Why Religion Cannot Be Measured by Modern Rationality - A Critique of Rationalism, Scientism and Post-Modern Metaphysics

[Common Soldier]

Is there someone here who can write down in good mathematics the equation of God?

If nobody can, in my opinion this whole thread is pretty weak.

Can anyone right down in good mathematics equation in for sole witness testimony to a robbery? Both defense and prosecution would love if you had a good mathematical equation to determine guilt or innocence


Somethings are beyond mathematical equations, but does not make them less true.

[Gaidin]

Somethings are beyond mathematical equations, but does not make them less true.

Or more true.

Some people just don’t know mathematics.

[basics]

Is there someone here who can write down in good mathematics the equation of God?

If nobody can, in my opinion this whole thread is pretty weak.

Diocle,

I don't know that what you are implying is weak at all as most of Scripture is measured by numbers as is the Hebrew writings. My understanding of God is therefore seen in the numbers 10x10x10 which are the numbers of completeness and apply to the Trinity. The number of times Scripture can be broken down by seven is unbelievable that number meaning perfection. Men like John Metcalfe of the Publishing Trust have a great gift in being able to see quite readily these things making him one of the foremost Scriptural teachers of this day. So, putting an equation onto God is rerally something that only God can answer and one might well answer if asked.

[Prodromos]

It was my understanding that there would be no math in the EMM.

[Gaidin]

It was my understanding that there would be no math in the EMM.

There’s not. Nobody has yet to provide a decent set of axioms to start from.

[Sar1n]

There’s not. Nobody has yet to provide a decent set of axioms to start from.

Because that is impossible. See my previous post here.

[Cookiegod]

For those who want to argue math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...eness_theorems
Summary: Don't.

For the rest: There's no clear definition of god. You can think of him as a separate being, even going as far as think of an old man in the sky (which, fun fact, is directly forbidden in the bible).
Or you can be a Pantheist or Panentheist.
Pantheist means everything. E.g. nature. Panentheism meaning he's in everything but not necessarily everything. It solves the problem of Pantheism (If everything is god, being god is nothing special anymore. Believing in everything is thus essentially the same as believing in nothing), but still accommodates a great number of many definitions one can come up with.
You could, as a quantum physics guy, for example make the case that, if the string theory were to be correct, god could be those vibrations/movement.
You could, as a biology guy, see god in the ~40 trillion cells in your body that almost magically (and with only limited guidance from your brain) interact in such a way that makes your life even possible.
Which btw. is the reason why I never understood atheists, and especially not why they think they're the rational ones, but that's a tangent.

Bottom line is though that science, in spite of our best efforts, is still a subjective thing, and we base it on axioms and paradigms. That includes math. Hence the link above.
Also, since, again, there's no clear-cut definition of god (at least not one that I'm aware of), it's kinda hard to measure him, since you haven't defined him.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

All the truths of Science are based upno approximations, not certainty.

As for those who think it's incapable to have the so-called "Maths of God," you're clearly unaware of pythagoras, plotinus, jamblichus, and even Plato himself, who together with Leibniz worked out a true mathematical superstructure of the metaphysical realm.

[Sar1n]

All the truths of Science are based upno approximations, not certainty.

As for those who think it's incapable to have the so-called "Maths of God," you're clearly unaware of pythagoras, plotinus, jamblichus, and even Plato himself, who together with Leibniz worked out a true mathematical superstructure of the metaphysical realm.

All the truths of any religion are based upon wishes, mental illnesses, pretense authority and tradition, not certainty.

Mathematics tell us interesting things. That there is order in the universe, and this order is reflected in nature and even in human mind. The apparent disassociation between mathematics and empiricism sometimes lends to the feeling that mathematics are bridge between physical and metaphysical. Leibnitz fell victim to that, as did others...but that's a huge leap of faith. Same as you demonstrated when you leapt from the term "maths of god" to metaphysical speculations about mathematics.

But in truth, mathematics, or any use of reason, cannot prove or disprove an idea of god that's related to Judeo-christian theological tradition. Reason presumes that subject in question is a part or subject of some kind of a system. But with omnipotence comes another thing...god has complete free will, and therefore is completely arbitrary and not subject to any system.

[fkizz]

Well I know today anything can get the word "Science" attached, a few decades earlier "Science" meant mostly what we refer to as Objective Sciences, something that can be measured/proven in a lab and so on.

Well most of the things of your daily life except a few gadgets can't be measured or proven, even taking religion or whatever out of the picture. You can't prove if you will be alive the day after tomorrow or not (or if you won't pass away this night - likely you won't, but there's no absolute proof), that you won't be stabbed, or shot, or whatever else - when you assume you won't, is you're taking a leap of faith that you won't.

You can't prove either that Solipsism is false. The interpretation of proof requires your 5 senses, and to disprove Solipsism requires the use of your 5 senses, which means it's impossible to disprove. So you just assume Solipsism isn't true, which is yet another leap of faith.

Leaps of faith are extremely common in daily life if you take the time to take notice of it. Not needed to add any supernatural or metaphysics to it, but in fact, in the "Objective Sciences" type of way proving literally everything before acting would be a waste of resources.

