How is the validity of this?

[tackattack]

Ok logic nuts, This is an attempt at your language, give me some criticism please.


1-All things exist as something, even as only a concept
2-To be part of "reality" requires a materialistic or tangible component
3-God exists outside reality

Should be equivelant to God is an abstract idea outside of reality

4-Math has no materialistic or tangible component
5-Math exists outide reality

6-Math can not be used for absolute truthful proofs (?? idk how to word that)
7-Math can be used as an objective mental construct to predict with great certaintity events in reality
8-Math, when used objectively, is usefull in reality
9-Math uses absolute values and intuitive rounding(.999~ = 1) to complete practical solutions to problems in reality

10- If God is used as an objective mental construct and give him a value of a moral absolute, he could be used to solve useful practical problems in reality.

I'm losing how to word this. To Conclude ,Both Math and God exist as useful mental constructs outside reality. They are also both usefull for solving problems and guiding societies when used as an objective moral absolute.

I know it's going to get torn up, but have at it.

[theblindferrengi]

Hopefully to avoid pedantacisim (might not be a real word, but when in doubt, make up words )...

God is an idea by humans...
Math is an idea by humans...

God should be useful to humans, and at the time of its invention it was extremely useful to humans.

God is like the security blanket of a child, god is no longer usefull to humans, because humans have grown up.

That is where the system breaks down, like an illness, the humans are not able to tear the scab off, and cling to it.



Math is still usefull to humans.

Whereas god is a flexible, abstract idea to be interpreted in any way depending on who it is being beat with, math is a set of proofs that can be used to model the outcomes of various happenings.

Math deals with absolutes, and math deals with absolute truthful proofs, or else math doesent work.
Math can only be interpreted one way, or else it becomes unuseful.
Basic things like algebra use real numbers (what you meant by absolute values I think) but math also deals with the most abstract of concepts. There is always some sort of definite awnser with math, the same problem gets the same solution every time, and there are no grey areas.


Math can be demonstrated using reality.

God cannot be demonstrated using reality.

[tackattack]

How is the first response to this OP in anyway tiresome or pretentious.. it's fine no worries. I wasn't really looking for a point counterpoint.. more of a criticism of the logical validity and structure. I'll bat the ball for a little though.
So you're saying the idea of a moral absolute isn't useful to humans anymore? That a definitive and absolute Good is flexible. Did you mean reality can be used to demonstrate mathmatical concepts? How would you demonstrate tangibly from something intangible? We know there are "gray areas" in reality so wouldn't Math be less useful for excluding those? Wouldn't they be variables?

I bet if I asked arcanus and Fr0d0 to sum up a God definition in a two word phrase we'd all pretty much come to the same conclusion. How is that different interpretations? By rejecting any possibility of Moral absolutes yet accepting mathmatical absolutes, isn't that hypocritical? What is an absolute? Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is.

[Tiberius]

9-Math uses absolute values and intuitive rounding(.999~ = 1) to complete practical solutions to problems in reality

The fact that 0.999... = 1 has nothing to do with rounding. See this thread for details: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1989.html

[libraryowl]

It definately holds up. Everything you said was logically reasoned out from your first principles.

But, just like euclidian geometry, just because it all makes sense doesn't mean its true. Anyone could disagree with your definitions, or they could disagree with what you do with them.

That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to know stuff.

[RedFish]

''God is like the security blanket of a child, god is no longer usefull to humans, because humans have grown up.''
Yes we have, and do you think God would not recognise this fact? I'd like to ask whether a 'security blanket' is necessary for a child, and whether the 'parent' may not have removed it when the 'parent' thought necessary. Or the child matures beyond needing it. We can destroy our own world if we so choose. All of it. All of us. Is that not proof of our 'maturity'? I think God lets us choose our own destiny these days. We have, as you said, 'grown up'.

''Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is. '' < That's elegant and insightful, and I agree.

[tavarish]

How is the first response to this OP in anyway tiresome or pretentious.. it's fine no worries. I wasn't really looking for a point counterpoint.. more of a criticism of the logical validity and structure. I'll bat the ball for a little though.
So you're saying the idea of a moral absolute isn't useful to humans anymore? That a definitive and absolute Good is flexible.

I'll add that it isn't useful to humans, as we become more interconnected with different cultures, right and wrong can change meaning depending on region and background. I'll contend that moral absolutes were never known - the vast amount of inconsistencies in God's word and God's actions shows that not only are these not absolute, he doesn't prescribe to his own medicine. Morality is subjective - it has to be as a result of societal evolution. Values change as time progresses and the environment calls for it. There are no morals that are absolute in the sense that they are always wrong or always right.

