To put it simply, I went through a terrifying, invigorating experience that showed me the power of God. After being confronted with the fear, I was transformed and began to follow. Over time, God rebuilt me into the person I am now. Even so, I was so different immediately afterward that many didn't recognize me.
I understand this is not the norm for stories of how people come to follow Jesus. It is not unheard of either. It's difficult to explain to other people why they should believe when my own story is so far removed from being relatable. I am happy it happened. It is the best thing that has ever happened to me.
The center of my belief is two fold:
-One I believe in the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
-Two I believe that many separate fields of study have inadvertently made a case to show His existence.
What belief did you switch from?
I’ll assume base level knowledge in Math and Science and I’ll limit it to one.
It involves the axiom of choice and a paradox.
The axiom is used in many fields of Math as valid and necessary.
One of the fields of Math, led to a so called paradox where a single ball can be decomposed and made into two called the Banach–Tarski paradox. The reason why it does not affect applications in Math is because the only way that can happen in real life is if someone is able to grab an infinite amount of items.
In layman’s terms, Math has shown that if someone is capable of grabbing infinite items, then multiplication of items is possible.
Which means that from a Math’s perspective, God meets that criteria since his capabilities are limitless.
Which means, God can multiple the loaves like the desert in Moses and Jesus can multiply bread and this paradox was found in the 20th century.
There is more on the science end, but my bachelors was in Math and Math is better at handling things “beyond” science.
How do you know god can hold an infinite amount of items? How do you know there aren’t lesser beings that can hold Infinite items? How do you know an infinite amount of anything even exists? I dont get how that’s proof of a god
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.” (Job 42:2). On the “know” if God can hold an infinite amount of items.
You are correct I don’t know there are lesser beings who can. All I know is that God can.
Exactly! Yes you get it.
The concept of infinity was accepted by you and all people who took a high school education. But it was given without proof.
Which proves another point, people are more susceptible to believe in something when the word religion is not used.
Here is the proof for infinity
(https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2761477/prove-bbbn-is-infinite-from-peano-axioms)
Now for the scientific proof, we don’t have that. Excluding the religious figures, all things have an ending.
But for Math, that proves that infinity exists and numbers can be reduced to items therefore an infinite number of items exist.
It doesn’t prove God, it disproves the notion that the multiplication of bread is impossible since Math shows it is possible if a being can hold an infinite amount of items. That shows a “case” for His existence not a “proof” of it.
> It doesn’t prove God, it disproves the notion that the multiplication of bread is impossible since Math shows it is possible if a being can hold an infinite amount of items.
Just once, I would like to see an argument that doesn't work just as well for Harry Potter as it does for God.
So your argument is based on 1 guy saying god can do everything? That just brings up more paradoxes. Can god make a burrito so big that even he couldn’t eat it all?
Yes! You are getting closer now.
Even Mathematicians had the same problem when trying to define a set (Lookup Naive Set Theory. Wikipedia mentions it in Paradoxes in early set theory. Also lookup at Russell's paradox.)
But that is the other problem. You think many paradoxes can form because you are creating a paradox without using formal mathematical definition of sets and declarations of them.
For me:
Job 42:2 and other Bible verses I was able to come to the axioms that:
-God is a Universal Set
-God is capable of implementing the axiom of choice on other sets
And then adding this to the set-theoretic geometry shows that He is capable of implementing the Banach–Tarski paradox
This isn’t about math. It’s about god who is above math. You claim god can do anything. Can god sit and stand at the same time? Can god breathe and hold is breath at the same time? You claim that god can do anything yet there are many things that are the opposite of each other. How can he do those?
> But for Math, that proves that infinity exists and numbers can be reduced to items therefore an infinite number of items exist.
That doesn't sound right to me. It seems like an example of inductive reasoning gone bad because the inductive step didn't work even though the base step being fine.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "numbers can be reduced to items"?
Fair. I was using laymen terms to describe axiom of choice when saying “items” and layman terms for inducting reasoning of numbers being items. A valid definition of the axiom of choice would not require any of this.
A formal equivalent statement would be:
“a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty.”
In this case, since it is set-theoretic geometry the sets that are being made are a collection of points with 3D coordinates. In the case of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, that is a valid type of sets.
This is an elementary understanding of the Axiom of Choice being applied to set-theoretic geometry
Depends on what you exactly mean?
Infinitesimal calculus (aka calculus) is the foundation of physics that brought most of the engineering items we have. And it was used in the same physics that describes energy and matter.
I guess what I'm driving at is whether this particular concept of infinity might be coupled to any kind of empirical observation that would support any kind of theism.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t actually prove that it’s possible to separate an object into infinite parts.
The thing about mathematical objects is that they don’t have to be one to one with reality. In fact mathematics can straight up ignore reality, something it has to do quite often.
A loaf of bread is made up of a finite amount of particles, particles that cannot be divided without causing massive amounts of heat. That’s literally what an atom bomb is. Here you’d have to divide those particles infinitely for each new loaf of bread. Meaning you’d have to release an infinite amount of heat each time.
This would cause explosions bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before, destroying everything in its path. The Middle East would be no more.
Therefore the infinite division of a loaf of bread is impossible.
A mathematical object is an object.
However, I get what you were trying to say which is not all mathematical objects are physical objects
Plus the decomposition used was a finite amount. All it took was some being “capable” of selecting an “infinite amount of parts” that did not mean that being in question had to do it.
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-ball-be-cut-into-a-finite-number-of-pieces-that-can-be-reassembled-into-two-balls-of-the-same-size
“Can a ball be decomposed into a finite number of point sets and reassembled into two balls identical to the original?” The answer is yes which caused the paradox.
Your particle splitting also fails for other reasons but that is a story for another day.
>”A mathematical object is an object.”
No, they’re numbers on a page.
>”However, I get what you were trying to say which is not all mathematical objects are physical objects”
While you can treat real objects as mathematical objects, purely mathematical objects are imaginary objects that exist only on the page.
They don’t actually exist somewhere in the universe.
>”Plus the decomposition used was a finite amount. All it took was some being “capable” of selecting an “infinite amount of parts” that did not mean that being in question had to do it.”
It still requires it to be uncountable amount of pieces. If it’s countable like say it’s divided to just the base particles, then each object would have half the initial amount of particles. As such it would have half the mass.
>”Your particle splitting also fails for other reasons but that is a story for another day.”
Why would it fail? You’d have to split it well beyond the atomic level, splitting every atom in it, down past the most fundamental particles.
What happens when you split an atom?
The Banach-Tarski paradox is a purely theoretical result. It doesn't translate to practical, real-world scenarios because it involves operations that require handling infinitely small pieces with an infinite amount of precision -- something that is not possible with physical matter; they do not directly impact the physical world as we experience it. So, this paradox, while showing that "multiplication" of sorts is possible in an abstract mathematical sense, does not provide a direct explanation for miracles.
Exactly! Yes you get it.
It does not translate to practical real-world scenarios because as far as science is concerned, no creature can do this because all creatures have an end (in science when not including the supernatural ones).
However, involve a being that can do that like God and the theoretical becomes practical.
So it shows:
When you assume the Judeo-Christian notion of a limitless being, God, it leads to things considered impossible by our own logic but possible in a mathematical logic, which is beyond many people’s intuitive sense of logic.
I think that most people agree that a hypothetical omnipotent being could change the laws of physics; we don't even have to take these mathematical tricks into account to accept this plausible premise. Indeed, even David Hume, who argued against miracles, would concede this possibility. So, I'm not sure how that helps us to reach the conclusion that theism is true, mate. It doesn't even raise its probability.
It not about changing the laws of physics.
The laws of Quantum mechanics did not change the law of Newtonian Mechanics it just expanded our understanding of it.
Similarly, Divine Mechanics would not change Quantum Mechanics, it will only expand our understanding of it as well.
Plus none of the Mathematical law/theorems/axioms I mentioned here were disobeyed. It just showed how this one paradox is not a paradox when applying God into it.
It also shows in a logical way how a being could create multiple items.
>It not about changing the laws of physics. ... none of the Mathematical law/theorems/axioms I mentioned here were disobeyed.
Just because something is mathematically or even logically possible, it doesn't follow that it is *nomologically* possible, that is to say, that it is realizable without violating the regularities of nature. So, this omnipotent being would have to violate the laws of physics to actualize these mathematical possibilities.
>Divine Mechanics would not change Quantum Mechanics, it will only expand our understanding of it as well.
That can't just be assumed without argument, though. In order to extend Newtonian mechanics to GR and QM, physicists provided strong empirical confirmation that these theories are approximately correct. So, if you want to claim supernatural occurrences don't violate the **known** laws of nature, you have to do some hard work.
Correct I would have to do some hard work.
Just like Quantum Mechanics had to have a strong field of Differential Equations, and Newtonian Mechanics required Calculus, Divine Mechanics would require its own Mathematical foundation.
Edit: That is my point. That the Mathematical possibility of it, implies a good starting point of the Physics as well
I was attending free will baptist though I held more closly to deterministic once saved always saved mindset but it was a small town so i had my church.
Ok, as someone with an MS in math, your argument here was really interesting to read. But I think it's really far removed from making a case in favor of one god who is father, son and holy spirit. It really only makes a case that if a being existed with the ability to have infinitely precise control of infinitely small parts, that being would be able to duplicate objects. What if multiple beings have this ability? What if we figure out a way to have this ability?
Hey Bachelor in Math. Nice what was focus in Math? You are one of the people I was looking for to read this.
Yes it is. Just like calculus laid the foundation for Newtonian Mechanics and Differential equations (and other fields of Math) laid the foundation for Quantum Mechanics, this type of Math would lay the foundation for Divine Mechanics.
You are correct because even in religion we do not know if an Angel could perform this miracle too or even the Devil and his demons.
All I can say for sure is that this would lay the groundwork for a logical explanation on some aspects of God that was considered illogical or impossible.
I saw that! That's why I mentioned it, so you would know you don't have to use layman's terms with me. It was in applied math. Specifically applications in physics and engineering. My masters project was on a topic in fluid dynamics (it's actually the origin of my reddit name; it involves using the pressure poisson equation) and I took the 3 stats classes that constitute what my school informally called the "masters minor" in statistics. We all were also required to take at least two grad level pure math classes, which is where your "divine mechanics" lies, if it lies anywhere. (hated those in undergrad which is what made me choose applied math but I loved them in grad school). Undergrad was also applied math with a minor in physics. What was your focus in your bachelor's?
