My beliefs

[Faceman]

I was using the natural and whole numbers as an example to make the whole thing more simple, but if you want we can also break it down to the set of real numbers (being rational+irrational numbers).
As for your perception of 1 or 0 as the basis, this is only subjective perception based on our system of numbers and on your system of maths. Within their set 0 or 1 are no more or less important than 84453 or -15 (Within their group they would be, but that's another mathematical term).
With the same justification I could state that (IMHO) the key/primary feature of God is love and thus every other characteristic of god is based on his love and thus love is a border to God.
However, I think we can establish that your definition of infinite disagrees with the mathematical definition on many terms and thus cannot be used to disprove the mathematical infinity of the universe.
About the equation: What is self-awareness? Who's to say the universe is not self-aware? If we are self-aware (true) and we are part of the universe (true), doesn't that make the universe self-aware at least in part?
About the definitions: You stated and used all of your definitions correctly except for the last one. It only describes (=finite) a certain grammatical state of verbs and thus really doesn't fit (=finite) into this debate. While it does (=finite) derive (=infinite) from the original sense it cannot (=finite) be (=infinite) used (=infinite) to explain (=infinite) it further in our context.

[Pikachu_PM]

Haha, the computer game qoute was a joke meant to lighten the mood...my apologies that it appeared to do the exact opposite!!

Now that said, I would like to point out that the 'qoute' is a REAL qoute...a designer of the game (Brian Reynolds probably) must have originated it...computer characters don't make their own qoutes. More to the point, Alpha Centauri is a VERY philosophical game and any qoutes originating from that game were taken very seriously and well worth consideration. One of my best friends works directly with Brian Reynolds...he helped make Rise of Nations in fact. I trust his judgment, and he tells me Brian is one of the most brilliant ppl he's ever met in his life...and we're both William and Mary Graduates...so i take that as high praise.

Quotes are simple verbal/written tools used to promote thought, not finite answers to complex problems. It was a tool i used to lighten the mood yet still express a sublte point of view...my apologies if I missapplied the tool.

Moving on, Yorick...you are utterly and completley wrong on your perceptions of Hinduism, and I don't think it is a 'positive' thing to speak of facts like and authority figure.

(I know your next comment is going to be about my 5 authors so let me rebuttle this right away...the bible has 5 AUTHORS and many INSPIRATIONS. Yesn the bible The Bible consists of a collection of SIXTY-SIX (not 40) separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.) 5 different authors complied these books and RE-WROTE the stories into what is now the modern bible.)

Back to Hinduism...the true practice of Hinduism says all caste are equal. The worker cast is no better or worse than the merchant cast or the religious caste. It is simply there role in life to work...it is their part in making the whole of the machine work. Now, in REALITY that is not the case...human nature sort of screws the pooch there.

To conclude here...I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. I can't tell if you are being overly stubborn or if I am explaining myself poorly. I will tell you that I am dumbfounded with your statemed "I simply don't agree with this" after qouting a section on the organization of the universe. Explain please...there really isn't anythign to disagree with. Even if you believe in God, God created the universe and we are made from the materials of the universe...

[Maelakin]

Yorick,

In most of your contradictions it seems to me that you are making a few grievous assumptions.

First, one does not need to know real perfection in order to form an opinion about perfection. In my own life, I can look at one moment and compare it to another, calling one perfect. I can look at the life of another and compare it to my life and call one of them perfect. You say I am over complicating this, but it seems you are. All that a person needs to form a perception is two differing views. They could be separated by time, space, or any other measurement. Either way, as long as there is a discrepancy in their life, they can assign a “value” to perfection.

The point that really bites me here is that you keep calling God perfect. Per your belief God is perfect and exists. However, until you can show me that God exists as you suggest and does not require me to have faith, you cannot say that he is more than a concept. He is real to you due to your faith. For those who have no faith, the universal God you speak of is nothing more than a conceptual idea.