Now there's the metaphysical - it refers to that which is beyond the physical. Many simply disbelieve it, but that's not a proof that it does not exist.

Others take the existence of the mind, and the fact that so much of it remains invisible (even to the own person, ie. unconscious content) yet it exists (otherwise ergo cogito sum could be thrown into the bin) so the mind is a more ambiguous case of physical/metaphysical. The physical existence is just a brain, and just the brain itself does not explain or display the thoughts.

Some take the existence of the mind as a warning/hint that the existence of the mind means to not take the physical as the Ultimate.

Now either way, there is no way to find proof in a Lab for any of this, so calling science in the Objective Science term of the word is more or less redundant other than for rethorical appeal.

[chriscase]

Hi fkizz. Long time. Note I have omitted the bold in deference to your preferences.

I think there are a few things in your post worth discussing, but I'd draw your attention to one in particular, since it's relevant to a particular ongoing discussion in the thread that's of interest to me.

You can't prove either that Solipsism is false. The interpretation of proof requires your 5 senses, and to disprove Solipsism requires the use of your 5 senses, which means it's impossible to disprove. So you just assume Solipsism isn't true, which is yet another leap of faith.

I would like to draw your attention to the earlier posts here and here.

Regarding Berkeley's idealism argument (oft reproduced, as in your post above), I think it appears to pose a much larger problem for empiricism than it actually does. In short, if the epistemological basis for discussion starts with the mind and its products, why should we resist this? If the entire universe we can all agree to work within consists of the mental landscape, all that's really needed is to expand the notion of that mental landscape to incorporate the entirety of the empirical world as well. And this is not terribly hard to do: we simply have to agree to abandon the traditional segmentation between mind and object. If all that exists are products of the mind then phenomenology would suggest that objects must be a particular kind of mental construct with some special properties.

So, to put it in the terms you are using above, why should it matter if the entire universe consists of mental constructs, when some of those mental constructs can talk to me and tell me about all the things they think and feel. It's not a particularly bothersome reframing to work with, if that's what it takes to overcome Berkeley's objection.

[basics]

I wouldn't dare going head to head with any of you regarding the intricasies of maths but I can share a story that defies both maths and logic. Karen and Neil had two boys and a little girl whos eyes crossed in a way that doctors of all sorts could find no way of rectifying them. Karen was a Christian, Neil wasn't, her being part of Kiloss RAF Christian fellowship they asked for a laying on of hands for little Fiona. At that time I wasn't long saved and being sceptical I declined to attend that evening much to my shame. The next morning Neil stuck his head round the door of our place of work and he was gleaming as he asked if we had heard about Fiona. No, I replied, where is she? Right beside me in her pram so I told him to bring her in. Well he lifted her out of her pram and handed her to me and boy was I taken by surprise. Her wee eyes were as straight as a die. Neil had just come up from the surgery where he had taken her to let the doctor see what had happened and needless to say that doc's room was filled with other docs as well as nurses all wanting a glimpse of Fiona as she now was and they couldn't believe it had they not seen it. Not long after Neil was posted to the Falklands where he had a wonderful salvation experience making Karen the happiest wife and mum ever. What medicine couldn't do God did.

[Muizer]

Sigh, this reminds me of you earth creationists who end up falling back to the position that the earth was created 6 thousand years ago but exactly as if it were billions of years old. Taken to such extremes, religion simply conforms to science. That 'god' would be a 'god of science' who cannot mean anything to us because we would under no circumstance be able to discern divine intervention from natural process and I don't see people drawing any comfort from praying o Newton and Einstein (who would be the closest thing to its prophets).

[swabian]

Religion is pretty easy to be understood in it's basics by rational means. It's a bunch of myths that were continuously inherited over dozens of generations, but most importantly, they are crucial for cultural identities.

Cultural identities evolve over time not in isolation, but, unfortunately, in competition with each other. And more oft than not the rigidity of religiousness even in modern times, may be a result of a need for distinction, because the zealots of belief A have to out-scream the zealots of belief B. Let those two sentences be the thesis.

Counter-thesis: Look at the Mesoamerican and Southern-American cultures, they never really collided with each other in that they were so distinct that they would start a war over their beliefs. They started wars, because of their believes. They required human sacrifices (and slaves, but that's purely economical). They developed their cruelty and strictness not by a spiritual competition and distinction, but by a very mundane and very political competition: The artistocracy at some point simply had no other means to uphold its power than to create a cult of fear that commands submission and obedience. Where would they go, if everyone loses faith and just rebells? They would have been killed. Their very lives depended on this spell of fear.

And a spell of fear is all that is about religion. It generates an unnecessary potential of fear that even tops the agony and tragedy and sadness that human life can be. But not only that: It actively hunts down and suffocates enjoyment. It generates fear that wouldn't be there without it. And the joy it gives is the illusion that by obedience and by sacrifice, one is going to avoid future pain in one form or another. The illusion is that the avoidance of pain, of punishment, is pleasure. It is not, that's just relief. There is more than relief and this is a fundamental fact.

[Gaidin]

All the truths of any religion are based upon wishes, mental illnesses, pretense authority and tradition, not certainty.

