you point me at that wretch Alex Green, et. al. I'll know the emperor has no clothes.

Who the hell is Alex Green? I don't need to go far to find authoritative references; not only did I invent/discover quite a bit of relevant mathematics, I have most of the Springer catalog of related math references sitting in my office. I can get as technical as necessary.

Not that it would do any good with you. You've already demonstrated incredulity at elementary and rather important theorems used in the relevant maths.

[tortoise]

How does your mathematics refute the Kalam? (Bearing in mind, Occam's Razor does no more than a glancing blow to it's logic...)

The Kalam assumes (and requires) axioms that are neither required for the mathematics nor arguably even valid. Sure, the Kalam follows if you assume the extra axioms it assumes, but there is no reason that we should accept those axioms as being applicable to reality. And you know what first-order logic says about the use of dubious axioms in reasoning.

Regardless, it would appear that you do not understand what Occam's Razor is or asserts either. My position stands from mathematics without asserting any additional axioms. The Kalam makes axiomatic assertions above and beyond the basic set underlying mathematics.

If you do not even understand the mathematical formalism of Occam's Razor (even loosely), you do not have the rudimentary mathematics skills to be having this discussion.

[tortoise]

show me the math smart boy. i don't think you got it.

I've given rigorous mathematics commentary on this site for years, cross-checked and confirmed by the other mathematicians on this site. My credibility is just fine in the math department. In the real world, I get paid top dollar for my mathematics expertise.

If you want me to waste my time explaining a well-understood body of mathematics because you are too lazy to use google and read math books, you'll need to pay me. Actually you'll have to pay me more than usual, since you want to argue about basic stuff and I usually get paid to work on far more interesting things.

[traviskicks]

It is now time for you to take that leap of faith.
---

I appreciate your caring. I can tell you have very strong faith - like I was saying before, it is always a surprise to me when people profess strong faith in something, but then don't attempt to lead others to it. Those with truly strong faith will attempt to lead everyone they can to what they have found. However, taking a leap of faith does not mean forcing oneself to believe in something. There has to be something on the other side that lets you know your faith is correct. I have found that in different ways, in other aspects of spirtuality, but not in the way you speak. What else can one do? People find faith in different things for different reasons....

[Safrguns]

I certainly agree with what you are saying, and you are correct... taking a leap of faith does not mean forcing yourself to believe in something. It DOES mean however that you find things that demonstrate what you believe IS true. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1 I believe this definition of faith is somewhat different from 'blind faith' which is what is implied from statements like 'taking a leap of faith' The 'leap' is a physical action which requires and follows a belief. It's not an action performed to substantiate a belief... That would be a test. Peter saw Jesus walking on the water, and called out to Him saying Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water. Jesus said "come". And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus... (Matthew 14:28-29) Here, we see faith and testing in action. Peter already beleived in Jesus as Lord. He apparently wanted to test his own faith in his desire to walk on the water as Jesus was doing. We test our faith in this way every day... in an effort to do that which we have not done before. The only difference is that Peter's test of faith was a reliance upon something beyond the rules of physical laws. The leap of faith I guess I was referring to was more like when Jesus called to Peter when they first met. Jesus said follow me, and i'll make you fishers of men. Peter and Andrew took their leap when they left their nets to follow Jesus. Were they technically saved at that point? I doubt it... but they saw something in Jesus which told them that following Him was worth further investigation, and more important than the time they would lose catching more fish. (Mathhew 4:18) What else can one do? I think you are already doing it... but the answer is SEEK! Find the truth... TEST the data... BUILD your faith by finding the evidence which demonstrates the truth of that which cannot be seen. What does God have to say about what you should do? Try taking a look at James 1:5-6: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind."