Is god just a bunch of numbers?

[The Overlord]

Hear me out and read it through before you post or skip off to another thread...I posted this because it just won't fit into another existing thread without derailing it severely. This has been eating at me for some time now.


Before I stab into the heart of this debate, which will tear between scientific and theological definitions of a proposed creator, let's first established some of the facts...namely, those facts that have been proven by science.

Elementary level schoolbooks will tell us that everything around us is composed of particles. The molecules that make things up are just arrangements of atoms, and atoms of course are arrangements of smaller particles. This much we all know.

Right now you're reading this, and the characters of my type and the background page they sit on is a complex arrangement of bits that make up the entire image on your screen. Likewise, the desktop on which your monitor is sitting right now is an arrangement of particles.

The black color of my type exists only because of a certain arrangement of binary bits causes them to be black. The wood, metal, plastic and any other substances making up your desktop are what they are because of particular orderings of molecules and atoms.

These arrangements determine what these given things are. Likewise, the particular nucleotide chains in your DNA make each of you the unique individuals that you are.

What strike me here is the bits of our virtual world simply mirror the quantum scale of the real world; things exist the way they are because they are arrangements of information. Indeed, it could be argued that the universe and everything in it is what it is because of the stored information of the elementary particles that make it up.

Now...the initial catalyst is still in debate, but what we know of evolution and biology shows us that these molecules, really just units of information storage, can find ways to reproduce, and are responsible for us all being here now.

If a self-replicating molecule is possible, why not a self-replicating mathematical equation? Something much like the fractal; when reproduced countless times the information of those equations form the structures we see in fractals. It's been argued whether our tinkering with these 'mathematical telescopes' of state of the art computers have simply created those designs from the math, or if they have indeed discovered them; implying a very freakish underlying numerical structure in the universe.

The so called Holy Grail of physics is the one thing that scientists have yet to achieve; the theories and formulas that neatly tie up the large scale universe with the quantum. We have theories for each realm of course, but they are not yet compatible. We seek the Grand Unified Theory.

It's been said by a prominent scientist, Einstein and/or Hawking, that to find that equation that can sum up everything in the universe would be like knowing the mind of god.

So here we arrive at the crux of my post....what if that master equation that explains the universe IS god?

Let me clarify my intent; a self-replicating mathematical equation that has created the universe. 'It' may or may not be conscious...at least perhaps not conscious and aware as we know it. Perhaps I'm suggesting something similar to a natural Artificial Intelligence, if you will forgive me the glaringly obvious oxymoron implied there.


As I have said repeatedly in other threads; time and again there has been the human need to perceive god or gods as these parental figures in familiar earthly forms that lord over us and watch over us, judge us, protect us, and sometimes punish us.

Problem is, take away faith, and there's nothing compelling to support this. Nothing to suggest the active proximity of a creator spirit or force. I surmise that 'god', this master equation that's responsible for everything, isn't aware of us. Either because it's not conscious in any sense to perceive us, or being responsible for the entirety of the universe, likely BEING the universe, we don't even register as ants on the gargantuan intelligence or consciousness that a self-aware universe might have. It supports science too, because there nothing we see in cosmology that suggests we occupy a privileged or special location in the observable universe.

This creator, this master equation, may be no more directly aware of us than we are of the individual mitochondria that power the cells in our bodies.

Discuss.  :)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Alright, I'm not really into math.  So maybe I'll just come off seeming real simple here.  Looking at an object, noticing how well put together that object is and then assuming that the creator must then be similiar to the object is...missing something.  For instance if you were to take a car, break it down and marvel at the unique construction of the pieces and how everything ties together but then assume that its creator must be similiar to the machine that logic would be flawed.  There is truth in knowing the creation, know the creator but there is an extent in which that cannot cross. 

[Lithos]

Of course he is, and that number is 42.

This has been known for years :)

[Lilias]

Of course he is, and that number is 42.

This has been known for years :)

You haven't accounted for inflation, have you?

[Inkidu]

Alright, I'm not really into math.  So maybe I'll just come off seeming real simple here.  Looking at an object, noticing how well put together that object is and then assuming that the creator must then be similiar to the object is...missing something.  For instance if you were to take a car, break it down and marvel at the unique construction of the pieces and how everything ties together but then assume that its creator must be similar to the machine that logic would be flawed.  There is truth in knowing the creation, know the creator but there is an extent in which that cannot cross. 

I agree with this. I'll also state that regardless of faith, that there is nothing to suggest God doesn't exist. Physically or mathematically.

[Inkidu]

Inkidu is god.

You wouldn't want that. Trust me, it would be smitin' time. :D

[Sherona]

Personally I follow the great bosoms in the sky...I am her high priestess you know...*hands out tracts on Bosomism.*


/end joke

I think this really comes down to the very reason that I am agnostic. Aethiest can not escape the trap of faith. "God made the very science that you are using to refute him. We can not know the nature of God." and Religious people can not escape that there is not a shred of absolute scientific proof that a God exists (can't give absolute proof of faith). *shrugs*

If there is a greater being out there, humans in our finite knowledge can nto possibly comprehend someone who could govern a universe. Personally, I think its more likely that there are beings of higher intellect (face it, the odds against not having intelligent life in the cosmos somewhere are pretty astronomical) and not gods at all. At least, not in the sense of a creator of the universe...might be pretty godlike compared to humans depending on advancements etc and so forth.

[Sherona]

If you are going to be haning the Great Bosom's likeness anywhere, then you must perform ritualistic homage to them....else it is sacreligious....*smiles*

[Avi]

For me, I find that science/mathematics and religion compliment each other nicely.  In science, there is an over-arching idea of a natural order to things, that everything will fall into a predictable pattern if one can understand the mechanisms behind it.  In religion, there is the idea that everything in the universe was set in motion by some greater existence than anything else.  I find that science and math just reinforce this idea.  When I am able to look at all the amazing connections, patterns, and symmetries of this existence, I can't help but think that there must have been something out there that put it all together.  The chance of it being all just a random, perfect coincidence is miniscule, and therefore, the SMART money is on the existence of a higher being.

I conclude with a quote from perhaps THE greatest scientist of the 20th century, one Albert Einstein.  "The truly good scientist will find God waiting behind every door which he opens."

[Trieste]

It's been said by a prominent scientist, Einstein and/or Hawking, that to find that equation that can sum up everything in the universe would be like knowing the mind of god.

I believe this was meant not as a direct parallel or religious statement so much as it was meant to relate how difficult finding such a thing would be.

Personally I follow the great bosoms in the sky...I am her high priestess you know...*hands out tracts on Bosomism.*

*happily stretches out on Sherona's shrine* :P

[The Overlord]

I believe this was meant not as a direct parallel or religious statement so much as it was meant to relate how difficult finding such a thing would be.

Nobody's denying the difficulty of the task Trieste, but you must understand the brightest minds in physics and cosmology really do see this master equation as an ultimately attainable goal. It sounds a little metaphorical, but you're talking about finally explaining the universe for what it is...I'd agree that's fairly close to knowing the mind of the creator.

[Methos]

Understanding the nature of god or the universe are two truly monumental tasks. The problem with any creation theory is that it begins with something creating something else, leading to the question 'how did it get there?". Matter had to come from somewhere, and a creator begs the question who created the creator? Although both questions seems to wind up being answered with "it was just there".

Whether god is simply some sort of creative George Lucaesque "force" in the universe or resembles a giant bearded Jewish man in the sky is a live issue though.

[Moondazed]

My concept of a higher being isn't the problem, it's the problem I have with the Bible as the word of God (tm).  That's where my beliefs break with those of most followers of God.

[Vekseid]

The fundamentals of the Universe are actually thought to be relatively simple.  Even the basics of Relativity is really quite simple, though the general theory is obviously more complex than the special theory and people trying to bend it over sideways looking for a way to squeeze FTL out of it certainly don't have an easy time (hello Alcubierre).

It's easy to take apart a car and derive its purpose, because the interface is a rather fundamental part of the vehicle. You would be able to determine that humans were probably four-limbed, bipedal creatures with eyes near the top of their bodies and a sense of hearing, and certain response times and physical limitations couls also be determined - rear-view mirrors are telling.