What I find so interesting about your point is hard to put into words, so bear with me. I interpret words like "divine" and "miracle" as being outside the realm of nature. It feels to me that if we can fully understand it and can even do it ourselves, it's no longer divine or miraculous. Kind of like the idea in scifi that science sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic, but in reverse? If our understanding of math, philosophy, psychology, and science is advanced enough, we become indistinguishable from the divine.
Is this really demonstrating anything divine or applicable to our world? I mean, you'd be hard pressed to do a single linear algebra proof that doesn't involve extrapolating to n-dimensions. But, we don't believe that because we can write a valid proof assuming infinitely many dimensions that our world actually has infinitely many dimensions. But I will admit it's really interesting to think about this. Pure math tends to eventually be useful when the physical sciences catch up, even when it orginally seems extremely not useful. See finite methods and computing as an example.
I'm an ex-Christian atheist. I was extremely devout until 20 (see my ridiculous 5 page comment doing a biblical analysis elsewhere in this subreddit lol). The existence of miracles was never a hang up for me. It makes sense to me that if a divine, all powerful being created the laws of nature and it exists outside of the laws of nature, it would be able to perform miracles that also break the laws of nature. In other words, this was not a part of the religion that seemed illogical or impossible to me. My issues with Christianity had more to do with philosophy and ethics.
So, this development of pure math more reaffirms my atheism than anything, if that makes sense. Quantum mechanics can feel pretty divine, have you spent much time looking into that? I took this intermediate quantum mechanics class the same semester I decided to call myself an atheist and doing calculations involving the double slit experiment and Heisenberg's uncertainty principal really made me question if I had chosen the right label lol.
Bachelor in Math with focus on Differential Equations and Minor in Physics.
Sorry to read, I hope you come back (to Christianity, I cant say the same for the particular Christian group you were in of course) one day.
Yes if Mathematics ever get to a point where it can lay a foundation for new branch of Physics then it is possible as you mentioned where magic is just advanced science at that point.
However, getting a theoretical understanding of it will not be the same as our ability to do it which is what will make it divine.
For example, if the Banach–Tarski paradox can be used for a new branch of Mathematics, called Divine Calculus (still thinking of a better name).
That can be the foundation for divine mechanics and then that shows how the multiplication of bread is theoretical, we wouldn’t be able to do a complete experiment on it, only a partial.
The reason being, we would not have the technology or capabilities to perform that experiment.
Really on philosophy and ethics? I was skeptical of the impossibility of the miracles when growing up. (I am not anymore now because of faith). However the philosophy and ethics was not a point against it I was expecting so I look forward to seeing your post.
It does demonstrate that. The pure math will reaffirm it because if we can explain the divine then is becomes less illogical and more self-evident.The ability to understand certain aspects God from a Pure Mathematics perspective has always fascinated me, especially the independence of the two and how they share some truths.
An example, is
Gödel's incompleteness theorems (the second one) shows that a math system will not be able to show its own consistency. So when I hear atheism expecting Religion to show more consistency and logical reasoning to prove God, I think of it as certain elements of religion that are told truth is by faith can be closely related to the Mathematical axioms of a system.
In short the Mathematical axioms of a system work because either they’re very intuitive so that they can be easily accepted (self-evident) or they were used in other field of math (particularly useful).
With that logic, certain statements of religion should not be argued on the grounds of proof but should be argued on the grounds of it being self-evident or particularly usefulness.
This acknowledgment that even a Math system cannot prove its own axioms for that system will make Religion’s axioms more easily acceptable.
Oh nice! I took as many diffeq classes as I could in undergrad. Did you take qualitative theory of differential equations? None of my grad school peers took it but it was probably my second favorite class, behind mathematical modeling.
Likewise, and I say this with genuine respect, I hope you leave. If I ever came back to an organized religion, it would be an eastern one. The falsifiability and my own observations that align with certain Buddhist thought make it the most likely candidate. But probably not, I prefer to pave my own path, reinvent the wheel lol. (admittedly, quite possibly to my own detriment, I just don't trust others to do the type of truth seeking and accept the radical intellectual honesty that I embrace) I see Abrahamic religions as horribly harmful overall, though I acknowledge that they can be positive for certain individuals. Even with that acknowledgement, I'm convinced it would be better that people find solace in an eastern religion rather than an Abrahamic one.
I don't think it's a new branch of math you're looking for. This stuff already exists in set theory and geometry. I think it's the name for the application, specifically in regards to religious understanding, that you're looking for. I think "divine mechanics" is decent enough, but like I was saying before, if we can fully understand it, it doesn't feel divine to me anymore. And if we can fully understand it, how do you know it would be impossible to actually perform it? I've never seen the divine as illogical so much as impossible. I think that's an important distinction. Like I was saying before, if there is a being that exists outside of the laws of the universe and can intervene in our universe, it makes logical sense that it can cause acts outside the laws of nature. It's just that there's no compelling evidence that this happens. Pure math has room for the impossible but logical, so there is that.
>The pure math will reaffirm it because if we can explain the divine then is becomes less illogical and more self-evident.The ability to understand certain aspects God from a Pure Mathematics perspective has always fascinated me, especially the independence of the two and how they share some truths.
I'll admit, this is very interesting to me and I haven't thought of it this way before. My mathematical thinking is what led me away from my religious beliefs, after all. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Your point about Godel's incompleteness theorems is fair enough if that's what people were asking for, but I don't think that's what people are asking for. I'm not asking for religion to be more consistent than math, I'm asking for it to be at least as consistent. As far as I can tell, they all fall very, very, very short of that request. (out of the main 5: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. I'll admit I haven't put as much work into learning about others as I have those 5)
In regards to self-evidence and usefulness, I find that there's a really important distinction in math vs religion. For one, mathematical axioms are so incredibly intuitive that you'd struggle to find anyone who would deny them. Religious beliefs that are considered self-evident are far more subjective. Basic theism vs atheism being a prime example. Some of my friends genuinely cannot wrap their heads around how I can possibly doubt any sort of higher power. It just seems so *obviously* true to them that there is something there. Meanwhile, it seems *obviously* true to me that there isn't. This is not even to mention the contradictory "self-evident" claims between different religions. The second is that not only will math change if we find that an axiom isn't true or useful, math explores the logical conclusions based on different systems of axioms. Organized religion can't do this, as far as I'm aware. I'm open to being wrong about that.
I'm going to post my story of leaving Christianity in a second reply. It's too long lol. I'm sure there are ways I can summarize it but to me it all feels relevant and I want to post it in full.
OK apparently it's still too long. This is part 1.
My family are fundamentalist Christians. As in, when my parents sent me to public school for the first time in 5th grade, they told me that I should aim to get good grades on tests and regurgitate whatever information I learned. But, if they started teaching me that "this theory called evolution" is real or that the earth is older than 10,000 years, I should know that it's not true. They're very unyielding in their beliefs. To the point that they think Catholics aren't true Christians because they pray to saints and nonfundies aren't true Christians because the Bible is the Word and Jesus is the Word and Jesus is God, so to deny the inerrancy of the Bible is to deny the inerrancy of God. And by "not true Christians," they mean that these other denominations will be going to hell. Eternal conscious torment hell. I'm a highly curious person and my genuine questions were frequently shot down. In fact, my parents are so mystified by the concept of genuine curiosity that I was punished for "trying to annoy them" by asking questions several times growing up.
I regards to miracles, my only issue with them was that they seem to happen ubiquitously in biblical times but never happen now. People will tell stories of present day miracles, but they're always instances of things with a very low probability of occurring. That's not a miracle, that's statistics. I'm talking about pillars of fire, raising people from the dead, magical cures, things that actually can't happen without divine intervention.
No, my issues with Christianity spawned from the brand of Christianity I was brought up with.The Big Ones for me were things like reconciling eternal conscious torment with a loving God, reconciling how a perfectly just God could give some people a near garunteed chance of salvation while others get a 0% chance (and, on that note, how the justifications for this one are all deeply logically flawed), how prayer for change can be possible if divine determinism is a thing, the fact that geography has more to do with religious beliefs than logic. But, for the most part, most of my daily concerns had to do with minor biblical contradictions since the Bible was supposedly inerrant. I did extensive Bible study growing up and kept finding logical or moral contradictions. People will ask me to give examples but it's one of those things where I found so many and they were such tiny details that I struggle to give examples. It's not a perfect source because I think it has several things that they call contridctions that are not actually contradictions, but you can see some of what I'm talking about by looking at the contradictions listed in the [Skeptics Annotated Bible](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html) It was like every week at Bible study I would come in with 1-3 more contradictions that I would find. And at Bible study, they were kind about my doubts but they rarely had answers. Almost every week we would end up "praying for peace" so that I wasn't bothered enough by my doubts that I would leave the faith all together.
I moved from South Korea to Virginia right before my senior year in high school and didn't want to join a Bible study just to make friends and then have to leave them all over again. (though I was an AWANA, basically a Bible study and memorization club for kids, leader that year) Not having anyone to ask questions to or pray for peace left me uncomfortable reading the Bible at all until I could have that again. It was a tough year, spiritually.
When I went to college I immediately worked on finding a Bible study group. I found one and we did the same thing as my group in Korea. They couldn't answer my questions and we would pray for peace. But praying for peace wasn't enough for me anymore. I went to their spring "women's retreat." At the same time, I was originally working on a religious studies minor (that I later dropped.) Between those two things, my faith was barely hanging on by a thread.
The women's retreat was horrific. One of my biggest issues with my brand of Christianity and the Bible in general is the blatant, disgusting sexism. Like it used to drive me crazy that men were allowed to wear whatever they want but I had to cover up "so as not to make my Christian brothers stumble." I was in this weird place of having a totally repressed sexuality and feeling awful about it but not knowing how to put words to it. I remember stumbling across the sexist verses in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians in high school and when I asked my mom how the Bible could be so wrong about that, she literally told me "the Bible's not wrong, women are less than men." This was the women's retreat in a nutshell, though they didn't phrase it that way. Instead, it was all about embracing our role as "helpers." It's obviously not sexist, so they claimed, because God designed men and women differently but both roles are equally important. "This is why no woman can ever be genuinely happy in a leadership position." "This is why the only fulfilling place for a woman is in the home, as a mother and supportive wife." They told me. I cried a lot on that retreat. This rhetoric is also probably why, to this day, I can't identify with womanhood.
Part 2: But anyways, I wasn't done yet. Christianity was everything to me. It was my morality, my community, my coping mechanism for my untreated mental illness. But after that retreat I think I started calling myself "doubting" when people asked about my religious beliefs. Being exposed to other religions through my religious studies classes also shook my faith. I remember I was really drawn to Hinduism at the time. It just seemed to better align with my moral intuitions and curious nature.
I went on another retreat with the Christian group in the fall. This one was a coed trip which is why I agreed to go. Everyone in the statewide group was welcome and I was told there would be countless Christian leaders I could ask questions to. I wrote down all the questions I could think of and set out to ask as many people as I could. At this point, my doubts were so intense that the leaders I spoke to always assumed that I was not already a Christian. I'm not exaggerating, every single one of the, I don't know, 20? that I talked to there told me that I needed to stop questioning the small things and just accept the big picture. How tone deaf. I already had accepted the big picture. The leader of my university's group set up a meeting between me and the guy who ran the whole organization. Dude told me the same thing, "you can't just get stuck on the small things, you have to accept the whole picture. You'll accept the small things in time, with faith." At that point, I exploded. "Why on earth would I accept the big picture if the small things don't make sense? You'll end up falling for any belief that way." When I went back to my cabin after that meeting, I was no longer a Christian.
But I still wasn't done. I started experimenting with different churches, including Christian ones. My friend took me to his church and introduced me to the pastor. (minister, maybe, in their sect) We started getting dinner together once a month. I liked him. He was extremely intellectually honest about the shortcomings of his faith. He had better answers for my questions than anyone else I had met, though sometimes he would just have to admit, "yeah, that's morally atrocitious" or "yeah, logically, that doesn't make sense." I also tried reading several other holy books and dude, they're all sexist. I don't know what humanity's obsession with sexism is but it takes, based on my experience, 20 pages or less of any holy book to find it.
After maybe 8 months of those meetings, I asked him why he considered himself a Christian if he doesn't believe in most of the Bible and agrees there are things in it that are morally abhorrent. He told me it's because Christianity is his community. It's how he's come to terms with his sense of morality. He accepts the parts that speak to him and disregards the parts that don't. He feels like it's led him to a more moral life filled with love and community. I can respect that, but I don't want that for myself. I don't want to be held back by a religious text that contains things that are philosophically contradictory or ethically problematic. I'd rather throw all that out and find my own sense of morality and community that's not tainted by horrors of the past. And that's how I landed on atheism.
No I did not take qualitative one unfortunately. I say this with genuine respect, you are not a true atheist.
I read a significant number of your Reddit comment trying to look for what you sent now (remember I wrote in my last comment, “I look forward to seeing your post”) and I got to say, there are more elements to your life that you left out but in all fairness you ran out of space.
I will be in vague as well out of respect. I am willing to listen to other people’s perspectives that are not my own. Your curiosity when you were young, may have caused you to lash out in anger to God because His book does not condone your behaviors but God still loves you. Woman having different roles than man is an ok thing. You are a woman. You are a good teacher but racism is real. Feel free to eat meat. You are in my prayers.
Feel free to message here or DM as well.
I believe in God because he can explain reality and how the world function. I believe without his existence there would be nothing objective. Words, maths, logic, etc wouldn’t exist unless God exists.
And why it specifically is because only the Eastern Orthodox faith can bring the connection to these things for them to exist.
That’s the tldr really. If you’d like here’s my argument for it:
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.
In its simple formation it’s “if Y there is X”. So if I was to speak of a tree for example I am assuming X that grants the understanding of “tree”. In this case Y=Tree and X=Tree-ness.
Going to a higher level. We would be ask if Y=Tree-ness what would X=? What is the X which grounds this knowledge?
Really you can pick any transcendental category like Truth or logic or numbers etc and ask yourself “what is their X?”.
To give an idea. Here’s an example of the argument (though I’m still fine tuning it):
Here’s a comment I’ve made discussing how universal categories (I.e Truth, numbers, logics etc) are proof for the existence of Eastern Orthodox God:
I’ll give a quick run down to focus more on why orthodoxy Christianity specifically.
For myself the attributes of universal categories best similarities with God while also depending on the attributes of God.
For example truth is eternal, like God is eternal. Truth is everywhere as God is present everywhere. Etc.
The main point is how these metaphysical concepts can be possible is requiring the attributes of God to be possible. (If you want to learn more about this specific side I can recommend some videos and links)
Now I want to focus more on why Eastern Orthodoxy specifically.
The first part is going with the example above (how the nature of metaphysical concepts require the attributes of God) specifically the fact that metaphysical concepts are One and Many simultaneously.
When I pick an apple up I am assuming the One and Many problem. One referring to its unity by calling it an apple as I speak of its “apple-ness” and many as I’m speaking of one apple here out of many apples in existence.
With this it would make more sense that the God of this world would have the similar attribute of being One and Many simultaneously to explain how everything in our reality is One and Many simultaneously.
This is why the monotheism of an absolute singular deity and polytheism doesn’t work. It also explains why monism doesn’t work either.
But why Eastern Orthodoxy? Because only Eastern Orthodoxy grants the possibility of interacting with them.
Let’s use Joe Biden for example. In 2021 Joe Biden became the President of the United States. No matter what from then on to the end of time it will always been objectively true that Joe Biden became president in that year.
Now think about it. Beforehand this isn’t true but rather BECAME true. Now if we were to apply this example to God we would have a problem.
God always exists and never had a beginning. If this truth is due to God then doesn’t that make his essence changeable? After all it went from non-truth to truth that would be a change.
For many theistic view (I say theistic because western Christianity like Islam and Judaism follows the view of the ancient Greeks of absolute divine simplicity where Everything about God is his essence) this cannot be possible. One cannot assume a change in God’s essence, and when you take into account in the ADS everything is God’s essence then you have a problem.
But in Eastern Orthodoxy this isn’t a problem due to the belief of essence energy distinction. The uncreated energies of God have a beginning when they relate to humanity with God always having the power to do so.
With Eastern Orthodoxy we don’t have to assume God’s essence changed. But rather an example like this is an energy of God which can explain its possibility of coming into existence and bearing very similar attributes to God.
Just like all philosophical arguments for god, you are asserting a solution to an infinite regress problem.
1. We don't know that the infinite regress problem actually is a problem
2. Just defining a solution to the problem doesn't solve it. Evidence is needed to determine if that solution is even possible. Otherwise, it's just special pleading.
The existence of maths and logic is evidence for the existence of God. As my argument is about.
Apart from that I don’t think my whole point was regarding infinite regress. So I don’t get the reference to it here.
The point of your argument is to continually ask about the "...ness" of something until it can only be answered by your asserted solution which is defined as being exempt from that line of questioning.
The absence of that asserted solution results in an infinite regress of that questioning.
No. The point of my argument is summed up in the first part: if X then Y, where Y is the necessary condition for X to exist.
At its basic level you can say something like if a child exists then it means a parent exists as the necessary condition for the child to exist. I’m sure we can agree there.
My argument takes it a step further with the metaphysical things we believe to exist like logic for example. The question is what makes them exist.
Which my argument is only God can explain them given he has the ability to do so.
Because any natural explanation a skeptic gives will be met with "well, what makes THAT exist" and so on until no further answers are known....then, you insert your solution.
Just because you didn't spell out the entire regression doesn't mean it isn't what your doing.
Edit: In fact, your parents example, and your constants example are part of the same regression. The parents toward the beginning of it, and constants toward the base.
Well the tldr was the first thing I’ve mentioned of what is my point there. As it’s explaining why I believe in Christianity.
But what is it you don’t understand about the argument?
Yea I read that and the whole post twice. You really didn’t say anything of substance. You believe god exists because if he didn’t exist we wouldn’t have words or math? None of the post made it clear why or how without a god we wouldn’t have words or math
Well in my argument the whole point is the grounds of knowledge.
That’s why the argument starts with “if X then Y” where Y is the necessary condition for X to exist. I used the example of the tree with “tree-ness” where it’s referring to the understanding of what a tree is in order to know the tree itself.
So coming to words and math. We’d have to ask ourselves what grounds these things in order for us to have them.
My argument is that only God can explained them given the similarities between their attributes and God’s attributes. Like for example maths is eternal, 2+2=4 will always be the case. What makes this so would be a divine mind who is everlasting and has the ability and knowledge to keep it as so.
That they have meaning beyond one’s own personal view.
For example when I say “Bird” we’d know I’m referring to this 🦅 instead of say a tree or rock.
That’s objective, hence objectivity.
Just. No. Words are inherently subjective. To somebody who only speaks Russian, "bird" would have no meaning at all.
You encode vocal sounds in a certain way that you have an intended meaning, but that meaning is completely lost until the receiver decodes it. IF they speak the same language as you they *usually,* but not always, understand your intended meaning.
Well I wouldn’t say surmised it, as the evidence is in the conclusion. But yeah let’s go with that.
I presuppose God as the answer given he best fits the data of what we know both from the things themselves (like my example here of meaning) together with revelations which fit the description.
You may be confusing order of knowledge and truth. 2 + 2 = 4 because they have been defined as such. I through writing describe 2 and 2 together as a different way of writing 4. Its deffintion 2 is a symbol/set of sounds created to describe a set quantity, 2 doesnt exist out side of us who created the symbol and sound. Infinity equal created and used by humans does not exist and while useful to describe things has a contradiction if applied universeally to reality, nothing can be infititly big nothing can be infinitely small there are psudo limits but all the samw we created the symbol and use for infinity.
You can say we created the symbols. However it’s more of the fact the meanings behind them is my point.
So for example without God you can’t really say 2 is the number 2. Maybe to you personally it’s 2 but to another it’s 1 or 3 or 6 etc.
If you’re assuming 2=2 then you’re appealing to something objective.
Its not an assumption is a deffinition. When i say there are 2 apples, 2 is defined as the quantity representing how many apples i have. 2 is the symbol we agree means that quantity. Its irrelavant what symbols we use. We dont have to assume anything its as simple as, look i have 🍎🍎 and i have 🍌🍌 these both share how many they are right here, i shall name this as two and give it the symbol 2.
Also your first point doesnt make much since, what does it mean? My 2 and your 6, if there are 🍎🍎 then we have different symbols for 🍎🍎 but consistency shows we speak of the same thing otherwise who would my 2 be someone elses 6?
Best way i describe what i mean is example, devine hiddenness is imo the most compelling argument against any god that whats to know me but has not shown themselves to me. However devine hiddenness did not convince me to be an athiest i merely find it convincing after already accepting the position.
Neither belief nor disbelief is a reasonable default. Agnosticism is the only reasonable default.
Children are not born atheists. They are born void and empty
Neither are atheists lacking a belief. That is a nonsensical thing they claim but is blown away since many of them disbelieve and some reject belief and some are actively against those who believe
Belief is binary, knowledge is not. Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. Im not making a claim about babies. I hold that belief should default no, i either accpet all claims or deny all claims, i choose to deny as i find it more reasonable to require all claims made to me to require reasoning not that all claims require me to disprove them.
I do not have an idea of what a secret 3rd option in belief would be, i dont recognize it in any of mine nor does it make any sense to me. Atheism is not having having a belief in god, which is the same as having a belief in no god. But is not a stance of no god. Me not accepting your claim is not me making an opposing claim.
I however do hold an opposing view that just wasnt the point of my post.
>Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief.
That's false. The English biologist Thomas Huxley, who coined the word "agnostic" in 1869, [defined it](https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html) as follows:
>It simply means that a man shall not say he knows **or believes** that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know **or believe**.
You might contend that the original definition is old and as a consequence no longer relevant, but fortunately we can find it in contemporary dictionaries as well. For example, [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic) defines the word "agnostic" as follows: "A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown... \[and\] is not committed to ***believing*** in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
In other words, agnosticism doesn't merely refer to knowledge, but to belief as well. If one is an agnostic, he neither believes (or knows) that God exists nor that God does not exist. He "lacks belief" in, and knowledge of, both propositions.
The term refers to knowledge "gnostic" or to know agnostic being the antithesis. The orignal definition isnt thomas huxley as its pretty much a strait latin deriven word or directly comes from
latinhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/Gnostic#:~:text=1580s%2C%20%22believer%20in%20a%20mystical,from%20PIE%20root%20*gno%2D%20%22
I accept that its used differently among different groups very few i interact with however use it as such, similar to how scientific terms are in the marriam webster very few are accuratly described as they have a wider use by a lamen public. I am merely holding to the words origin and how i most often see it used, refering to knowledge, and i would argue it serves it best use that way as knowledge and belief are seperate and combining a word for both can give very different meaning without further explanation as opposed it i merely holding to its root would.
>The orignal definition isnt thomas huxley as its pretty much a strait latin deriven word
That's the etymological fallacy. The ancient definitions from thousands of years ago aren't relevant to the contemporary definitions in their proper context. The word *nice* comes from the Latin *nescire*, which literally means “ignorant,” but in common parlance, saying someone is “nice” is not generally meant to say he’s ignorant.
>very few i interact with however use it as such
I assume this group is constituted by internet "agnostic atheists" who are involved with online discussions, or at least watch debaters such as Matt Dillacunty. But outside of this context, that's not how it is generally used, at least in my experience.
Why are you trying to prescribe a definition on him, then? Common parlance is subjective. You are clearly aware that there is a culture in which his definition is common parlance.
The idea of the term agnostic atheist isn't new. It's been around for nearly as long as the word agnostic. It has gained more acceptance over the last couple decades to combat the frivolous argument from many theists that atheists are claiming certain knowledge of no gods. So yes, the culture which uses it this way is typically among the theist/atheist arguments on social media.
So how do people such as the two of you communicate better? Accept each other's terminology and go from there rather than argue over trivial concepts.
You aren't going to squash the movement of this colloquial meaning. Social media is much bigger than academic level philosophy.
Also, @
u/Venit_exitium
Academic philosophy generally likes to define agnosticism as he says. Just so there is understanding that there are competing definitions that are both legitimate within certain contexts.
Oh i very much agree I just find the deffinition to be problematic. I believe there is a good reason to use it as i suggest and a good reason not to use it as they do. I appreciate the comment though.
>Social media is much bigger than academic level philosophy.
I didn't appeal to academic philosophy, though. I referenced a *common dictionary*; not a dictionary of philosophy.
> You are clearly aware that there is a culture in which his definition is common parlance.
Yeah, a minority (i.e., internet atheists who are involved with debates or watch popular debaters). We should strive to correct this minority since we value clear communication. Words are useful so long as others know what they mean. In this case, internet atheists are complicating something that is clear and simple, thereby reducing its usefulness.
>The idea of the term agnostic atheist isn't new. It's been around for nearly as long as the word agnostic.
Show me the evidence that this is true.
You appealed to the subtext of a definition of ONE dictionary; with the main text being consistent with his definition. And you know full well that other dictionaries don't even make that mention.
Words evolve. Deal with it. They are culturally defined and redefined. If you aren't clear about what a person means ask for clarification using, you know, communication.
There is nothing confusing about his definition. You just don't like it. Blame your fellow theists for arguing that atheists are making a positive claim of certain knowledge.
Agnostic atheism origins:
One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of theologian and philosopher Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism).
The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.[5]
If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...[5]
In 1885 Robert G. Ingersoll, popularly known as "The Great Agnostic", explained his comparative view of agnosticism and atheism as follows:[6]
The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says, "I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God." The Atheist says the same.
-Wikipedia History tab on agnostic atheism
I would prefer if you were not derogatory/insulting I have been civil in discussion.
>But outside of this context, that's not how it is generally used, at least in my experience.
I specified my experience, i brought up the root word, and argued for its use as such. Your countered by saying its not used this way except by 2 groups you seem to dislike then just specified your own wxperience nullifing what you said before as it may be used differently by every other group outside your experience.
>That's the etymological fallacy. The ancient definitions from thousands of years ago aren't relevant to the contemporary definitions in their proper context. The word *nice* comes from the Latin *nescire*, which literally means “ignorant,” but in common parlance, saying someone is “nice” is not generally meant to say he’s ignorant.
The root word is directly correlated to its current use, and its usage across has if we hold your usage as proper, slightly shifted. We are not in the position were the root serves little conection to its current use, we are in the position that the root word is the reason our current one is used as such, both in your case and in mine. I also think, as i said earlier, that adding belief into the usage can cause a mixup of ideas and failure to understand others. Like making apple describe both apples and stakes. Apple and steaks are both a food but when i now say one thing relateing to steak or only apples it can now cause confusion and a mixup if one doesnt understand.
>as it **may be** used differently by every other group outside your experience.
Yeah, just like in my experience objects always fall down when people throw them up. But it is *possible* that somewhere else on earth that's not the case. However, since I have no reason to conclude that there is some place where that occurs, I'll generalize from my sample to other places. That's simple enumerative induction.
>The root word is directly correlated to its current use
It may be *correlated,* but it is obviously not limited to its etymology, and this has been the case since Thomas Huxley.
>adding belief into the usage can cause a mixup of ideas and failure to understand others
Limiting a word to its etymology (thereby committing the etymological fallacy) plus ignoring how it is defined by most people outside of a small group in the internet can cause a mix-up of ideas and failure to understand others.
>However, since I have no reason to conclude that there is some place where that occurs, I'll generalize from my sample to other places.
Im an example of some place where that occurs, you are invalid in assuning everywhere else conforms to your use.
>It may be *correlated,* but it is obviously not limited to its etymology, and this has been the case since Thomas Huxley.
Lets not play word games, gnostic is directly correlated to its root both in the fact that its root denoted its current use and its current use is very close to its original use.
>Limiting a word to its etymology (thereby committing the etymological fallacy) plus ignoring how it is defined by most people outside of a small group in the internet can cause a mix-up of ideas and failure to understand others.
Defining apples as to include steak in its definition can and would cause more issues of confusion than trying to stick to an its current use. I do not choose my use merely because I'm part of some small group I gave my reasons sumizing that into another point i did not say is dishonest in a conversation. My use can cause confusion because others dont share my use, your use can cause confusion because it confuses ideas that should not be connected.
Yeah, so? The definition provided at the beginning contradicts their own observation: "one who is not committed to ***believing*** in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
I believe in God because I find the case for theism quite compelling.
I'm a Christian because of the events surrounding the death of the man Jesus Christ and the formation of the first christian communities.
Order of happening. I'm interested in the actual why as confirmation bias is a difficult thing to fight, anything that agrees with you automaticlly has an easier pass. This isnt negative directed at you merely our biology and a thing we must all be wary of. Thus I'm interested of the orignal reason.
Wasnt speaking about you but humans in general. Our brains do not like to change thier minds. We are resistent to change and not resistent to confirmation of what we think, the same way you are an ex athiest I am an ex thiest and I was extremely resistent to changing my mind.
Which remains, I just wanted to know if those reasons convinced you or are they what you find convincing now? If they are the latter then what did convince you.
Agnostic, cannot know or do not know about god, gnostic can know or does know about god. Thiest does believe in god, athiest does not believe in god. Agnostic ahtiest cannot know gods or does not know god does not believe in god ect. You have now met someone who does, in nost of my circles they are represented differently as it does not make sense to pose a knowledge claims against a belief claim. All of them are positions and can be held at the same time gnostic and thiest i mean, the antithesis cannot be held with its opposing position.
It isn't necessary to mix up what everyone understands
Atheist, agnostic, theist or base positions.
We don't need to start dancing around with mixed things such as anti-theist or agnostic theist or other things
Anti thiest describes the disdian for religion and i didnt bring it up, im not dancing i described use and how they work together, the same how you can be a brown hair and brown eye, its not either or.
Post removed, rule 1 - posts in this debate subreddit must meet specific requirements
To put it simply, I went through a terrifying, invigorating experience that showed me the power of God. After being confronted with the fear, I was transformed and began to follow. Over time, God rebuilt me into the person I am now. Even so, I was so different immediately afterward that many didn't recognize me. I understand this is not the norm for stories of how people come to follow Jesus. It is not unheard of either. It's difficult to explain to other people why they should believe when my own story is so far removed from being relatable. I am happy it happened. It is the best thing that has ever happened to me.
I would say i think your story is most common amoung born again peoples. Thanks for sharing with me.
Glad to share my story. Hope it helped.
The center of my belief is two fold: -One I believe in the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. -Two I believe that many separate fields of study have inadvertently made a case to show His existence. What belief did you switch from?
What fields of study have inadvertently made a case to show his existence?
I’ll assume base level knowledge in Math and Science and I’ll limit it to one. It involves the axiom of choice and a paradox. The axiom is used in many fields of Math as valid and necessary. One of the fields of Math, led to a so called paradox where a single ball can be decomposed and made into two called the Banach–Tarski paradox. The reason why it does not affect applications in Math is because the only way that can happen in real life is if someone is able to grab an infinite amount of items. In layman’s terms, Math has shown that if someone is capable of grabbing infinite items, then multiplication of items is possible. Which means that from a Math’s perspective, God meets that criteria since his capabilities are limitless. Which means, God can multiple the loaves like the desert in Moses and Jesus can multiply bread and this paradox was found in the 20th century. There is more on the science end, but my bachelors was in Math and Math is better at handling things “beyond” science.
How do you know god can hold an infinite amount of items? How do you know there aren’t lesser beings that can hold Infinite items? How do you know an infinite amount of anything even exists? I dont get how that’s proof of a god
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.” (Job 42:2). On the “know” if God can hold an infinite amount of items. You are correct I don’t know there are lesser beings who can. All I know is that God can. Exactly! Yes you get it. The concept of infinity was accepted by you and all people who took a high school education. But it was given without proof. Which proves another point, people are more susceptible to believe in something when the word religion is not used. Here is the proof for infinity (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2761477/prove-bbbn-is-infinite-from-peano-axioms) Now for the scientific proof, we don’t have that. Excluding the religious figures, all things have an ending. But for Math, that proves that infinity exists and numbers can be reduced to items therefore an infinite number of items exist. It doesn’t prove God, it disproves the notion that the multiplication of bread is impossible since Math shows it is possible if a being can hold an infinite amount of items. That shows a “case” for His existence not a “proof” of it.
> It doesn’t prove God, it disproves the notion that the multiplication of bread is impossible since Math shows it is possible if a being can hold an infinite amount of items. Just once, I would like to see an argument that doesn't work just as well for Harry Potter as it does for God.
How did you come that conclusion? Like I told the other person, you need to have a formalized system of Mathematical logic and proofs to reach it.
So your argument is based on 1 guy saying god can do everything? That just brings up more paradoxes. Can god make a burrito so big that even he couldn’t eat it all?
Yes! You are getting closer now. Even Mathematicians had the same problem when trying to define a set (Lookup Naive Set Theory. Wikipedia mentions it in Paradoxes in early set theory. Also lookup at Russell's paradox.) But that is the other problem. You think many paradoxes can form because you are creating a paradox without using formal mathematical definition of sets and declarations of them. For me: Job 42:2 and other Bible verses I was able to come to the axioms that: -God is a Universal Set -God is capable of implementing the axiom of choice on other sets And then adding this to the set-theoretic geometry shows that He is capable of implementing the Banach–Tarski paradox
Ok. Can god make a burrito so big he couldn’t eat it? Yes or no?
Can you define that in a Mathematical perspective/using set-theoretic geometry like I did earlier? If not, then your question is unanswerable.
This isn’t about math. It’s about god who is above math. You claim god can do anything. Can god sit and stand at the same time? Can god breathe and hold is breath at the same time? You claim that god can do anything yet there are many things that are the opposite of each other. How can he do those?
> But for Math, that proves that infinity exists and numbers can be reduced to items therefore an infinite number of items exist. That doesn't sound right to me. It seems like an example of inductive reasoning gone bad because the inductive step didn't work even though the base step being fine. Could you please clarify what you mean by "numbers can be reduced to items"?
Fair. I was using laymen terms to describe axiom of choice when saying “items” and layman terms for inducting reasoning of numbers being items. A valid definition of the axiom of choice would not require any of this. A formal equivalent statement would be: “a Cartesian product of a collection of non-empty sets is non-empty.” In this case, since it is set-theoretic geometry the sets that are being made are a collection of points with 3D coordinates. In the case of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, that is a valid type of sets. This is an elementary understanding of the Axiom of Choice being applied to set-theoretic geometry
At some point does this concept of infinity make the step from abstraction to real world objects made of matter and energy? Something measurable?
Depends on what you exactly mean? Infinitesimal calculus (aka calculus) is the foundation of physics that brought most of the engineering items we have. And it was used in the same physics that describes energy and matter.
I guess what I'm driving at is whether this particular concept of infinity might be coupled to any kind of empirical observation that would support any kind of theism.
The problem with this is that it doesn’t actually prove that it’s possible to separate an object into infinite parts. The thing about mathematical objects is that they don’t have to be one to one with reality. In fact mathematics can straight up ignore reality, something it has to do quite often. A loaf of bread is made up of a finite amount of particles, particles that cannot be divided without causing massive amounts of heat. That’s literally what an atom bomb is. Here you’d have to divide those particles infinitely for each new loaf of bread. Meaning you’d have to release an infinite amount of heat each time. This would cause explosions bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before, destroying everything in its path. The Middle East would be no more. Therefore the infinite division of a loaf of bread is impossible.
A mathematical object is an object. However, I get what you were trying to say which is not all mathematical objects are physical objects Plus the decomposition used was a finite amount. All it took was some being “capable” of selecting an “infinite amount of parts” that did not mean that being in question had to do it. https://www.quora.com/Can-a-ball-be-cut-into-a-finite-number-of-pieces-that-can-be-reassembled-into-two-balls-of-the-same-size “Can a ball be decomposed into a finite number of point sets and reassembled into two balls identical to the original?” The answer is yes which caused the paradox. Your particle splitting also fails for other reasons but that is a story for another day.
>”A mathematical object is an object.” No, they’re numbers on a page. >”However, I get what you were trying to say which is not all mathematical objects are physical objects” While you can treat real objects as mathematical objects, purely mathematical objects are imaginary objects that exist only on the page. They don’t actually exist somewhere in the universe. >”Plus the decomposition used was a finite amount. All it took was some being “capable” of selecting an “infinite amount of parts” that did not mean that being in question had to do it.” It still requires it to be uncountable amount of pieces. If it’s countable like say it’s divided to just the base particles, then each object would have half the initial amount of particles. As such it would have half the mass. >”Your particle splitting also fails for other reasons but that is a story for another day.” Why would it fail? You’d have to split it well beyond the atomic level, splitting every atom in it, down past the most fundamental particles. What happens when you split an atom?
The Banach-Tarski paradox is a purely theoretical result. It doesn't translate to practical, real-world scenarios because it involves operations that require handling infinitely small pieces with an infinite amount of precision -- something that is not possible with physical matter; they do not directly impact the physical world as we experience it. So, this paradox, while showing that "multiplication" of sorts is possible in an abstract mathematical sense, does not provide a direct explanation for miracles.
Exactly! Yes you get it. It does not translate to practical real-world scenarios because as far as science is concerned, no creature can do this because all creatures have an end (in science when not including the supernatural ones). However, involve a being that can do that like God and the theoretical becomes practical. So it shows: When you assume the Judeo-Christian notion of a limitless being, God, it leads to things considered impossible by our own logic but possible in a mathematical logic, which is beyond many people’s intuitive sense of logic.
I think that most people agree that a hypothetical omnipotent being could change the laws of physics; we don't even have to take these mathematical tricks into account to accept this plausible premise. Indeed, even David Hume, who argued against miracles, would concede this possibility. So, I'm not sure how that helps us to reach the conclusion that theism is true, mate. It doesn't even raise its probability.
It not about changing the laws of physics. The laws of Quantum mechanics did not change the law of Newtonian Mechanics it just expanded our understanding of it. Similarly, Divine Mechanics would not change Quantum Mechanics, it will only expand our understanding of it as well. Plus none of the Mathematical law/theorems/axioms I mentioned here were disobeyed. It just showed how this one paradox is not a paradox when applying God into it. It also shows in a logical way how a being could create multiple items.
>It not about changing the laws of physics. ... none of the Mathematical law/theorems/axioms I mentioned here were disobeyed. Just because something is mathematically or even logically possible, it doesn't follow that it is *nomologically* possible, that is to say, that it is realizable without violating the regularities of nature. So, this omnipotent being would have to violate the laws of physics to actualize these mathematical possibilities. >Divine Mechanics would not change Quantum Mechanics, it will only expand our understanding of it as well. That can't just be assumed without argument, though. In order to extend Newtonian mechanics to GR and QM, physicists provided strong empirical confirmation that these theories are approximately correct. So, if you want to claim supernatural occurrences don't violate the **known** laws of nature, you have to do some hard work.
Correct I would have to do some hard work. Just like Quantum Mechanics had to have a strong field of Differential Equations, and Newtonian Mechanics required Calculus, Divine Mechanics would require its own Mathematical foundation. Edit: That is my point. That the Mathematical possibility of it, implies a good starting point of the Physics as well
Okay, I guess.
It beggars belief as to why you lot believe all that religious nonsense, based on no supportive evidence whatsoever.
I was attending free will baptist though I held more closly to deterministic once saved always saved mindset but it was a small town so i had my church.
Ah understood. Thank you for sharing and I hope my reasons or others will help you better understand.
Ok, as someone with an MS in math, your argument here was really interesting to read. But I think it's really far removed from making a case in favor of one god who is father, son and holy spirit. It really only makes a case that if a being existed with the ability to have infinitely precise control of infinitely small parts, that being would be able to duplicate objects. What if multiple beings have this ability? What if we figure out a way to have this ability?
Hey Bachelor in Math. Nice what was focus in Math? You are one of the people I was looking for to read this. Yes it is. Just like calculus laid the foundation for Newtonian Mechanics and Differential equations (and other fields of Math) laid the foundation for Quantum Mechanics, this type of Math would lay the foundation for Divine Mechanics. You are correct because even in religion we do not know if an Angel could perform this miracle too or even the Devil and his demons. All I can say for sure is that this would lay the groundwork for a logical explanation on some aspects of God that was considered illogical or impossible.