Mathematics tell us interesting things. That there is order in the universe, and this order is reflected in nature and even in human mind. The apparent disassociation between mathematics and empiricism sometimes lends to the feeling that mathematics are bridge between physical and metaphysical. Leibnitz fell victim to that, as did others...but that's a huge leap of faith. Same as you demonstrated when you leapt from the term "maths of god" to metaphysical speculations about mathematics.

But in truth, mathematics, or any use of reason, cannot prove or disprove an idea of god that's related to Judeo-christian theological tradition. Reason presumes that subject in question is a part or subject of some kind of a system. But with omnipotence comes another thing...god has complete free will, and therefore is completely arbitrary and not subject to any system.

You do know the rules of mathematical logic are human invention and don’t really tell you anything naturally but are just tools to explain hideously similar things. A different set of mathematical rules the results are just as legitimate but look wildly different and are analogously useless to scientists. Mathematicians will have a field day with this though.

[basics]

OK, Since that story doesn't inspire anyone, how about this? RAF Kinloss was once the base for the mighty hunter called the Nimrod which had a working crew of fourteen guys aboard on tour. On one occasion a flight took off under the command of Flight Lieutenant Dave ....... and as It got over Findhorn Bay everything shut down. Dave told me that the first thing he thought of in these moments appart from ditching in the sea was to ask for Jesus' help as He is the maker of all things. Sounds a little crazy yet true as his crew were well aware riding with him for so long. At that moment everything came back on testified to me on another occasion by the Flight Engineer who also happened to be a Christian. They circled the field checking everything and were then given permission to carry on with that detail. That's the kind of faith that Dave displayed in all that he did and there was no mistaking it. Someone once told me that pilots are like formula one drivers, their reactions to anything being split second and having the honour of flying the Nimrod simulator I can see why but Dave obviously had that little bit more to help him. This is just another example of my experiences along the road.

[fkizz]

I would like to draw your attention to the earlier posts here and here.

Regarding Berkeley's idealism argument (oft reproduced, as in your post above), I think it appears to pose a much larger problem for empiricism than it actually does. In short, if the epistemological basis for discussion starts with the mind and its products, why should we resist this? If the entire universe we can all agree to work within consists of the mental landscape, all that's really needed is to expand the notion of that mental landscape to incorporate the entirety of the empirical world as well. And this is not terribly hard to do: we simply have to agree to abandon the traditional segmentation between mind and object. If all that exists are products of the mind then phenomenology would suggest that objects must be a particular kind of mental construct with some special properties.

So, to put it in the terms you are using above, why should it matter if the entire universe consists of mental constructs, when some of those mental constructs can talk to me and tell me about all the things they think and feel. It's not a particularly bothersome reframing to work with, if that's what it takes to overcome Berkeley's objection.

Hello Chriscase, read your references, hard read but well written.

In Solipsism case, the issue isn't much of "What's in stake", because either way you're stuck in this situation, but rather raising awareness that to stay functional and sane, the average person already makes a leap of faith, without proof.

Even if you say that Berkeley construct doesn't matter in the end, it's more about the subjectivity of the experience, ie., the same objective object will generate as many different experiences as there are observers - mainly in less objective realms. Sometimes the observers won't even know what kind of unconscious scheme producted their reaction of like/dislike.

Using an easy example, a fiction book, will generate differente review scores or apreciation, despite being objectively the exact same book. For the sake of simplicity let's not include different appraisals based on translation, but in fact same book.

The Qualia and how it is dealt with is a matter swept under the carpet since the Enlightenment, Descartes actually tried to give an aproach to it, but since then it has been forgotten, despite being a major factor in human experience.

Berkeley is relevant because his idea of the universe being entirely made of mental constructs, while taken a bit too far, in a nutshell, brings back the Qualia and Solipsism issues to the table.
It's a reminder that at least a good amount of what we perceive as "fabric of reality" is in fact also made up of many different human experiences and opinions, made by as many different minds as there are people.
You can say it's not entirely made up of mental constructs, but the sum of mental constructs are responsible for a big part of reality as we know it.

Or putting it in a more plain way, if we had the brain of a bird, or of a an ant, would reality generate the same experience as it does now? Of course not. Because the structure of the collective projected mental structures would be different.

[Diocle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McuQ1MzZfI0

Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus after them were well aware, by their intense study of geometry and nature, the Golden section. ..

Golden Section, La Sezione Aurea, is not the Equation of God, it's a dimensional relationship present in all the matter of the universe ..



.. but God is not φ! God is not a dimensional relationship of universal matter, God is not 1,6180339887..

Rationality can't describe God, God is beyond any rational understanding, I asked for an Equation describing the nature of God, you gave me just his supposed fingerprint!

[chriscase]

"Equation" presumes equivalence. That presupposes the Identity axiom of some form, i.e. "A equals A". If God is expected to encompass all possible universes and logics, there are others that do not include Identity equivalence.

[basics]

If God does not exist why is it that man, evolutionary man, has searched the heavens for God? Why indeed has religion taken such a hold of this planet no less than it did in the times of the great thinkers?