The purpose of the Universe is a bit more difficult to determine, excepting for the fact that it exists and therefore may need neither purpose nor god. It's rather anthropocentric to assume that a sufficient entity would use such a creation for the same purposes that we would, but then, it's difficult to come up with a better explanation.

[Inkidu]

Except nothing in the universe exists without a reason. So therefore anything that exists has a reason. Thus if the universe didn't have a reason then it wouldn't exist. Which it clearly does. :D

Edit: Hit alt-s by mistake.

So intelligent design has to be a part of it. You can't leave broiling chaos alone and expect it to function in such a way that every single nth of a whatever fits together in a single or series of purposes. Sure nature might, but that doesn't quite explain how we humans can defy nature, at least to a limited degree. We defy Darwin.

[Vekseid]

Except nothing in the universe exists without a reason. So therefore anything that exists has a reason. Thus if the universe didn't have a reason then it wouldn't exist. Which it clearly does. :D

Starting with a fallacy is no way to begin a debate, Inkidu.

To put it simply, making the statement that because everything within the Universe has a cause (the Big Bang), it is a fallacy to then state that, with no other external knowledge (which we do possess but is irrelevant to this particular point), that the known cause of the Universe must itself have a cause.

Edit: Hit alt-s by mistake.

So intelligent design has to be a part of it. You can't leave broiling chaos alone and expect it to function in such a way that every single nth of a whatever fits together in a single or series of purposes. Sure nature might, but that doesn't quite explain how we humans can defy nature, at least to a limited degree. We defy Darwin.

Intelligent design is as relevant to the Universe as astrology and alchemy are. Amusing diversions at best, but utterly useless at explaining anything beyond an examination of the cultures and peoples which believe them.

Edit: And there's a second fallacy in your second paragraph, making the assumption that there can be no cyclical or infinitely regressive causes.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yet in all that discussion of our physical characteristics, there was no mention of who we are as a people.  Assuming the one breaking apart the vehicle thought as we did of the item's purpose then they may determine our physical abilities.  Of course if they did not exist as we do and did not see things as we do, their theories may be wild and chaotic as well.  Then there is the fact of how did the car come to be and how was the car created.  Perhaps the car fell from the sky or simply appeared, random chance built the car or perhaps some alien race long since passed had built the car.

Also, from my understand of what Intelligent Design has evolved into to say it has no bearing is to be presume there is no God either.  That is a being that is not disproven and not proven.  From the information we currently have, that I am at least familiar with us having, God has as much a shot at being the catalyst as anyone. 

[Lithos]

Existence or non existence of god is insignificant in working at figuring how the world works anyway. When we know enough (if we ever do) to know what caused big bang, and when we know exactly how the world works, perhaps then we will be able to know wether there was intelligent "starter" or creator. Before that, existence of such a creator is totally meaningless issue and debate about it just waste of time.

[Sherona]

except, Lithos, some of us enjoy debating so its not a waste of time. Also, for some, that Creator is their very basis of religion, and religion gives hope, peace, and comfort to many who practice it so they have an emotional vestment in 'winning' the debate of Intelligent Design.

[Lithos]

except, Lithos, some of us enjoy debating so its not a waste of time. Also, for some, that Creator is their very basis of religion, and religion gives hope, peace, and comfort to many who practice it so they have an emotional vestment in 'winning' the debate of Intelligent Design.

Yes, it is not waste of time in entertainment sense, building sand castle or snow man can be fun too :P

Religion is only one of many things that gives us hope, peace and comfort. Its usefulness at that should be noted but does not make it special over any other world or self view. Some people seek peace and comfort from some god, others seek to improve themselves to be able to reach same things from within, and some seek it from hobbies.

Discussion and even debate about religion can be fun but it usually deteriorates to something ugly quite fast, much in the same way as political debate. *Grins* and yet here I am browsing the only part of E that I actually dislike... was bored so had to reply to some thread.. usually I do not dwell in politics / religion forum though :)

Bottom line in my opinion is that people are seeing debate about these things as a lot more important thing than it really is. I think that once people understand that religious debate exists for entertainment and is not related to reality, quality of it will raise a lot.

As far as examples of quality of much conversation, this TOP 100 quote list from (mostly christian) forums shows what I mean the best I suppose:

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx?archive=1 

[Sherona]

*smiles* But then Lithos, again, your belittling people's belief in a religion. To them it IS important, and to some its the ONLY thing that is important.

I agree wtih you that religious debate can be fun, growing up in an ultra-ultra- religious household (I lived pretty much in an Amish community even though we were christians as a child, german speaking and all) and taking theology courses, I find them extremely facinating. But like you said, it often comes down to name calling and worse. I think its because teh different religions are convince tehy have the right one, that their God is the only god and the true god, and most religious creeds (not all though) tell them to go out and witness, preach the message.

Then you have the Aethiest that do not like being told theirs a god, who feel judged by all the religious people, and feel they have to defend their thoughts and actions. (Though honestly, why? Your not going to hell, so no need to worry about it if someone else thinks you are :P) So you have religious groups preaching, you have atheists preaching (yes preaching.), and it boils down to I'm right, nu huh I am right!..

But I thikn if people avoid using derogative words like Idiotic, Moronic, or Sinner, Evil doers, things can stay fairly civil. Its rare, but I have had plenty of religious debates here on E and elsewhere that was fun, civil, for both sides. I have argued the side of teh atheist, and I have argued the side of the religious...just cause I always seem to want to make sure that both sides are heard :P. Guess thats why its good to be agnostic..a "fence sitter" as my late father referred to agnostics as :P

[Moondazed]

This might be off topic, but has anyone read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris?  He makes some valid points about the impact of religion.

[Inkidu]

Starting with a fallacy is no way to begin a debate, Inkidu.

To put it simply, making the statement that because everything within the Universe has a cause (the Big Bang), it is a fallacy to then state that, with no other external knowledge (which we do possess but is irrelevant to this particular point), that the known cause of the Universe must itself have a cause.

Intelligent design is as relevant to the Universe as astrology and alchemy are. Amusing diversions at best, but utterly useless at explaining anything beyond an examination of the cultures and peoples which believe them.

Edit: And there's a second fallacy in your second paragraph, making the assumption that there can be no cyclical or infinitely regressive causes.

Unless intelligent design is the cause of the universe and then it becomes highly relevant. One would think. I never said the universe couldn't not or doesn't work in cycles or infinitely regress. You're putting words in my mouth. I suggest that intelligent design, tied to culture of people or not, is the cause of the universe. Nothing just happens. If there wasn't some reason for the creation of the universe then it would have been created. Thus, a creator of some kind.

[Cherri Tart]

God is number One.  at least that's my opinion.  I think that once you put something into the faith catagory, there stops being a right or wrong answer.  Everyone's answer is different and right in it's own way.  just my two cents. :)

[Phaia]

If you believe in a god and he does not exsist you lose nothing; if you do not believe in a god and he does exist you lose everything!!

I choose to believe there is a god!

Doesnt mean he is not an inventor or builder..or have a sense of humor...after all explain a duck billed Platypus...there has to be a weird sense of humor behind that!!!


Phaia

[Vekseid]

Unless intelligent design is the cause of the universe and then it becomes highly relevant. One would think. I never said the universe couldn't not or doesn't work in cycles or infinitely regress. You're putting words in my mouth.

Straight from your mouth:

Except nothing in the universe exists without a reason. So therefore anything that exists has a reason. Thus if the universe didn't have a reason then it wouldn't exist. Which it clearly does. :D

So intelligent design has to be a part of it.

You made both a false assumption and a false conclusion.

I suggest that intelligent design, tied to culture of people or not, is the cause of the universe. Nothing just happens. If there wasn't some reason for the creation of the universe then it would have been created. Thus, a creator of some kind.

And now you're just repeating the fallacy again.

Maybe it would help if I put it a different way. What made the creator, then?

[Kurzyk]

Problem with seeking a catalyst or beginning is what if our concept of time is flawed? In other words what if there was no 'beginning or end' as we conceive it? How would we measure an initial causality?

[Oniya]

If you believe in a god and he does not exsist you lose nothing; if you do not believe in a god and he does exist you lose everything!!

I choose to believe there is a god!

Pascal's Wager, I believe.  The question is, what if the god that exists isn't the one that you believe in?  (Personally, I believe all religions are valid, and you end up where you truly believe you'll end up when you die.)

Doesnt mean he is not an inventor or builder..or have a sense of humor...after all explain a duck billed Platypus...there has to be a weird sense of humor behind that!!!


Phaia

We used to joke that the platypus was one of those crayon drawings that His Child brought home one day.  'Look, Daddy!  Look what I made!'

(God better have a sense of humor, or I am so hosed.)

With regards to the original post, I've done a lot of independent study of fractals and chaos theory.  Used to play with the old Life game until my eyes dried out from staring at the screen.  Contemplating the idea that God could be a (or a set of) divine equation(s) - as unpredictable as Lorenz's - gives me distinctly non-PG13 feelings.

[Vekseid]

If you believe in a god and he does not exsist you lose nothing; if you do not believe in a god and he does exist you lose everything!!

I choose to believe there is a god!

I missed this one...

If you believe in the God of the Bible, and the Gnostics are correct, you are actually worse off than you would be if you did not believe in him, as faith in the Demiurge keeps you trapped in this world, whereas true knowledge will set you free. The Demiurge wishes for you to believe and have faith in him because he fears the power that humans will attain with sufficient knowledge.

This is actually pretty vivid in the Bible

Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

[Sherona]

Just to be a stickler...didn't the God in the old testament punish mankind for becoming too intelligent? Wasn't that where the bible claimed the different languages came from? God got impatient with human's knowledge and trying to build a tower to god, so he struck them all with different languages so that humans would be too diverse to try and do so again?


Tower of Babel....

Seems to me if that god is the true god then many of us are in deep shit for trying to become more knowledgeable?

Edit: Disclaimer: It has been admittedly more then a decade since I have read the Old Testament so yeah, just dredging fragments of memories there..and don't feel like cracking out the bible. :P

[Oniya]

Just to be a stickler...didn't the God in the old testament punish mankind for becoming too intelligent? Wasn't that where the bible claimed the different languages came from? God got impatient with human's knowledge and trying to build a tower to god, so he struck them all with different languages so that humans would be too diverse to try and do so again?

That's where Vekseid's quote comes from.  There's also the fact that the Forbidden Fruit gave humans the knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Sherona]

That's where Vekseid's quote comes from.  There's also the fact that the Forbidden Fruit gave humans the knowledge of Good and Evil.

Yes Vekseid's quote gave me the idea. It actually states several times in the bible that trying to aquire knowledge is evil or a sin.

It was, supposedly, the fact that Adam and Eve became 'as gods' and knowing 'right from wrong' that they were no longer innocent and thus...apparently...had to earn their way back into god's good graces.

*shrugs*

The way I see it, if God created me...then he created me to be inquisitive, to be questioning, and unable to blindly believe in anything..and then made it to where he could not be proven to exist...thus he should not punish me for making me the way I am :P

[The Overlord]

Yes Vekseid's quote gave me the idea. It actually states several times in the bible that trying to aquire knowledge is evil or a sin.

If you believe in a god and he does not exsist you lose nothing; if you do not believe in a god and he does exist you lose everything!!

I choose to believe there is a god!

All part of a centuries-old propaganda system. Keep the masses at a certain level of education, feeding them only filtered or fabricated information.

The even bigger risk to authority; a population base that not only is educated but, and this is the important part, capable of critical debate. Stating that the acquisition of knowledge is evil or a sin can have no other purpose. If they're not thinking critically they're not likely to question what you're telling them. It is my sincere wish that people could see the gunboat diplomacy for what it is.


If it turns out there is a biblical hell and it's all as described, then fine, god can send me to hell for asking questions.

Do that, and I'll gladly do the work of his opposite number. ...oh, whoops, maybe sending OL to hell isn't a good plan suddenly.  ;)

[Moondazed]

It does seem rather illogical that a higher being would give us the ability to think critically, and then make it a sin to do so regarding certain issues, but that's probably off topic, since it doesn't really address whether there's a Higher Being or not, but more which structured religion one follows if they believe there is :)

[Oniya]

If it turns out there is a biblical hell and it's all as described, then fine, god can send me to hell for asking questions.

Do that, and I'll gladly do the work of his opposite number. ...oh, whoops, maybe sending OL to hell isn't a good plan suddenly.  ;)

Are you saying Heaven doesn't want you and Hell's afraid you'll take over?  ;D

[The Overlord]

It does seem rather illogical that a higher being would give us the ability to think critically, and then make it a sin to do so regarding certain issues, but that's probably off topic, since it doesn't really address whether there's a Higher Being or not, but more which structured religion one follows if they believe there is :)

Stuff like that will get the thinkers asking for who's benefit that came up, for god or your fellow man. It doesn't take a PHD in anything...

Are you saying Heaven doesn't want you and Hell's afraid you'll take over?  ;D

Well if I can't run the place, I'll settle for leading at least one major hellspawn army...while listening to the Metallica cover of the evil army march in Wizard of Oz.  :)

[Maeven]

Have you seen the movie Pi? If you're in a "math" mood, you might throw it on your netflix queue.  It's been a couple-- ok, almost 10-- years since I've seen it but I remember it being pretty fascinating.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_the_movie

[Mathim]

Personally I follow the great bosoms in the sky...I am her high priestess you know...*hands out tracts on Bosomism.*


/end joke

I think this really comes down to the very reason that I am agnostic. Aethiest can not escape the trap of faith. "God made the very science that you are using to refute him. We can not know the nature of God." and Religious people can not escape that there is not a shred of absolute scientific proof that a God exists (can't give absolute proof of faith). *shrugs*

If there is a greater being out there, humans in our finite knowledge can nto possibly comprehend someone who could govern a universe. Personally, I think its more likely that there are beings of higher intellect (face it, the odds against not having intelligent life in the cosmos somewhere are pretty astronomical) and not gods at all. At least, not in the sense of a creator of the universe...might be pretty godlike compared to humans depending on advancements etc and so forth.

That statement reminds me of the gods in the anime Saiyuki. They're all pitifully human in nature, they just possess powers we can't match. That would account for why the world is still such a fucked-up place in spite of gods existing; if I did believe in any higher power at all, that polythestic parliament, sort of like the Greek gods or other sort similiar to that, would be the one I believed in because they mirror us and it would be expected that they'd never be able to stop bad things from happening and indeed relish in it when bad things did happen.

[Oniya]

There's always Clarke's Law to consider, too:  Any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic. (I would imagine it could apply to divine powers - maybe Lazarus only needed CPR.)

[Mathim]

Plus if you think about it, we've come along a LONG way in terms of technology, in a very short period of time. Considering how dumb we can all be, that's pretty impressive. Suspiciously impressive. It almost makes me want to believe we had help from some kind of outside source.

[Sherona]

If we are going on the premise that the bible stories are based atleast on a bit of fact, the Lazerus being dead for three days would probably not have been dead at all. there was incidents where the physicians, ahving no intricate instruments to determine life beyond touch and hearing, could ahve just assumed he was dead..and he ended up waking back up.

[HairyHeretic]

if I did believe in any higher power at all, that polythestic parliament, sort of like the Greek gods or other sort similiar to that, would be the one I believed in because they mirror us and it would be expected that they'd never be able to stop bad things from happening and indeed relish in it when bad things did happen.

I'm curious, why do you think the Gods would relish having bad things happen to people?

[The Overlord]

If we are going on the premise that the bible stories are based atleast on a bit of fact, the Lazerus being dead for three days would probably not have been dead at all. there was incidents where the physicians, ahving no intricate instruments to determine life beyond touch and hearing, could ahve just assumed he was dead..and he ended up waking back up.

If you go into it, there's compelling evidence that a lot of key biblical events are describing actual historical occurrences. However, it seems they might have been given supernatural attributes to sync it up with people's faith at the time. I watched a special on, for example, a prehistoric flooding which I believe was in and around the Black Sea region that may have been responsible for the story of the great flood. The key here is the known world at the time, as the classic civilizations on the Eurasian and African continents had limited geography at the time.