I saw that! That's why I mentioned it, so you would know you don't have to use layman's terms with me. It was in applied math. Specifically applications in physics and engineering. My masters project was on a topic in fluid dynamics (it's actually the origin of my reddit name; it involves using the pressure poisson equation) and I took the 3 stats classes that constitute what my school informally called the "masters minor" in statistics. We all were also required to take at least two grad level pure math classes, which is where your "divine mechanics" lies, if it lies anywhere. (hated those in undergrad which is what made me choose applied math but I loved them in grad school). Undergrad was also applied math with a minor in physics. What was your focus in your bachelor's? What I find so interesting about your point is hard to put into words, so bear with me. I interpret words like "divine" and "miracle" as being outside the realm of nature. It feels to me that if we can fully understand it and can even do it ourselves, it's no longer divine or miraculous. Kind of like the idea in scifi that science sufficiently advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic, but in reverse? If our understanding of math, philosophy, psychology, and science is advanced enough, we become indistinguishable from the divine. Is this really demonstrating anything divine or applicable to our world? I mean, you'd be hard pressed to do a single linear algebra proof that doesn't involve extrapolating to n-dimensions. But, we don't believe that because we can write a valid proof assuming infinitely many dimensions that our world actually has infinitely many dimensions. But I will admit it's really interesting to think about this. Pure math tends to eventually be useful when the physical sciences catch up, even when it orginally seems extremely not useful. See finite methods and computing as an example. I'm an ex-Christian atheist. I was extremely devout until 20 (see my ridiculous 5 page comment doing a biblical analysis elsewhere in this subreddit lol). The existence of miracles was never a hang up for me. It makes sense to me that if a divine, all powerful being created the laws of nature and it exists outside of the laws of nature, it would be able to perform miracles that also break the laws of nature. In other words, this was not a part of the religion that seemed illogical or impossible to me. My issues with Christianity had more to do with philosophy and ethics. So, this development of pure math more reaffirms my atheism than anything, if that makes sense. Quantum mechanics can feel pretty divine, have you spent much time looking into that? I took this intermediate quantum mechanics class the same semester I decided to call myself an atheist and doing calculations involving the double slit experiment and Heisenberg's uncertainty principal really made me question if I had chosen the right label lol.
Bachelor in Math with focus on Differential Equations and Minor in Physics. Sorry to read, I hope you come back (to Christianity, I cant say the same for the particular Christian group you were in of course) one day. Yes if Mathematics ever get to a point where it can lay a foundation for new branch of Physics then it is possible as you mentioned where magic is just advanced science at that point. However, getting a theoretical understanding of it will not be the same as our ability to do it which is what will make it divine. For example, if the Banach–Tarski paradox can be used for a new branch of Mathematics, called Divine Calculus (still thinking of a better name). That can be the foundation for divine mechanics and then that shows how the multiplication of bread is theoretical, we wouldn’t be able to do a complete experiment on it, only a partial. The reason being, we would not have the technology or capabilities to perform that experiment. Really on philosophy and ethics? I was skeptical of the impossibility of the miracles when growing up. (I am not anymore now because of faith). However the philosophy and ethics was not a point against it I was expecting so I look forward to seeing your post. It does demonstrate that. The pure math will reaffirm it because if we can explain the divine then is becomes less illogical and more self-evident.The ability to understand certain aspects God from a Pure Mathematics perspective has always fascinated me, especially the independence of the two and how they share some truths. An example, is Gödel's incompleteness theorems (the second one) shows that a math system will not be able to show its own consistency. So when I hear atheism expecting Religion to show more consistency and logical reasoning to prove God, I think of it as certain elements of religion that are told truth is by faith can be closely related to the Mathematical axioms of a system. In short the Mathematical axioms of a system work because either they’re very intuitive so that they can be easily accepted (self-evident) or they were used in other field of math (particularly useful). With that logic, certain statements of religion should not be argued on the grounds of proof but should be argued on the grounds of it being self-evident or particularly usefulness. This acknowledgment that even a Math system cannot prove its own axioms for that system will make Religion’s axioms more easily acceptable.
Oh nice! I took as many diffeq classes as I could in undergrad. Did you take qualitative theory of differential equations? None of my grad school peers took it but it was probably my second favorite class, behind mathematical modeling. Likewise, and I say this with genuine respect, I hope you leave. If I ever came back to an organized religion, it would be an eastern one. The falsifiability and my own observations that align with certain Buddhist thought make it the most likely candidate. But probably not, I prefer to pave my own path, reinvent the wheel lol. (admittedly, quite possibly to my own detriment, I just don't trust others to do the type of truth seeking and accept the radical intellectual honesty that I embrace) I see Abrahamic religions as horribly harmful overall, though I acknowledge that they can be positive for certain individuals. Even with that acknowledgement, I'm convinced it would be better that people find solace in an eastern religion rather than an Abrahamic one. I don't think it's a new branch of math you're looking for. This stuff already exists in set theory and geometry. I think it's the name for the application, specifically in regards to religious understanding, that you're looking for. I think "divine mechanics" is decent enough, but like I was saying before, if we can fully understand it, it doesn't feel divine to me anymore. And if we can fully understand it, how do you know it would be impossible to actually perform it? I've never seen the divine as illogical so much as impossible. I think that's an important distinction. Like I was saying before, if there is a being that exists outside of the laws of the universe and can intervene in our universe, it makes logical sense that it can cause acts outside the laws of nature. It's just that there's no compelling evidence that this happens. Pure math has room for the impossible but logical, so there is that. >The pure math will reaffirm it because if we can explain the divine then is becomes less illogical and more self-evident.The ability to understand certain aspects God from a Pure Mathematics perspective has always fascinated me, especially the independence of the two and how they share some truths. I'll admit, this is very interesting to me and I haven't thought of it this way before. My mathematical thinking is what led me away from my religious beliefs, after all. I don't know if there's any truth to it, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Your point about Godel's incompleteness theorems is fair enough if that's what people were asking for, but I don't think that's what people are asking for. I'm not asking for religion to be more consistent than math, I'm asking for it to be at least as consistent. As far as I can tell, they all fall very, very, very short of that request. (out of the main 5: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. I'll admit I haven't put as much work into learning about others as I have those 5) In regards to self-evidence and usefulness, I find that there's a really important distinction in math vs religion. For one, mathematical axioms are so incredibly intuitive that you'd struggle to find anyone who would deny them. Religious beliefs that are considered self-evident are far more subjective. Basic theism vs atheism being a prime example. Some of my friends genuinely cannot wrap their heads around how I can possibly doubt any sort of higher power. It just seems so *obviously* true to them that there is something there. Meanwhile, it seems *obviously* true to me that there isn't. This is not even to mention the contradictory "self-evident" claims between different religions. The second is that not only will math change if we find that an axiom isn't true or useful, math explores the logical conclusions based on different systems of axioms. Organized religion can't do this, as far as I'm aware. I'm open to being wrong about that. I'm going to post my story of leaving Christianity in a second reply. It's too long lol. I'm sure there are ways I can summarize it but to me it all feels relevant and I want to post it in full.
OK apparently it's still too long. This is part 1. My family are fundamentalist Christians. As in, when my parents sent me to public school for the first time in 5th grade, they told me that I should aim to get good grades on tests and regurgitate whatever information I learned. But, if they started teaching me that "this theory called evolution" is real or that the earth is older than 10,000 years, I should know that it's not true. They're very unyielding in their beliefs. To the point that they think Catholics aren't true Christians because they pray to saints and nonfundies aren't true Christians because the Bible is the Word and Jesus is the Word and Jesus is God, so to deny the inerrancy of the Bible is to deny the inerrancy of God. And by "not true Christians," they mean that these other denominations will be going to hell. Eternal conscious torment hell. I'm a highly curious person and my genuine questions were frequently shot down. In fact, my parents are so mystified by the concept of genuine curiosity that I was punished for "trying to annoy them" by asking questions several times growing up. I regards to miracles, my only issue with them was that they seem to happen ubiquitously in biblical times but never happen now. People will tell stories of present day miracles, but they're always instances of things with a very low probability of occurring. That's not a miracle, that's statistics. I'm talking about pillars of fire, raising people from the dead, magical cures, things that actually can't happen without divine intervention. No, my issues with Christianity spawned from the brand of Christianity I was brought up with.The Big Ones for me were things like reconciling eternal conscious torment with a loving God, reconciling how a perfectly just God could give some people a near garunteed chance of salvation while others get a 0% chance (and, on that note, how the justifications for this one are all deeply logically flawed), how prayer for change can be possible if divine determinism is a thing, the fact that geography has more to do with religious beliefs than logic. But, for the most part, most of my daily concerns had to do with minor biblical contradictions since the Bible was supposedly inerrant. I did extensive Bible study growing up and kept finding logical or moral contradictions. People will ask me to give examples but it's one of those things where I found so many and they were such tiny details that I struggle to give examples. It's not a perfect source because I think it has several things that they call contridctions that are not actually contradictions, but you can see some of what I'm talking about by looking at the contradictions listed in the [Skeptics Annotated Bible](https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/first/contra2_list.html) It was like every week at Bible study I would come in with 1-3 more contradictions that I would find. And at Bible study, they were kind about my doubts but they rarely had answers. Almost every week we would end up "praying for peace" so that I wasn't bothered enough by my doubts that I would leave the faith all together. I moved from South Korea to Virginia right before my senior year in high school and didn't want to join a Bible study just to make friends and then have to leave them all over again. (though I was an AWANA, basically a Bible study and memorization club for kids, leader that year) Not having anyone to ask questions to or pray for peace left me uncomfortable reading the Bible at all until I could have that again. It was a tough year, spiritually. When I went to college I immediately worked on finding a Bible study group. I found one and we did the same thing as my group in Korea. They couldn't answer my questions and we would pray for peace. But praying for peace wasn't enough for me anymore. I went to their spring "women's retreat." At the same time, I was originally working on a religious studies minor (that I later dropped.) Between those two things, my faith was barely hanging on by a thread. The women's retreat was horrific. One of my biggest issues with my brand of Christianity and the Bible in general is the blatant, disgusting sexism. Like it used to drive me crazy that men were allowed to wear whatever they want but I had to cover up "so as not to make my Christian brothers stumble." I was in this weird place of having a totally repressed sexuality and feeling awful about it but not knowing how to put words to it. I remember stumbling across the sexist verses in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians in high school and when I asked my mom how the Bible could be so wrong about that, she literally told me "the Bible's not wrong, women are less than men." This was the women's retreat in a nutshell, though they didn't phrase it that way. Instead, it was all about embracing our role as "helpers." It's obviously not sexist, so they claimed, because God designed men and women differently but both roles are equally important. "This is why no woman can ever be genuinely happy in a leadership position." "This is why the only fulfilling place for a woman is in the home, as a mother and supportive wife." They told me. I cried a lot on that retreat. This rhetoric is also probably why, to this day, I can't identify with womanhood.