Did you mean reality can be used to demonstrate mathmatical concepts? How would you demonstrate tangibly from something intangible?

By using placeholders to demonstrate a concept. I can demonstrate 2+2=4 by obtaining 2 apples, then another 2 apples, and counting them.

We know there are "gray areas" in reality so wouldn't Math be less useful for excluding those? Wouldn't they be variables?

Elaborate on gray areas, please.

I bet if I asked arcanus and Fr0d0 to sum up a God definition in a two word phrase we'd all pretty much come to the same conclusion. How is that different interpretations? By rejecting any possibility of Moral absolutes yet accepting mathmatical absolutes, isn't that hypocritical? What is an absolute? Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is.

Arcanus, sure. Fr0d0, not so sure. I actually enjoy your topics and posts much more than him, but I digress.

Morality and mathematics are not the same. Morality at its very core is subjective, as it requires a mind for its existence. Moral absolutes presuppose a first mind (possibly a god), but as there are no known moral absolutes, there isn't a very good reason to think the latter is true.

An absolute, when talking about a truth statement, is something that would be true regardless of any factors within our universe. It would also have to be a noumenon, something which is independent of a mind.

---

''God is like the security blanket of a child, god is no longer usefull to humans, because humans have grown up.''
Yes we have, and do you think God would not recognise this fact? I'd like to ask whether a 'security blanket' is necessary for a child, and whether the 'parent' may not have removed it when the 'parent' thought necessary. Or the child matures beyond needing it. We can destroy our own world if we so choose. All of it. All of us. Is that not proof of our 'maturity'? I think God lets us choose our own destiny these days. We have, as you said, 'grown up'.

So you would define a mature person as someone who refuses to burn his house down, but owns matches?

[Zhalentine]

Invisible forces (gravity) are within reality but not tangible. So there goes your number two statement that you base the rest of your logic on; therefore, it isn't valid.

[fr0d0]

9-Math uses absolute values and intuitive rounding(.999~ = 1) to complete practical solutions to problems in reality

The fact that 0.999... = 1 has nothing to do with rounding. See this thread for details: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1989.html

Aaargh! Can of worms! Lid!

[theblindferrengi]

How is the first response to this OP in anyway tiresome or pretentious.. it's fine no worries. I wasn't really looking for a point counterpoint.. more of a criticism of the logical validity and structure. I'll bat the ball for a little though.
So you're saying the idea of a moral absolute isn't useful to humans anymore? That a definitive and absolute Good is flexible. Did you mean reality can be used to demonstrate mathmatical concepts? How would you demonstrate tangibly from something intangible? We know there are "gray areas" in reality so wouldn't Math be less useful for excluding those? Wouldn't they be variables?

I bet if I asked arcanus and Fr0d0 to sum up a God definition in a two word phrase we'd all pretty much come to the same conclusion. How is that different interpretations? By rejecting any possibility of Moral absolutes yet accepting mathmatical absolutes, isn't that hypocritical? What is an absolute? Is it having no restriction, exception, or qualification and being the sum of undiluted purity? If that doesn't define what others and I have defined on this forums as God, I don't know what is.

I was hoping to avoid being pedantic, not saying anything else was.

I say that religion is not nessacary for a moral absolute anymore, religion is like a jello mold, and the jello has set.

Using reality, I can demonstrate math. For example, if I have six apples and four apples, if I combine them I get 10 apples. I cannot demonstrate god using tangible reality.

With math, you know that you know what you know. With a math problem, the awnser may be a range of numbers, a single number, or some kind of variable. but you know that all of the possible awnsers work, and you can figure out the pattern for all possible awnsers. A grey area would be to say that you get perhaps a range of numbers, and some of them might not be awnsers, but there is no way to tell.

The basic idea that there is some kind of god is nearly universal among religion, however how god is interpreted varies, and inside of one interpretation of god, all the details of the religion are open to interpretation. The meaning of the bible stories is constantly disputed...

Contending that one area is not as well defined and universally standard as another is not to say that standards do not exist. Everybody has a different set of ethics. In our society, what is considered right and wrong is widely accepted, but not absolute, as any number of moral justifications are used to make something moral to that individual. Math however, there are rules that when broken the numbers dont work out, and you get the wrong awnser. Math and ethics do have common aspects, as with any two areas of thought, but they function in very different ways, as morality is a purely emotional thing, and math is purely factual and emotionless.

God is an idea, from a strictly anthropological point of view, religion is a very usefull tool in the right circumstances, and todays society is not the right circumstances; however from the religious aspect, god is a pre-defined entity, and depending on which part of which religion you ask, those definitions will vary.