Lazarus was likely medically dead for the times, but I'm sure today the guy wouldn't have made the headlines. We must be mindful that centuries past the time of Christ we still tied a string to people's fingers with a bell to alert someone because maybe even the creator doesn't know how many people were buried alive.

The strongest case I've seen is when I researched for a class project the possible science behind the ten plagues of Egypt. There is actual geologic evidence that at least one eruption on the Greek isle of Santorini sent a volcanic fallout to the southeast that blanketed Egypt during its classical pharaonic dynasties.

Fire and hail and days of darkness should of course be obvious when we're talking about a pyroclastic or ash fallout, but the rest are just as interesting. The event could have triggered an algae bloom that turned the Nile red, and disrupted the local ecosystem, triggering things like the animal plagues, but of course locust plagues are still pretty common in parts of the world to this day. It’s easy to figure out the boils and pestilence after you're dealing with the death and destruction in the aftermath.

When I did the research, the one weak link in the chain appeared to be the final plague, the death of the firstborn...of course what sort of natural disaster might have been so selective? Well, turns out that's got a strong chance of veracity as well. The fallout would have decimated Nile crops, and triggered a mold growth in food stores like grains, that was potentially fatal if ingested.

Being as families would have indeed given priority to the firstborn male among multiple children, as has been the case in a number of cultures, the kid would have been the first to go from contaminated food, a type of black mold IIRC. Once I did the research I went from intrigued by the topic to pretty much convinced that the OT was describing an actual event. The Jews just gave it a supernatural spin to describe it as god's punishment on Egypt for their captivity. Did this event actually change history by changing the pharaoh’s mind? Hard to say, but in the ensuing chaos one wonders if Egypt would have had the capacity to contain the Jews when they we're most likely doing nothing but licking their wounds.

[Sherona]

I watched the special on the flood and the plagues of egypt as well. This is why I suggested the lazarus explanation that he really wasn't 'dead' just they believed him to be.

I fully believe that there were people in the bible that correspond wtih the bible stories..but I think the stories are just attempts at explaining things they could ot explain in their time period.

[The Overlord]

I watched the special on the flood and the plagues of egypt as well. This is why I suggested the lazarus explanation that he really wasn't 'dead' just they believed him to be.

I fully believe that there were people in the bible that correspond wtih the bible stories..but I think the stories are just attempts at explaining things they could ot explain in their time period.

There's quite a bit to suggest that, including to back up some natural reasons behind a lot of what is attributed to Christ beyond the Lazarus incident.

All I've seen and heard to date suggests an alternative to Christ being the Son of God. I am compelled to believe he was an actual and pivotal historical figure, also given divine attributes...other miracles he allegedly preformed (assuming we can trust the gospels that far) may have natural causes.

We must remember that Christianity sprung up at this time as a cult...it wouldn't be the only time that a cult leader has given himself divine qualities or was described as such by his followers, but it does get interesting how this fledgling cult managed to become the faith of realm later in the Holy Roman Empire....seems to me the line is very fine between religions and cults; perhaps only cultural significance makes the difference, but that's fuel for a whole other thread.


This is going off on a limb somewhat, but if you want to describe Christ as anything more than human, the whole notion of ancient astronaut theory gets interesting. Assuming for the time that we have been visited by extraterrestrials since antiquity...if you wanted to come down and influence these primitive apes in a positive way, you'd want to not appear too alien and stoke their fear. Appearing as one of them would do...and of course having crossed interstellar space you'd have technology at your fingertips that would be seen in many eras of history as magical or miraculous.

Hell, go through a time machine and take a laptop with extra batteries to the Middle Ages. Assuming you're not branded a witch you might just have divine powers.  :-\

[Mathim]

I'm curious, why do you think the Gods would relish having bad things happen to people?

You must never have studied mythology, dude. The gods were horribly vengeful. They sat by and watched as the Greeks and Trojans slaughtered each other, only stepping in when the humans pissed them off. Humans were their playthings; the whole Odyssey happened just because Poseidon got pissed off at Odysseus, and enjoyed watching him suffer. So of course I think they'd relish watching bad things happen to humans. Why should they care, why should they NOT want to? It's got to be pretty boring up their on Olympus. Didn't most of the gods take human sex partners to cheat on their spouses with, too? And the only ones paying for those consequences? Humans. Deservedly so, in the eyes of those gods. There's tons more examples and reasons, but I'm just saying, when the gods cause or allow something bad to happen to the humans, they knew full well what they were doing, even if they knew the humans didn't deserve it.

[HairyHeretic]

You must never have studied mythology, dude.

Studied .. not to a great extent, but I have read it recreationally for long enough. Just look who I have in my avatar :)

The gods were horribly vengeful. They sat by and watched as the Greeks and Trojans slaughtered each other, only stepping in when the humans pissed them off. Humans were their playthings; the whole Odyssey happened just because Poseidon got pissed off at Odysseus, and enjoyed watching him suffer. So of course I think they'd relish watching bad things happen to humans. Why should they care, why should they NOT want to? It's got to be pretty boring up their on Olympus. Didn't most of the gods take human sex partners to cheat on their spouses with, too? And the only ones paying for those consequences? Humans. Deservedly so, in the eyes of those gods. There's tons more examples and reasons, but I'm just saying, when the gods cause or allow something bad to happen to the humans, they knew full well what they were doing, even if they knew the humans didn't deserve it.

Thats one particular group of Gods. You seem to have plenty of examples of them behaving badly, but what about stories of them behaving well, and helping humanity?

For my own Gods, take Ragnarok. The end of the world comes, and the Gods will fight and die to defend humanity from the forces of chaos. Seems that's a fairly nice thing to be doing.

[Oniya]

Studied .. not to a great extent, but I have read it recreationally for long enough. Just look who I have in my avatar :)

Thats one particular group of Gods. You seem to have plenty of examples of them behaving badly, but what about stories of them behaving well, and helping humanity?

For my own Gods, take Ragnarok. The end of the world comes, and the Gods will fight and die to defend humanity from the forces of chaos. Seems that's a fairly nice thing to be doing.

Most of the polytheistic religions have myths that show the immortals as both noble and knavish.  The same god that will grant a boon for a devout worshiper will curse someone who shows disrespect of the slightest degree.  Instead of one Being that is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, the polytheistic gods are what my Myths and Legends teacher called 'Human, but more so.'

As for 'sitting by and watching' during the Trojan War, you won't find a war in history where some of the losers didn't ask why their god had sat by and watched it happen. Or nutjobs like Phelps who say that God lets us lose people because we don't hate the same people he does.

[Inkidu]

All numbers are abstractions humans make to quantify the infinite. God is the infinite so in an abstract way God is a bunch of numbers, however that means you and I, and everything is just an abstraction. Cooooool.

[Oniya]

Dammit, now I want to go read Principia Mathematica.  Closest thing to 'Fiat lux' that mathematics has.

[Apple of Eris]

If you believe in a god and he does not exsist you lose nothing; if you do not believe in a god and he does exist you lose everything!!

I choose to believe there is a god!

I choose to believe that God, being his Omniscient, Omnipotent, and wonderfully wrathful fellow would have less respect for someone who believed in him simply because they were hedgding their bets. I'm pretty sure that any god who as per the god of christianity is supposedly omniscient could sniff out such a scheme and would probably treat the perpetrator as kindly or quite likely less kindly than someone who denies the existance of god based on factual data.

*****************

God as a word is an abstraction. Hell, the idea of God is an abstraction.

Numbers on the otherhand, are actually useful and can be used for practical applications and applied sciences. They are not simply 'theoretical' as calling them abstractions suggests.

On the other hand I have yet to see how the abstraction 'God' can be used in any sort of applied science.

[Oniya]

On the other hand I have yet to see how the abstraction 'God' can be used in any sort of applied science.

*link for the cartoon only*

http://mises.org/story/1966 

One of my personal favorites ;)

[Vekseid]

All numbers are abstractions humans make to quantify the infinite.