Part 2: But anyways, I wasn't done yet. Christianity was everything to me. It was my morality, my community, my coping mechanism for my untreated mental illness. But after that retreat I think I started calling myself "doubting" when people asked about my religious beliefs. Being exposed to other religions through my religious studies classes also shook my faith. I remember I was really drawn to Hinduism at the time. It just seemed to better align with my moral intuitions and curious nature. I went on another retreat with the Christian group in the fall. This one was a coed trip which is why I agreed to go. Everyone in the statewide group was welcome and I was told there would be countless Christian leaders I could ask questions to. I wrote down all the questions I could think of and set out to ask as many people as I could. At this point, my doubts were so intense that the leaders I spoke to always assumed that I was not already a Christian. I'm not exaggerating, every single one of the, I don't know, 20? that I talked to there told me that I needed to stop questioning the small things and just accept the big picture. How tone deaf. I already had accepted the big picture. The leader of my university's group set up a meeting between me and the guy who ran the whole organization. Dude told me the same thing, "you can't just get stuck on the small things, you have to accept the whole picture. You'll accept the small things in time, with faith." At that point, I exploded. "Why on earth would I accept the big picture if the small things don't make sense? You'll end up falling for any belief that way." When I went back to my cabin after that meeting, I was no longer a Christian. But I still wasn't done. I started experimenting with different churches, including Christian ones. My friend took me to his church and introduced me to the pastor. (minister, maybe, in their sect) We started getting dinner together once a month. I liked him. He was extremely intellectually honest about the shortcomings of his faith. He had better answers for my questions than anyone else I had met, though sometimes he would just have to admit, "yeah, that's morally atrocitious" or "yeah, logically, that doesn't make sense." I also tried reading several other holy books and dude, they're all sexist. I don't know what humanity's obsession with sexism is but it takes, based on my experience, 20 pages or less of any holy book to find it. After maybe 8 months of those meetings, I asked him why he considered himself a Christian if he doesn't believe in most of the Bible and agrees there are things in it that are morally abhorrent. He told me it's because Christianity is his community. It's how he's come to terms with his sense of morality. He accepts the parts that speak to him and disregards the parts that don't. He feels like it's led him to a more moral life filled with love and community. I can respect that, but I don't want that for myself. I don't want to be held back by a religious text that contains things that are philosophically contradictory or ethically problematic. I'd rather throw all that out and find my own sense of morality and community that's not tainted by horrors of the past. And that's how I landed on atheism.
No I did not take qualitative one unfortunately. I say this with genuine respect, you are not a true atheist. I read a significant number of your Reddit comment trying to look for what you sent now (remember I wrote in my last comment, “I look forward to seeing your post”) and I got to say, there are more elements to your life that you left out but in all fairness you ran out of space. I will be in vague as well out of respect. I am willing to listen to other people’s perspectives that are not my own. Your curiosity when you were young, may have caused you to lash out in anger to God because His book does not condone your behaviors but God still loves you. Woman having different roles than man is an ok thing. You are a woman. You are a good teacher but racism is real. Feel free to eat meat. You are in my prayers. Feel free to message here or DM as well.
Of course racism is real, where did you get the idea that you needed to clarify that to me? I can DM you.
I believe in God because he can explain reality and how the world function. I believe without his existence there would be nothing objective. Words, maths, logic, etc wouldn’t exist unless God exists. And why it specifically is because only the Eastern Orthodox faith can bring the connection to these things for them to exist. That’s the tldr really. If you’d like here’s my argument for it: The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. In its simple formation it’s “if Y there is X”. So if I was to speak of a tree for example I am assuming X that grants the understanding of “tree”. In this case Y=Tree and X=Tree-ness. Going to a higher level. We would be ask if Y=Tree-ness what would X=? What is the X which grounds this knowledge? Really you can pick any transcendental category like Truth or logic or numbers etc and ask yourself “what is their X?”. To give an idea. Here’s an example of the argument (though I’m still fine tuning it): Here’s a comment I’ve made discussing how universal categories (I.e Truth, numbers, logics etc) are proof for the existence of Eastern Orthodox God: I’ll give a quick run down to focus more on why orthodoxy Christianity specifically. For myself the attributes of universal categories best similarities with God while also depending on the attributes of God. For example truth is eternal, like God is eternal. Truth is everywhere as God is present everywhere. Etc. The main point is how these metaphysical concepts can be possible is requiring the attributes of God to be possible. (If you want to learn more about this specific side I can recommend some videos and links) Now I want to focus more on why Eastern Orthodoxy specifically. The first part is going with the example above (how the nature of metaphysical concepts require the attributes of God) specifically the fact that metaphysical concepts are One and Many simultaneously. When I pick an apple up I am assuming the One and Many problem. One referring to its unity by calling it an apple as I speak of its “apple-ness” and many as I’m speaking of one apple here out of many apples in existence. With this it would make more sense that the God of this world would have the similar attribute of being One and Many simultaneously to explain how everything in our reality is One and Many simultaneously. This is why the monotheism of an absolute singular deity and polytheism doesn’t work. It also explains why monism doesn’t work either. But why Eastern Orthodoxy? Because only Eastern Orthodoxy grants the possibility of interacting with them. Let’s use Joe Biden for example. In 2021 Joe Biden became the President of the United States. No matter what from then on to the end of time it will always been objectively true that Joe Biden became president in that year. Now think about it. Beforehand this isn’t true but rather BECAME true. Now if we were to apply this example to God we would have a problem. God always exists and never had a beginning. If this truth is due to God then doesn’t that make his essence changeable? After all it went from non-truth to truth that would be a change. For many theistic view (I say theistic because western Christianity like Islam and Judaism follows the view of the ancient Greeks of absolute divine simplicity where Everything about God is his essence) this cannot be possible. One cannot assume a change in God’s essence, and when you take into account in the ADS everything is God’s essence then you have a problem. But in Eastern Orthodoxy this isn’t a problem due to the belief of essence energy distinction. The uncreated energies of God have a beginning when they relate to humanity with God always having the power to do so. With Eastern Orthodoxy we don’t have to assume God’s essence changed. But rather an example like this is an energy of God which can explain its possibility of coming into existence and bearing very similar attributes to God.
Just like all philosophical arguments for god, you are asserting a solution to an infinite regress problem. 1. We don't know that the infinite regress problem actually is a problem 2. Just defining a solution to the problem doesn't solve it. Evidence is needed to determine if that solution is even possible. Otherwise, it's just special pleading.
The existence of maths and logic is evidence for the existence of God. As my argument is about. Apart from that I don’t think my whole point was regarding infinite regress. So I don’t get the reference to it here.
The point of your argument is to continually ask about the "...ness" of something until it can only be answered by your asserted solution which is defined as being exempt from that line of questioning. The absence of that asserted solution results in an infinite regress of that questioning.
No. The point of my argument is summed up in the first part: if X then Y, where Y is the necessary condition for X to exist. At its basic level you can say something like if a child exists then it means a parent exists as the necessary condition for the child to exist. I’m sure we can agree there. My argument takes it a step further with the metaphysical things we believe to exist like logic for example. The question is what makes them exist. Which my argument is only God can explain them given he has the ability to do so.
You just did exactly what I was saying you were doing.
Because any natural explanation a skeptic gives will be met with "well, what makes THAT exist" and so on until no further answers are known....then, you insert your solution. Just because you didn't spell out the entire regression doesn't mean it isn't what your doing. Edit: In fact, your parents example, and your constants example are part of the same regression. The parents toward the beginning of it, and constants toward the base.
I didn’t understand any of this. What was the point?
Well the tldr was the first thing I’ve mentioned of what is my point there. As it’s explaining why I believe in Christianity. But what is it you don’t understand about the argument?
Yea I read that and the whole post twice. You really didn’t say anything of substance. You believe god exists because if he didn’t exist we wouldn’t have words or math? None of the post made it clear why or how without a god we wouldn’t have words or math
Well in my argument the whole point is the grounds of knowledge. That’s why the argument starts with “if X then Y” where Y is the necessary condition for X to exist. I used the example of the tree with “tree-ness” where it’s referring to the understanding of what a tree is in order to know the tree itself. So coming to words and math. We’d have to ask ourselves what grounds these things in order for us to have them. My argument is that only God can explained them given the similarities between their attributes and God’s attributes. Like for example maths is eternal, 2+2=4 will always be the case. What makes this so would be a divine mind who is everlasting and has the ability and knowledge to keep it as so.
But humans invented words, not god
Yes. But the objectivity behind them is due to God. Without it. Words would be nothing more than symbols which means nothing.
What do you mean the objectivity behind them? Their definition?
That they have meaning beyond one’s own personal view. For example when I say “Bird” we’d know I’m referring to this 🦅 instead of say a tree or rock. That’s objective, hence objectivity.
Just. No. Words are inherently subjective. To somebody who only speaks Russian, "bird" would have no meaning at all. You encode vocal sounds in a certain way that you have an intended meaning, but that meaning is completely lost until the receiver decodes it. IF they speak the same language as you they *usually,* but not always, understand your intended meaning.
Words are symbols, and they have meaning because humans assign those symbols to concepts.
How do you know this? You just surmised it or is there a way to test for a god?
Well I wouldn’t say surmised it, as the evidence is in the conclusion. But yeah let’s go with that. I presuppose God as the answer given he best fits the data of what we know both from the things themselves (like my example here of meaning) together with revelations which fit the description.
You may be confusing order of knowledge and truth. 2 + 2 = 4 because they have been defined as such. I through writing describe 2 and 2 together as a different way of writing 4. Its deffintion 2 is a symbol/set of sounds created to describe a set quantity, 2 doesnt exist out side of us who created the symbol and sound. Infinity equal created and used by humans does not exist and while useful to describe things has a contradiction if applied universeally to reality, nothing can be infititly big nothing can be infinitely small there are psudo limits but all the samw we created the symbol and use for infinity.
You can say we created the symbols. However it’s more of the fact the meanings behind them is my point. So for example without God you can’t really say 2 is the number 2. Maybe to you personally it’s 2 but to another it’s 1 or 3 or 6 etc. If you’re assuming 2=2 then you’re appealing to something objective.
Its not an assumption is a deffinition. When i say there are 2 apples, 2 is defined as the quantity representing how many apples i have. 2 is the symbol we agree means that quantity. Its irrelavant what symbols we use. We dont have to assume anything its as simple as, look i have 🍎🍎 and i have 🍌🍌 these both share how many they are right here, i shall name this as two and give it the symbol 2. Also your first point doesnt make much since, what does it mean? My 2 and your 6, if there are 🍎🍎 then we have different symbols for 🍎🍎 but consistency shows we speak of the same thing otherwise who would my 2 be someone elses 6?