The problem it seems we are having is looking at things in the literal sense (as you often do) vs. the conceptual sense (as I am doing). For example, you say that we need to know light in order to know dark. That is not true, and it doesn’t make any sense. What we need to know is nothing more than a difference in light in order to perceive dark. If I shine a flashlight on you, and then I shine the light from a single candle on you, we can apply the terms light and dark to what we witnessed. However, one is not truly light and the other is not truly dark. The definitions we use are not the absolutes, they are only preconceived notions we have pertaining to variances we witness.

When I speak on control and religion, I think we are having a break down in communication. I understand the viewpoint you have, however, I’m not using the term control in that manner. Every religion has a set of standards that one attempts to live by. Yes, they have a choice as to whether or not they will follow those standards, but those standards in of themselves are a set of controls. They may not control a person, but they do provide a means to present guidelines for ones life. Those guidelines are controls. It is similar to a computer program as an example. While the program provides a set of instructions (standards) it is possible for that program to act out of those parameters (choice). I’m not saying it is an absolute control, but it is a means to control a population.

Many times you keep saying that you think things are much simpler. However, to follow what you state requires a serious leap of faith. My explanations entail nothing but that which we can see readily before. I use human experience, not faith, to explain away the preconceived notions people hold. A rebuttal that relies solely on one’s faith does not offer any sort of discussion to take place.

I think the biggest error in your thinking is that you seem to feel I am trying to invalidate your God. I’m not doing anything like that. I will admit that I do not know if your God exists or not. Only time will tell and until that time, I will continue to not hold an opinion. I once stated that I believe in the probability of the impossible, and I do. I don’t think you realize that there is room for your God in my viewpoint. I’m not explaining away God; I’ve providing answers for the misconceptions I see in the logic. If your God is infinite and perfect, he is truly beyond our understanding yet you continue to support the claim that he exists by using examples that can be explained without his existence.

I actually have been in this discussion many times with various Catholic priests (I was raised Catholic, baptized Catholic, and confirmed) and honestly, this is what turned me away from God. Every time something could be explained in simple terms without his existence, they would be unable to accept that and move on. I actually find it humorous. Why use words that actually have individual meaning to explain something we are incapable of understanding.

The human mind is not able to conclusively comprehend perfect, so why use it as a description? Why not just say God is because he is? Why not be able to admit that the God that exists because of your faith is truly beyond your scope of understanding, and as such, he is a conceptual idea that you hold inside of you. I can prove the point by taking a group of Christians off the street and have each one individually tell me in their own words what God is. I can guarantee you that I will get all sorts of varying ideas.

Before you respond, please do me the service of completely understanding that I am not looking to invalidate your religion or God. I am simply looking for the reasons why you decided to take leaps of faith in areas where you didn’t need to do so. I’m truly trying to understand why you are so entrenched in your beliefs. As such, could you reply without saying that you love him and he loves you as answers? Instead, tell me what happened to make you feel that way. Share your experiences.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: (I know your next comment is going to be about my 5 authors so let me rebuttle this right away...the bible has 5 AUTHORS and many INSPIRATIONS. Yesn the bible The Bible consists of a collection of SIXTY-SIX (not 40) separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.--more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include an additional twelve books known as the Apocrypha.) 5 different authors complied these books and RE-WROTE the stories into what is now the modern bible.)

I'll say it again. I have taught at bible colleges. I know what I'm talking about. You are incorrect. There are over 40 authors, some like Paul of Tarsus who wrote mulitiple books. I never said there were 40 books so I'm not sure why you "corrected" something I did not state.

The old testament existed before the Catholic Council. The New testament references the old testament continually. Additionally the Torah - the first five books of the Old testament - has been in existence since Moses time. (An alleged author of much of those books)

You made an assertion that the Bible was rewritten in 397. This is a preposterous allegation that ignores historical fact. 24,000 manuscripts of the New testament alone, dating to a mere 50 years after the events of the New testament are in societies possession. We have the Dead sea scrolls which further reinforce the validity of the works as UNCHANGED during the ages.

To suggest the Bible was rewritten is quite a bizzarre and incorrect assertion.