No. There is such a thing as discrete quanta. This is false on its face.

God is the infinite so in an abstract way God is a bunch of numbers, however that means you and I, and everything is just an abstraction. Cooooool.

Infinity is not a number (ignoring some fun with set theory - which is smallest, infinity minus one, infinity, or infinity plus one?), it is a concept. I've already explained this in the previous discussion with you.

*link for the cartoon only*

http://mises.org/story/1966 

One of my personal favorites ;)

You laugh, but it's rather painful how often in high-level math that sometimes the easiest way to get to the solution is knowing the answer beforehand.

[Oniya]

You laugh, but it's rather painful how often in high-level math that sometimes the easiest way to get to the solution is knowing the answer beforehand.

Actually, I laugh becauseI know how often that happens.

[Inkidu]

No. There is such a thing as discrete quanta. This is false on its face.

Infinity is not a number (ignoring some fun with set theory - which is smallest, infinity minus one, infinity, or infinity plus one?), it is a concept. I've already explained this in the previous discussion with you.

You laugh, but it's rather painful how often in high-level math that sometimes the easiest way to get to the solution is knowing the answer beforehand.

It still doesn't matter numbers are all abstract principles. God is considered an abstract principle. It doesn't matter how high up your math is it's still an abstract principle.

[Moondazed]

Are you saying that if I hold up one finger, then add another, it doesn't add up to two? :)  I'm not grasping where numbers are abstract.  Perhaps they become so in the higher maths, but overall?  Nope.

[Inkidu]

Are you saying that if I hold up one finger, then add another, it doesn't add up to two? :)  I'm not grasping where numbers are abstract.  Perhaps they become so in the higher maths, but overall?  Nope.

Of course numbers are abstract concepts. If I had said two plus four equals five, and everyone took it as truth. Two plus four would equal five. Any mathematician learns that numbers are abstract. Why do you think you can come up with imaginary numbers to solve problems with no real solution.

[Sherona]

Your touching on Relativism there Inkidu, not the abstract.

If I taught my kids that the dog out back was a giraffe, then they would end up beliving that Giraffes were small furry animalls that bark. Would they be correct? No, but they would be telling the truth when they answered "Thats not a dog, thats a giraffe".

[Oniya]

Along those lines, I have a friend who literally cannot see purple.  He has red/green color-blindness, and this has something to do with it.  The lighter shades are mostly 'pink', and the darker shades are mostly 'blue'.  The more red-heavy dark shades might possibly be declared 'red', and the more blue-heavy light shades might be 'blue' - I never did an empirical study.

I mentioned the Principia Mathematica earlier - and it literally goes through several hundred pages proving the existence of something called a 'one'.  I think it's a few hundred more proving the existence of 'addition', and then further on you get to 'two'.

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable
statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion,
it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one." -- John Barrow

[Inkidu]

Oops okay, my fault. ^w^;

[Vekseid]

Of course numbers are abstract concepts. If I had said two plus four equals five, and everyone took it as truth. Two plus four would equal five. Any mathematician learns that numbers are abstract. Why do you think you can come up with imaginary numbers to solve problems with no real solution.

-calling- them imaginary numbers is an abstraction. Imaginary numbers themselves are no less real than the precise description of two-phase power running to your house that they provide.

[Inkidu]

-calling- them imaginary numbers is an abstraction. Imaginary numbers themselves are no less real than the precise description of two-phase power running to your house that they provide.

You can't call something imaginary real. It's just not possible. You can call something unknown real, but not something imaginary real. That's sort of what imaginary means.

[Oniya]

The use of the word 'imaginary' to label the square roots of negative numbers was unfortunate, and possibly no more appropriate than calling a quark 'up', 'down', or 'strange'.  If only my math books weren't buried in the three-foot-deep pile of books that used to be my living room...

[Inkidu]

I thought the negative square root was impossible to work out in reality that's why they made up i to deal with it on paper.

[Oniya]

In the same way, a negative number could be said not to exist.  You can't have '-5 pieces of fruit', after all.  The term was originally a derogatory one, invented by Descartes as I recall.

Mathematically, they are needed to make the number set complete under exponentiation (roots being the same as raising a number to a fractional power.)  However, imaginary and complex numbers actually do have very real-world applications, though, just as -5 dollars could have an application in ones bank records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number#Applications_of_imaginary_numbers

(Apologies - I am a math geek. ^^; )

[Inkidu]

Thus all numbers are abstract concepts. :D

[Vekseid]

You can't call something imaginary real. It's just not possible. You can call something unknown real, but not something imaginary real. That's sort of what imaginary means.

...did you just utterly miss the point?

"Imaginary number" is just a term for a mathematical construct. They exist, are a part of mathematical lexicon, and can represent real-world phenomenon. Likewise, 'real numbers' do not necessarily represent real-world phenomenon, even though they can.

Imaginary numbers are used to represent many things in the real world, including electrical power, time, and so on. Claiming otherwise is ignorance at best and lying at worst.

Thus all numbers are abstract concepts. :D

Do us a favor and start backing up your statements without semantic dodging, please.

[Inkidu]

Very well you can't touch two, you can't smell, or taste two, you can't really see two as an idea. You see the quantity of two (Two apples, two, oranges, but never two.), or the symbol used to represent two, so two and all numbers are abstract.

However, in interest of getting this back on topic. Does the some of all things in the universe equal God? No. That is like saying all the words in a book add up to its author. No they add up to the authors work but not him as a being. I can write a book with its own universe laws, boundaries. I am obligated to work within that universe's laws, and boundaries but it is not me.
So adding up every quark in the universe isn't going to let you see God. It will let you see the whole of His creation but you're not going to see Him. You might see the house in which he dwells. Just like a creator likes to use the houses they build to live in, but you're not guaranteed to se the creator himself. 

[Valerian]

I think I might see the problem.  Using the word 'three' to refer to the numerical concept is, of course, completely arbitrary and made up.  The concept of three stays the same no matter whether it's being described with the word three or drei or trois or whatever.  So the word could be called abstract, but not the idea which it describes.  Is that the disgreement here?

[Inkidu]

I think I might see the problem.  Using the word 'three' to refer to the numerical concept is, of course, completely arbitrary and made up.  The concept of three stays the same no matter whether it's being described with the word three or drei or trois or whatever.  So the word could be called abstract, but not the idea which it describes.  Is that the disgreement here?

I think I may have made an error in the last post.
Ideas are always abstract. They can be applied to concrete things, but you can't call the idea concrete. Not really.

Numbers are abstract because you cannot feel, smell, taste, touch or really see them. You see what the represent. You don't see hear smell or taste the wind, but you can feel it. That's why wind is concrete the concept of numbers is like, pride or love, friendship. You really don't feel it in a concrete way. 

[PhantomPistoleer]

Hi!

Thread generator, when you began the discussion, you mentioned something very interesting.  Particles.

Now, I do not think that God is mathematical principle, and if I did accept that to be the case, I would say that God = A = X, with means that at any variable, God is any variable.

I come to this conclusion simply by an example, but you must first accept one condition as true:  God, as we know him, is true.

If and only if God does exist (something I nor the argument I am about to propose do not dispute), then he must be everything.

Premise One:  If God exists, he must be all powerful, omnipresent and all good, or at the very least, all powerful and omnipresent.
Premise Two:  If God is omnipresent, that means he must be in a given room (i.e., my room).
Premise Three:  If you divide that room in half, God would still be in that room (and in the other half, too!).
Premise Four:  That room could be divided infinitely, and God would still be in that room.
Premise Five:  We could go into the subatomic level and still have a room, in which God would be present.
Conclusion:  If God is in a room the size of an atom, or a quark, or whatever a quark is divisible by, then it MUST be the case that God IS the atom, or a quark, or whatever a quark is divisible by.

Conclusion 2:  God is everything.
Mathematical principle that represents that:  A = X.

[Inkidu]

Hi!

Thread generator, when you began the discussion, you mentioned something very interesting.  Particles.

Now, I do not think that God is mathematical principle, and if I did accept that to be the case, I would say that God = A = X, with means that at any variable, God is any variable.