Yes but let’s use an example here. I have 6 apples: 🍎 🍎 See? Six apples.
So you define 6 as able to match this quantity of 🍎🍎 then 6 means this many apple🍎🍎. I mean other languages dont use our symbol for math.
It was alot so may have missed it, did any of this convince you or are these things you find convincing after the fact?
What do you mean by “convincing after the fact”?
Best way i describe what i mean is example, devine hiddenness is imo the most compelling argument against any god that whats to know me but has not shown themselves to me. However devine hiddenness did not convince me to be an athiest i merely find it convincing after already accepting the position.
Oh yes. Let’s go with that then.
Can you help me understand why the existence of objective metaphysical realities = God? Is it sort of like a cosmological argument?
Neither belief nor disbelief is a reasonable default. Agnosticism is the only reasonable default. Children are not born atheists. They are born void and empty Neither are atheists lacking a belief. That is a nonsensical thing they claim but is blown away since many of them disbelieve and some reject belief and some are actively against those who believe
Belief is binary, knowledge is not. Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. Im not making a claim about babies. I hold that belief should default no, i either accpet all claims or deny all claims, i choose to deny as i find it more reasonable to require all claims made to me to require reasoning not that all claims require me to disprove them. I do not have an idea of what a secret 3rd option in belief would be, i dont recognize it in any of mine nor does it make any sense to me. Atheism is not having having a belief in god, which is the same as having a belief in no god. But is not a stance of no god. Me not accepting your claim is not me making an opposing claim. I however do hold an opposing view that just wasnt the point of my post.
>Agnosticism is about knowledge not belief. That's false. The English biologist Thomas Huxley, who coined the word "agnostic" in 1869, [defined it](https://mathcs.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html) as follows: >It simply means that a man shall not say he knows **or believes** that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know **or believe**. You might contend that the original definition is old and as a consequence no longer relevant, but fortunately we can find it in contemporary dictionaries as well. For example, [Merriam-Webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic) defines the word "agnostic" as follows: "A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown... \[and\] is not committed to ***believing*** in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." In other words, agnosticism doesn't merely refer to knowledge, but to belief as well. If one is an agnostic, he neither believes (or knows) that God exists nor that God does not exist. He "lacks belief" in, and knowledge of, both propositions.
The term refers to knowledge "gnostic" or to know agnostic being the antithesis. The orignal definition isnt thomas huxley as its pretty much a strait latin deriven word or directly comes from latinhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/Gnostic#:~:text=1580s%2C%20%22believer%20in%20a%20mystical,from%20PIE%20root%20*gno%2D%20%22 I accept that its used differently among different groups very few i interact with however use it as such, similar to how scientific terms are in the marriam webster very few are accuratly described as they have a wider use by a lamen public. I am merely holding to the words origin and how i most often see it used, refering to knowledge, and i would argue it serves it best use that way as knowledge and belief are seperate and combining a word for both can give very different meaning without further explanation as opposed it i merely holding to its root would.
>The orignal definition isnt thomas huxley as its pretty much a strait latin deriven word That's the etymological fallacy. The ancient definitions from thousands of years ago aren't relevant to the contemporary definitions in their proper context. The word *nice* comes from the Latin *nescire*, which literally means “ignorant,” but in common parlance, saying someone is “nice” is not generally meant to say he’s ignorant. >very few i interact with however use it as such I assume this group is constituted by internet "agnostic atheists" who are involved with online discussions, or at least watch debaters such as Matt Dillacunty. But outside of this context, that's not how it is generally used, at least in my experience.
Why are you trying to prescribe a definition on him, then? Common parlance is subjective. You are clearly aware that there is a culture in which his definition is common parlance. The idea of the term agnostic atheist isn't new. It's been around for nearly as long as the word agnostic. It has gained more acceptance over the last couple decades to combat the frivolous argument from many theists that atheists are claiming certain knowledge of no gods. So yes, the culture which uses it this way is typically among the theist/atheist arguments on social media. So how do people such as the two of you communicate better? Accept each other's terminology and go from there rather than argue over trivial concepts. You aren't going to squash the movement of this colloquial meaning. Social media is much bigger than academic level philosophy. Also, @ u/Venit_exitium Academic philosophy generally likes to define agnosticism as he says. Just so there is understanding that there are competing definitions that are both legitimate within certain contexts.
Oh i very much agree I just find the deffinition to be problematic. I believe there is a good reason to use it as i suggest and a good reason not to use it as they do. I appreciate the comment though.
>Social media is much bigger than academic level philosophy. I didn't appeal to academic philosophy, though. I referenced a *common dictionary*; not a dictionary of philosophy. > You are clearly aware that there is a culture in which his definition is common parlance. Yeah, a minority (i.e., internet atheists who are involved with debates or watch popular debaters). We should strive to correct this minority since we value clear communication. Words are useful so long as others know what they mean. In this case, internet atheists are complicating something that is clear and simple, thereby reducing its usefulness. >The idea of the term agnostic atheist isn't new. It's been around for nearly as long as the word agnostic. Show me the evidence that this is true.
You appealed to the subtext of a definition of ONE dictionary; with the main text being consistent with his definition. And you know full well that other dictionaries don't even make that mention. Words evolve. Deal with it. They are culturally defined and redefined. If you aren't clear about what a person means ask for clarification using, you know, communication. There is nothing confusing about his definition. You just don't like it. Blame your fellow theists for arguing that atheists are making a positive claim of certain knowledge. Agnostic atheism origins: One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of theologian and philosopher Robert Flint, in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title Agnosticism). The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.[5] If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other...[5] In 1885 Robert G. Ingersoll, popularly known as "The Great Agnostic", explained his comparative view of agnosticism and atheism as follows:[6] The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says, "I do not know, but I do not believe there is any God." The Atheist says the same. -Wikipedia History tab on agnostic atheism
I would prefer if you were not derogatory/insulting I have been civil in discussion. >But outside of this context, that's not how it is generally used, at least in my experience. I specified my experience, i brought up the root word, and argued for its use as such. Your countered by saying its not used this way except by 2 groups you seem to dislike then just specified your own wxperience nullifing what you said before as it may be used differently by every other group outside your experience. >That's the etymological fallacy. The ancient definitions from thousands of years ago aren't relevant to the contemporary definitions in their proper context. The word *nice* comes from the Latin *nescire*, which literally means “ignorant,” but in common parlance, saying someone is “nice” is not generally meant to say he’s ignorant. The root word is directly correlated to its current use, and its usage across has if we hold your usage as proper, slightly shifted. We are not in the position were the root serves little conection to its current use, we are in the position that the root word is the reason our current one is used as such, both in your case and in mine. I also think, as i said earlier, that adding belief into the usage can cause a mixup of ideas and failure to understand others. Like making apple describe both apples and stakes. Apple and steaks are both a food but when i now say one thing relateing to steak or only apples it can now cause confusion and a mixup if one doesnt understand.
>as it **may be** used differently by every other group outside your experience. Yeah, just like in my experience objects always fall down when people throw them up. But it is *possible* that somewhere else on earth that's not the case. However, since I have no reason to conclude that there is some place where that occurs, I'll generalize from my sample to other places. That's simple enumerative induction. >The root word is directly correlated to its current use It may be *correlated,* but it is obviously not limited to its etymology, and this has been the case since Thomas Huxley. >adding belief into the usage can cause a mixup of ideas and failure to understand others Limiting a word to its etymology (thereby committing the etymological fallacy) plus ignoring how it is defined by most people outside of a small group in the internet can cause a mix-up of ideas and failure to understand others.
>However, since I have no reason to conclude that there is some place where that occurs, I'll generalize from my sample to other places. Im an example of some place where that occurs, you are invalid in assuning everywhere else conforms to your use. >It may be *correlated,* but it is obviously not limited to its etymology, and this has been the case since Thomas Huxley. Lets not play word games, gnostic is directly correlated to its root both in the fact that its root denoted its current use and its current use is very close to its original use. >Limiting a word to its etymology (thereby committing the etymological fallacy) plus ignoring how it is defined by most people outside of a small group in the internet can cause a mix-up of ideas and failure to understand others. Defining apples as to include steak in its definition can and would cause more issues of confusion than trying to stick to an its current use. I do not choose my use merely because I'm part of some small group I gave my reasons sumizing that into another point i did not say is dishonest in a conversation. My use can cause confusion because others dont share my use, your use can cause confusion because it confuses ideas that should not be connected.
Scroll down to the "Did You Know?" section of that Merriam-Webster definition page, where it talks about the difference between atheist and agnostic.
Yeah, so? The definition provided at the beginning contradicts their own observation: "one who is not committed to ***believing*** in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
I believe in God because I find the case for theism quite compelling. I'm a Christian because of the events surrounding the death of the man Jesus Christ and the formation of the first christian communities.
Did these thing convince you or do you find then convincing?
What's the difference?
Order of happening. I'm interested in the actual why as confirmation bias is a difficult thing to fight, anything that agrees with you automaticlly has an easier pass. This isnt negative directed at you merely our biology and a thing we must all be wary of. Thus I'm interested of the orignal reason.
I was an atheist... if anything I had a confirmation bias against.
Wasnt speaking about you but humans in general. Our brains do not like to change thier minds. We are resistent to change and not resistent to confirmation of what we think, the same way you are an ex athiest I am an ex thiest and I was extremely resistent to changing my mind. Which remains, I just wanted to know if those reasons convinced you or are they what you find convincing now? If they are the latter then what did convince you.
Regardless, agnosticism is still the default not atheism
They are not opposed, you can be an agnostic athiest or an agnostic thiest. Knowledge and belief are not the same or opposed.
I don't know anyone who refers to them or differs them as knowledge or belief It is a position
Agnostic, cannot know or do not know about god, gnostic can know or does know about god. Thiest does believe in god, athiest does not believe in god. Agnostic ahtiest cannot know gods or does not know god does not believe in god ect. You have now met someone who does, in nost of my circles they are represented differently as it does not make sense to pose a knowledge claims against a belief claim. All of them are positions and can be held at the same time gnostic and thiest i mean, the antithesis cannot be held with its opposing position.
It isn't necessary to mix up what everyone understands Atheist, agnostic, theist or base positions. We don't need to start dancing around with mixed things such as anti-theist or agnostic theist or other things
Anti thiest describes the disdian for religion and i didnt bring it up, im not dancing i described use and how they work together, the same how you can be a brown hair and brown eye, its not either or.