Furthermore, I'm finding your "educative" tone to be rather inappropriate. There is no need to tell me the difference between the New and Old testament, nor how many books are in each. I would be a poor teacher to not know my subject.

[Mouse]

Gents, may I make a suggestion. If you wish to concentrate on whether the Bible we have today is historically accurate or has been edited over its many incarnations, perhaps a separate topic might be in order.

Originally posted by Yorick: For the umpteenth time, as a religious person, it was implied I do not think for myself. ... Maelakins, sig made a derogatory statement about ME, as I am religious.

no, it was a statement about his perception of reality, which you disagreed with and summarily took offense to.

Originally posted by Yorick: ...until you provide a rebuttal of substance, I see no reason to move myself from the position I still maintain.

i disagree, you wont. faceman has done an admirable job providing just such a rebuttal, yet you havent seen reason to move your position.

Originally posted by Yorick: Providing views that differ from your own are not proof of a lack of consideration.

you are correct, it's not. what IS evidence of lack of consideration is the fact that you did not let your (now self-admitted) ignorance stand in the way of insulting and degrading another person's faith.

Originally posted by Yorick: Unless you're implying only your conclusions are valid.

now you're just picking a fight. [img]graemlins/yawn.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: You made an assertion that the Bible was rewritten in 397. This is a preposterous allegation that ignores historical fact. 24,000 manuscripts of the New testament alone, dating to a mere 50 years after the events of the New testament are in societies possession. We have the Dead sea scrolls which further reinforce the validity of the works as UNCHANGED during the ages.

pikachu, dont take yorick's comments too seriously. he's just repeating an erroneous conclusion he made in another thread. the evidence he provided to support it does not support the "facts" he lists above.

• the 24,000 manuscripts are not complete manuscripts but rather the gross majority are fragments. regardless, the repetition of material is only proof of copying, not validity. compare this to having disparate sources confirming events.

• the fact that the works are unchanged only confirms that there was a single source that was copied, propogating contents rather than confirming validity, as described in the first point above

• the 50 years date is a best case referring to only a scarce handful of those manuscripts - the majority date from hundreds of years after. so even the earliest source material for the copying was distantly removed from events they purport to represent

[Timber Loftis]

Quick note, Yorick.

Plato had an idea of the "perfect." In fact, he called them the forms. They existed in heaven, and our innate knowledge of them in our minds gave us an understanding of the "mundane" variations on the forms. For instance, we can only call this specific "couch" a "couch" because it is an imperfect worldly manifestation of the perfect "couch" form that exists in heaven.

But, Plato did NOT know or percieve your God, as your God had not been conceived yet (or if it had, it was still smoldering in the minds of "mountain god" worshipping tribal peoples thousands of miles from Greece, certainly unknown to Plato). Does that mean that Plato's gods, the Hellenic gods, actually existed, because he knew that there was a "perfect" form of things?

I think not. And, likewise, your notion that there is a perfect form of things, my notion of same, is not proof of the existence of God in and of itself. It may hold meaning for you when you hold it up against your concept of God, and for you the two may speak to each other, but one does not inherently prove the other.

In fact, all it proves is that have a categorical ability to think, and that my find groups like things in generally-labelled filing drawers.

[ 11-09-2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

I've skipped this debate for awhile because - out of 5 pages of posts - I've found some interesting debate of ideas, but I've seen a LOT more of "is not/is so" with neither side giving much consideration to the other.

I do want to give Faceman credit for providing the mathematical example of infinity and using it to illustrate there can actually be "degrees" of infinity (combining two infinite sets to form a conceivably larger infinite set). I had never thought of infinity in that context.

Maelakin - In regards to your theory of God as a "concept created by mankind". While I personally disagree with it (and - in fact - am arrogant enough to say that I know it's wrong ), I do understand why you hold that belief and how you arrived at it.