I come to this conclusion simply by an example, but you must first accept one condition as true:  God, as we know him, is true.

If and only if God does exist (something I nor the argument I am about to propose do not dispute), then he must be everything.

Premise One:  If God exists, he must be all powerful, omnipresent and all good, or at the very least, all powerful and omnipresent.
Premise Two:  If God is omnipresent, that means he must be in a given room (i.e., my room).
Premise Three:  If you divide that room in half, God would still be in that room (and in the other half, too!).
Premise Four:  That room could be divided infinitely, and God would still be in that room.
Premise Five:  We could go into the subatomic level and still have a room, in which God would be present.
Conclusion:  If God is in a room the size of an atom, or a quark, or whatever a quark is divisible by, then it MUST be the case that God IS the atom, or a quark, or whatever a quark is divisible by.

Conclusion 2:  God is everything.
Mathematical principle that represents that:  A = X.

Christians have known that for centuries. Of course that is assuming X>0

[PhantomPistoleer]

If Christians knew that, then they wouldn't believe what they believe.

If God is everything, then they would understand that you can't venerate him in such a limited way.

If it is the case that they know that and do not act upon it, then it is treasonous to their beliefs.

If it is the case that they know that and believe that they are acting upon it, then it is stupidity on their behalf.

[Inkidu]

That God is everywhere? All you did was prove it. I guess.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Not everywhere.

Every thing.

[Inkidu]

Well then no. He's not. He's everywhere but not everything.

[Apple of Eris]

How can God be everywhere but not be everything?

If god is in the electrons that get stimulated to show a picture on my laptop, god IS that picture on my laptop.

You can't have it both ways.

[Cecily]

Not everywhere.

Every thing.

Most/All Christians believe that God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. I don't know what you're getting at saying God is 'everything'. Are you implying that God is everything, such as he is a chair, a couch, a computer, etc? o_O

If Christians knew that, then they wouldn't believe what they believe.

If God is everything, then they would understand that you can't venerate him in such a limited way.

If it is the case that they know that and do not act upon it, then it is treasonous to their beliefs.

If it is the case that they know that and believe that they are acting upon it, then it is stupidity on their behalf.

I think most christians believe that God is everywhere, hence the belief of that he is omnipresent and omniscient.  Not that he is everything. Even if they do believe God is everything, it doesn't make them stupid just because they believe that.

What limited way are you referring to? Praying? I don't think that Christians venerate God in a limited way, they pray, go to church, all of that stuff doesn't seem inadequate, if that is what you mean. :p

[Vekseid]

I think I might see the problem.  Using the word 'three' to refer to the numerical concept is, of course, completely arbitrary and made up.  The concept of three stays the same no matter whether it's being described with the word three or drei or trois or whatever.  So the word could be called abstract, but not the idea which it describes.  Is that the disgreement here?

Right. Every letter in this message is encoded as a number. We give each of those numbers names, but the underlying mathematics is the same, originating differences in voltage and magnetic strength that are returned as discrete values.

Very well you can't touch two, you can't smell, or taste two, you can't really see two as an idea. You see the quantity of two (Two apples, two, oranges, but never two.), or the symbol used to represent two, so two and all numbers are abstract.

"Two" is an abstraction. As is 10, 2, whatever. The number it represents is not an abstraction, however. An abstraction is a representation, and that would imply that the state of having two apples could just as well be replaced with the state of having one apple, no matter what you called those numbers.

The sort of argument you're taking here is representative of why proving that 1 + 1 = 2 actually takes a few pages to work out in analysis, but the end result is the same - the numbers themselves represent a construct and are not, themselves, abstractions.

However, in interest of getting this back on topic. Does the some of all things in the universe equal God? No. That is like saying all the words in a book add up to its author. No they add up to the authors work but not him as a being. I can write a book with its own universe laws, boundaries. I am obligated to work within that universe's laws, and boundaries but it is not me.
So adding up every quark in the universe isn't going to let you see God. It will let you see the whole of His creation but you're not going to see Him. You might see the house in which he dwells. Just like a creator likes to use the houses they build to live in, but you're not guaranteed to se the creator himself. 

As I mentioned, if 'God' exists, the most likely explanation is that the Universe is a simulation. Which would actually tell us a great deal about God. Made in his image, indeed.

Premise One:  If God exists, he must be all powerful, omnipresent and all good, or at the very least, all powerful and omnipresent.

This one is easily shown to be false.

Someone who makes a simulation is not in the simulation. They are not even necessarily in that simulation at all times, all powerful, or even omniscient regarding it.

[Cecily]

How can God be everywhere but not be everything?

If god is in the electrons that get stimulated to show a picture on my laptop, god IS that picture on my laptop.

You can't have it both ways.

Because he's God, and it's complicated and hard for people to explain their beliefs about him completely. -Shrugs- There may not be a God, or any gods at all, but regardless of if there is or not I don't believe that a god can be everything. I guess some people view God in a more scientific way, and others in a more mythical sense, and that's why their opinions differ?

[Inkidu]

Right. Every letter in this message is encoded as a number. We give each of those numbers names, but the underlying mathematics is the same, originating differences in voltage and magnetic strength that are returned as discrete values.

"Two" is an abstraction. As is 10, 2, whatever. The number it represents is not an abstraction, however. An abstraction is a representation, and that would imply that the state of having two apples could just as well be replaced with the state of having one apple, no matter what you called those numbers.

The sort of argument you're taking here is representative of why proving that 1 + 1 = 2 actually takes a few pages to work out in analysis, but the end result is the same - the numbers themselves represent a construct and are not, themselves, abstractions.

As I mentioned, if 'God' exists, the most likely explanation is that the Universe is a simulation. Which would actually tell us a great deal about God. Made in his image, indeed.

This one is easily shown to be false.

Someone who makes a simulation is not in the simulation. They are not even necessarily in that simulation at all times, all powerful, or even omniscient regarding it.

My second post after that one elaborates. I know abstractions are applied concretely. I agree with his in real numbers. I know they're all basically (For lack of a better word.)  made up, in a  sense. Negative numbers can exist. I just never get imaginary numbers. They were invented for problems that have no real solution and then applied concretely? It's a little throwing. I'm not in to higher math either.

The author thing wasn't for your argument, it was for whoever said the sum of all things equals God. That's sort of like saying two plus two equals me just because I wrote it on the board. I believe if we were to see the universe as a whole (and survive) we would see the ideas of God but not God himself. However, if you believe in God, he doesn't see everything just as it is. Like we would. He would be able to see everything that has been and will be knowing all possibilities of every quark in the universe. So I have to imagine his big picture would make ours look something like a Highlights picture puzzle.

[PhantomPistoleer]

... I decided that I was breaking one of my personal rules.

I'm backing out of this convo!

[Vekseid]

My second post after that one elaborates. I know abstractions are applied concretely. I agree with his in real numbers. I know they're all basically (For lack of a better word.)  made up, in a  sense. Negative numbers can exist. I just never get imaginary numbers. They were invented for problems that have no real solution and then applied concretely? It's a little throwing. I'm not in to higher math either.

You need to separate the term from what it represents. Like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is neither a democracy or a republic, does not represent its people, and certainly doesn't have a prayer at consuming the rest of historical Korea.

Likewise, the terms imaginary number and real number are just classifications. The -terms- are abstractions, the numbers themselves are not. You might, for example, read that the three spacial dimensions are real dimensions, and that time is an imaginary dimension. It's not incorrect, but certainly, time is quite real, you would agree.

Likewise, string theory requires at least six additional 'real dimensions'. They may not exist, they may have nothing to do with reality, but are still termed real dimensions because that's the underlying math behind them.

Three-phase electrical power is another example - phase to phase voltage will always have an 'imaginary' component, but if you cross it you will find that the resulting shock is quite real : )

i = sqrt (-1)

We call the result imaginary, but in terms of mathematics, its use lets us handle very concrete aspects of our Universe, from understanding time itself to supplying your computer (and every machine in between you and me) with power.

The author thing wasn't for your argument, it was for whoever said the sum of all things equals God. That's sort of like saying two plus two equals me just because I wrote it on the board. I believe if we were to see the universe as a whole (and survive) we would see the ideas of God but not God himself. However, if you believe in God, he doesn't see everything just as it is. Like we would. He would be able to see everything that has been and will be knowing all possibilities of every quark in the universe. So I have to imagine his big picture would make ours look something like a Highlights picture puzzle.

I was addressing them with that, but you're still making the same mistake.

You technically have omniscient control over your computer. Do you know every last thing that goes on? Of course not. In fact for any Turing complete machine, such knowledge is not just difficult, but actively impossible. You can have a great deal of understanding, but you cannot have complete understanding.

That only disproves an omniscient God if logic applies to it, but the resulting dichotomy there is amusing.

[Inkidu]

Well that's what I said. I don't exactly know what you're driving at. If humans ever glimpsed all of existence in its entirety well that would give us the present picture, maybe limited predictability. However, God would know everything that could ever possibly happen. So his picture would be the Mona Lisa and ours would be a Highlights Puzzle. There, complete, black and white, but a lot of things just outside of our scope of vision. That's what separates God from humanity. So even if we knew all of existence it would be like reading God's dedication in the front of the book. Infinity is tricky like that. 

[The Overlord]

How can God be everywhere but not be everything?

If god is in the electrons that get stimulated to show a picture on my laptop, god IS that picture on my laptop.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not so sure on that.


If god existed in a form that's completely unrelated to matter or energy as we know it, and for the sake of argument let's assume god fits the standard Christian model of an omniscient-omnipotent being, then I'll assume he's capable of pulling this off.

[Oniya]

This just came to me, but there are two books that really comprise most of the whole 'mathematical depiction of G/god' thing for me.  One is Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott, and the other is The Fourth Dimension by Rudy Rucker.  We've all probably heard the phrase describing G/god as being on 'a higher plane', and both of these books sort of take that literally.  In the first book (which is much more accessible publication-wise), our hero is a Square that gets talked to by a Sphere.  The Sphere appears to be one to the Flatland 'priests' (circles), can appear inside a locked room, can be heard when not visible, can see everything in Flatland at once, can even touch someone in their 'insides'.  When the Sphere takes the Square out into 3-space, it's impossible for the Square to take it all in - the images just can't properly form.  

This isn't intended to contradict anything already said, just an interesting addition to the whole 'math and G/god' discussion.

[The Overlord]

A complete possibility in my view, as modern cosmology readily accepts there are more dimensions than those we can observe.

As Carl Sagan put it, when he explained the concept of Flatland and then took it up one step to conceptualize the fourth dimension, that fourth dimension has to be simultaneously perpendicular to all other dimensions. Being as the fourth is often referred to as time, then by this reasoning god either exists in the timestream or actually is the timestream.

Going on the Flatland concept one more time, we only perceived a slice of time at any given moment; the fleeting now we're all in. Seeing all of time at once I guess is pretty damn close to omniscient-omnipotent in my book.  :-\

[Vekseid]

Well that's what I said. I don't exactly know what you're driving at. If humans ever glimpsed all of existence in its entirety well that would give us the present picture, maybe limited predictability. However, God would know everything that could ever possibly happen. So his picture would be the Mona Lisa and ours would be a Highlights Puzzle. There, complete, black and white, but a lot of things just outside of our scope of vision. That's what separates God from humanity. So even if we knew all of existence it would be like reading God's dedication in the front of the book. Infinity is tricky like that. 

I'll try to explain it differently, then. For the proofs, you can look up Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the halting problem.

No complete understanding of the Universe can be correct. No correct understanding can be complete.

I'll try to summarize. Even with infinite data storage and computing power - ie, the actual -ability- to take a snapshot of an infinite Universe (which ours may or may not be) and evaluate it, you cannot perfectly predict the outcome derived from a given state without actually evolving the entire system.

That is to say, omniscience is a logical impossibility.

[Oniya]

There's actually a very simple proof to why no deity can be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful at the same time, and the crux is that 'Evil exists.'

There are three reasons that a deity would allow evil to exist:

1) He doesn't know about it. (Scratch all-knowing.)
2) He knows about it, but can't prevent it. (Scratch all-powerful.)
3) He knows about it, can prevent it, but chooses not to. (Scratch all-good.)

Now, I know that the typical comeback to this is 'But we were given free will, and point #3 would countermand free will,' but the act of giving us free will (deliberate or not), takes away some of the power (point #2.)

[Inkidu]

Point three is a fallacy. If God were to choose to stop all evil there would be no free will. Just because he chooses not to stop all evil doesn't mean he's any less all-good. To stop all evil from existing right now would be tyranny and that is a sin. God is all-good all the time. That is the only real condition. He can choose to be everywhere, or all-powerful whenever he wants. That's the true mark of power. If I have to power to oppress thousands of people to stop evil and choose not to. Doesn't that make me a better person than if I had stopped evil?

[Oniya]

Considering the fact that there's an entire branch of philosophy (Theodicy) devoted to the 'problem of evil', and my own post is derived from the works of Epicurus, I doubt we'll come to a resolution for this on a forum thread.   ;)

[Inkidu]

Considering the fact that there's an entire branch of philosophy (Theodicy) devoted to the 'problem of evil', and my own post is derived from the works of Epicurus, I doubt we'll come to a resolution for this on a forum thread.   ;)

Well yes I agree to disagree. That's not to say I don't believe there is no right or wrong answer. There always is.
That and we are off topic. So on that kilter. Is God merely a bunch of numbers? No. No amount of numbers can add up to the soul.

[Vekseid]

What is a soul?

[The Overlord]

Exactly.

[Sherona]

There is never a right or wrong answer, atleast none that anyone has ever been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, when it comes to Religion. Is there a god? Is there not a god? If there is a god, is it Allah, Jehovah, The Lord or Lady? The great bosoms? Me?

I mean, besides me who you could probbaly easily disprove I am god by just looking at mistakes I make intyping, in just about everything -unless I am doing it on purpose to through you mortals off track- you can not prove anything from the questions above.

So there is no right or wrong just yet, only theoretical right's and wrong's.

[Kurzyk]

What I wonder is can numbers/math be applied to everything in existance? Is it conceivable that there could be anything that numbers couldn't be applied to?

[Oniya]

What I wonder is can numbers/math be applied to everything in existance? Is it conceivable that there could be anything that numbers couldn't be applied to?

*rubs hands evilly*  Give me time.  Give me time.  And a really kick-ass spreadsheet program.

Seriously, though - anything that has cycles, which comprises a lot of biological processes, you can at least approximate through math.  Growth and decay processes, as well.  Laws of physics?  Nearly inseparable from Calculus, if you want to understand them, rather than memorize them.  The Fibonacci sequence has been found in nature to an almost eerie degree.  Sound waves can be reconstructed with sines and cosines.  Fractals have been used to make stunningly realistic recreations of everything from terrain to tree leaves.  (Mandelbrot and Barnsley are good starting points for pure fractals.  Cliff Pickover has some amazing creations as well.)  Chaos theory can create (though not predict) simulated weather patterns as 'natural' as the ones outside.  (Check out Lorenz's work on that.  You'll never look at a butterfly the same way again.  Gleick's Chaos is another good starting point.) 

Maybe there's not a single or small set of Divine Equations, but at least some aspect of the Divine enjoys playing with a calculator.  (*gives another yank back towards the original topic*)

[Kurzyk]

*rubs hands evilly*  Give me time.  Give me time.  And a really kick-ass spreadsheet program.

*laughs* That would be one interesting program..

Seriously, though - anything that has cycles, which comprises a lot of biological processes, you can at least approximate through math.  Growth and decay processes, as well.  Laws of physics?  Nearly inseparable from Calculus, if you want to understand them, rather than memorize them.  The Fibonacci sequence has been found in nature to an almost eerie degree.  Sound waves can be reconstructed with sines and cosines.  Fractals have been used to make stunningly realistic recreations of everything from terrain to tree leaves.  (Mandelbrot and Barnsley are good starting points for pure fractals.  Cliff Pickover has some amazing creations as well.)  Chaos theory can create (though not predict) simulated weather patterns as 'natural' as the ones outside.  (Check out Lorenz's work on that.  You'll never look at a butterfly the same way again.  Gleick's Chaos is another good starting point.) 