I know God exists (and is not simply a creation of my imagination) because I have a personal and dynamic relationship with Him. This relationship can never be fully or even adequately explained to someone who has not experienced a similar relationship. So I fully understand "where you're coming from" with your beliefs and assertions about God. I also agree that many of our earlier societies DID create pantheons of gods to "explain the unexplainables" in their lives. So I can certainly understand why someone who does not follow or accept my beliefs would feel that I am basically doing the same thing. I disagree with that notion, but I do not take offense at it.

Pikachu - You mentioned a few pages back (at least I think it was in this thread) that you're main problem was those "born again" types that think the Bible should be taken literally. Well, I hate to break it to you brother, but I'm one of those Born-Again Christians that do believe the Bible is the literal and unerring Word of God. To make matters even worse, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist. However, I think if you look over most my posts - especially those related to religion or religious topics - you will find that I don't fit the "stereotypical mold" many people have of Southern Baptists. As with most stereotypes, it is based on the actions of a few and erroneously applied to the whole. No offense is taken, just don't judge large groups of people based on the actions, words or deeds of a non-representative few. Otherwise, we would have plenty of justification to universally denounce the Islamic religion in the U.S.

The last couple of pages have provided a return to debating issues and provided interesting insights and concepts. Hopefully, we can continue this trend.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by sultan: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Even if I am as ignorant as you suggest, an ignorant man presenting an idea that contradicts what you hold to be true is offensive?

as someone who's experienced the same thing (http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=27;t=000419), surely you empathise with my position?[/QUOTE]For the umpteenth time, as a religious person, it was implied I do not think for myself. Additionally it was in his sig, so that there was a constant argument being made, additionally I requested he take it down in consideration.

What offends you about my ideas of infinity? How are you included in some derisive remark or observation? I fail to see any offense, other than it contradicts your way of viewing things. Maelakins, sig made a derogatory statement about ME, as I am religious.[/QUOTE]Yorick - I'm going to be the first to break my own request that we stick to the issues, only because I feel a need to address some of your posts. I sincerely hope that this constructive criticism will be taken in the manner intended since it is coming from a friend rather than an opponent.

You claim that Maelakin's sig line was offensive to you personally, even though it targeted relgion in general, because you assert that religion is actually nothing more than a collection of individuals. By making a comment you felt was deragatory to religion, you claim that Maelakin was also attacking you personally by default. Yet you made extremely deragatory comments yourself regarding pantheism, by suggesting it was the equilivant of "having a religious wank". Yet, when members took exception to your comment, you defended by saying you were challenging an idea, not individuals. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Pantheism IS a religion. If you are going to assert that attacking religion is equivalent to attacking the members of that religion, then you are just as guilty as Maelakin.

To be honost, *I* was offended by the "pantheism = wank" comment because I felt it was a deliberate attempt to be insulting. If you believe that pantheism is nothing more than "self-love", then it would be better described as religious narcissim. The only reason to equate it with a socially-stigmatized action is to add a degree of insult to it, IMHO.

Also, when your contradictions to pantheism and Faceman's example of mathematical infinity were challenged, you again slipped into a bit of "drama king" mode and lamented the mere idea of being censored by the thought police, yet you did the exact same thing to Maelakin. You didn't just suggest that Maelakin remove the sig line voluntarily....you also requested the Mods to force him to remove it if he refused to do so willingly.

In short, Yorick, you have been guilty of the very same actions you have accused many of your opponents in this and other recent debates. I've struggled for over a week now with trying to decide whether I should make this post or just keep my opinions to myself. I was very hesitant to post it even now, because you have been "under attack" from many other sources and I didn't want you to think I was just jumping on the Yorick-bashing bandwagon. But I feel the criticisms I've stated above is one of the reason your are recieving so many attacks lately, so I did decide to post them in hopes that you would consider them in a constructive manner and reflect upon what I've said. I will leave it up to you to decide if there is any truth in what I've said or if I am also missing the picture and way off base.

Final Note to the Mods: I realize that this post is a violation of the ToS as I am specifically addressing the person rather than the point, but I honostly felt the issue needed to be addressed and needed to be stated publicly rather than in a PM. If I'm wrong, then I accept whatever discipline is necessary.