Maybe there's not a single or small set of Divine Equations, but at least some aspect of the Divine enjoys playing with a calculator.  (*gives another yank back towards the original topic*)

Interesting references! I'll take a look at them.

So if everything in existance could be measured with numbers, then the concept or 'god factor', and the soul would be as well. Fortunately it wouldn't be the only way to perceive things. When we look at a sunrise we don't have to just see the science behind it, we can appreciate its beauty. While beauty and other ephemeral qualities would have an equation, the numbers would just be a tool or language to help us grow but not everything. While everything may have numbers, it wouldn't define us. The moment it does we become Borg (star trek reference!)

(I hope I'm on track with the original point! hehe)

[Oniya]

This topic would come up while all of my books are in inaccessible piles.  >:( *resorts to Amazon... then Pickover's home page*   Pickover did write a book called "Computers, Pattern, Chaos and Beauty: Graphics from an Unseen World", which goes into this a bit, and while tracking that down, I found out he has also written things on Mathematics as applied to God (http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/home.htm, link on the left.)  I haven't read any of those texts, but his previous work is very readable even for non-math people.  (But not boring for those with more interest in the subject.)

[Kurzyk]

That book is interesting. Was just reading a review regarding it and it looks like one of Pickover's goals was to show through computer graphics the role of aesthetics in mathematics.

Im going to pick that book up. It looks intriguing. Thanks!

[Inkidu]

There is never a right or wrong answer, atleast none that anyone has ever been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, when it comes to Religion. Is there a god? Is there not a god? If there is a god, is it Allah, Jehovah, The Lord or Lady? The great bosoms? Me?

I mean, besides me who you could probbaly easily disprove I am god by just looking at mistakes I make intyping, in just about everything -unless I am doing it on purpose to through you mortals off track- you can not prove anything from the questions above.

So there is no right or wrong just yet, only theoretical right's and wrong's.

I never said that we knew the right or wrong answer just that there always is one. It always boils down to who is wrong, who is right. Just because no one knows it's there, and possibly can't ever know it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Sherona]

ah but can the unknown be right or wrong? If no one knows the answer how can it be etiher right or wrong yet? :)

[Oniya]

Sometimes in math, there are multiple 'right' answers. ;)

[Sherona]

*smiles* But the Right answers are known To someone on this earth, so there is a right and wrong. I am just saying if there is a question posed, that no one on this earth ever, has the answer to, then it can't be either right or wrong :P It has the Potential to be right or wrong..

[Inkidu]

ah but can the unknown be right or wrong? If no one knows the answer how can it be etiher right or wrong yet? :)

Yes :D Like I said just because no one can not ever know doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Inkidu]

Sometimes in math, there are multiple 'right' answers. ;)

So? That just makes it a little easier. The point is everything boils down to either one right answer.
EDIT: Whoops, "And one wrong answer.

[Sherona]

Yes :D Like I said just because no one can not ever know doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yes you did say that..but yet again gave no factual reasons why you say so.


I say that Canada is south of the United States.

Just because I say so doesn't make it truth :P

[Oniya]

So? That just makes it a little easier. The point is everything boils down to either one right answer.

But the thing is, I could be describing one right answer, and you could be describing another one, and neither person would actually be wrong.

[The Overlord]

-unless I am doing it on purpose to through you mortals off track-

That one is as old as the hills and a very convenient excuse for the religious establishments to pump the masses full of whatever they please.

It means I can't even trust my own senses, my own perceptions of the universe. If we proceed under the premise that everything we know could be a trick or a lie, that makes me even less prone to believe in a creator.

[Sherona]

I was actually...making a small joke there..:) Not trying to argue for the existance of god..though really it just underlines the reasons why no one who does not believe in god will ever convince someone who does that god does not exist.

[The Overlord]

I was actually...making a small joke there..:) Not trying to argue for the existance of god..though really it just underlines the reasons why no one who does not believe in god will ever convince someone who does that god does not exist.

I know you were, I just always have roll my eyes and check myself when someone uses it without intended humor. I mean, the world really is just 6,000 years old, and all the strata layers and dinosaurs were just made to look millions of years old to test our faith.  ::)

[Oniya]

It means I can't even trust my own senses, my own perceptions of the universe. If we proceed under the premise that everything we know could be a trick or a lie, that makes me even less prone to believe in a creator.

Cogito, ergo, sum.  If we do proceed under that premise, the one thing you can prove is your own existence - because something has to be doing the thinking.

[Sherona]

I know you were, I just always have roll my eyes and check myself when someone uses it without intended humor. I mean, the world really is just 6,000 years old, and all the strata layers and dinosaurs were just made to look millions of years old to test our faith.  ::)

I once asked my father, a stern Germanic speaking General Baptist Preacher, that if God made Adam and Eve and gave them dominion over all of the animals on earth, and set them out to name the animals, did that include Dinosaurs. When he said Of course it does, because in the garden of eden the animals were not a threat to Adam. I then proceeded to ask him "why is it then that people say that man did not come for a bunch of years (I was 7..so yes my technical terms were a lot more silly as my silly terms now :P) later." It took my father about three days before he was able to give me an answer. This was his honest answer, "Because man relies on science to tell them what to believe. God says we are to rely on faith, blessed is he who believes in things unseen.."

It was not for many years later, after my father passed and I was well into High School before I realized that none of the religious leaders would ever be able to answer my questions without it forcing me to rely on a faith I did not share nor believe. I imagine that if my father knew that his one answer to an impromptu question would have laid the cornerstone of my conversion from christianity to agnostic(ism?) he would probably die from a heart attack...

[The Overlord]

Well, there was an impromptu answer for an instance where there just wasn't a known answer. It's interesting my own father was raised in a Catholic setting, but then he was very, very interested in science as well. I think that true artistic and critical side I have came from my mother's father, who was an artist, poet and deep thinker like few people I know.

I'm not really 100% sure how my dad balanced it all; he remained a church going individual until he passed away, but if I had to guess he wasn't a strict adherent to the myth of Eden like that.

blessed is he who believes in things unseen...man that just sounds so open-ended to me, because does that include the paranormal, UFO's, shadow people on all that good stuff Art Bell would bring up? And where do you draw the line, and how do you decide that? That statement sums up what Dr. Sagan said on the subject; faith is the belief in the absence of evidence.

I think that's one of the things that led me to science...the closest to faith that science gets is that has to rest on the foundation of theories until they get replaced or proven by scientific law, but it's open to the fact that eventually, science gets it wrong and has to revise things. Science really doesn't ask you to believe, it asks you to accept the truth as it finds it out.


Most of these religions that want to give you this belief set are pretty much of the idea that this is how it is, and that's it. What arrogant little primates we are to think we've got it all settled with a few aging holy books...maybe those that believe in the unseen are blessed, but IMHO the clever will try and figure it out for themselves.

[Sherona]

My father was so diligent in his faith..it is what ultimately killed him. He was diabetic since he was four years old, and lived on snickers and mountain dews. His sugar level was so high, and he kept it so high that if it fell to a 'normal' level he felt weak. He claimed god would heal him and that god would take him to heaven when god felt like it. He died at age 33 due to the complications, it was just bad.

I don't know where my love of science came from, but I do not think that the church or even most christians really realize what they are preaching. I think that its so ingrained in them from centuries of preaching that its just second nature to believe.

And I agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly :P I have always maintained that IF there was a higher being out there capable of directing the Big Bang, capable of designing and keeping something as complicated as the human brain working just so then I doubt that we as humans, until we grow in knowledge a LOT, would never be able to truly understand God.

Funny that that tidbit of belief came from my father as well. That was his answers to all the unknown, to all of the contradictions. That the prophets who wrote the bible wrote it the way tehy could understand it, in terms that they could identify with and that is why ther was contradictions.

*shrugs*

I just let people believe what they want to if they are not hurting anyone else but themselves. It gives them a measure of hope, peace and what not so I think anyone who can find that should not have it ripped away if they do not choose to.