It does tail off, but it appears that you are proving God doesn't exist by saying God is everything, then pointing out that mathematics is clearly not God. QED.

However, myself, I think mathematics is divine. So, you've got a problem there.

Seriously, though, it seems that you are assuming that arithmetic is pre-formed, and has an existence outside the human mind (and outside the "body" of God, whatever the "body" may be). That may even have been what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do when they wrote their huge magnum opus Principia Mathematica, but I think the philosopher Russell admitted failure, did he not?

Do numbers exist if there is no mind to conceive them?

It's a bit like that Zen riddle: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Numbers are ideas, so the question could be applied to any idea: can any idea exist independently of a conscious mind?

I look forward to your next post.

Manitou

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

Liked what I see so far. Despite being religious, I was not at all offended. Maybe it's because I don't think God created the universe (maybe he was created with it, maybe he's from another universe) and I don't think he's all powerful. All loving, but not all powerful. Actually cannot intervene much with humans for a variety of reasons.

edit: If this is too religious for the board, I'll delete it.

__________________
The Organization. Adam Haseeb Memorial Pages

It has been long debated whether or not mathematics would exist without some kind of invention. An interesting theory about God is that He is a consequence of the universe, i.e., the universe requires a God to keep things in order. Of course it's all speculation, and also begs the question where did the universe come from, but it's at least a new angle on the matter.

Richard, I think Kilopi's right that the question of mathematics existing independently is somewhat controversial.
But there's at least one famous physicist who shares Richard's view....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Sure, but even if you except that, Richard's argument seems to be...

God is Everything
Math is not God
Therefore there is no God.

But he didn't have to go that far. Clearly, taupe is not God either.

But how do we know that math is not God? Who's to say what God is or isn't? I think the meaning of "God" is somewhat lost of we try to apply definitions and/or contraints to it.

Well, that would be an argument against Richard's argument. I was just trying to paraphrase what I saw in his argument.

I'm not even sure if my paraphrase is accurate. Anyone?

Gentle posters, here's the link for

The Second Preface to the Chelmsford Theory.

http://www.instantmessageboards.com/...php?p=10241851

I'm still a bit stymied as to how much I can post here, so it's a bit brief again. Sorry.

It'll be a bit better if I ever manage to publish it in book form( )

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Up with science, down with religion?

Have you ever considered the possibility that science IS religion? Or at least a kind of religion?


I know we're supposed to not talk about religion on here, but I'm a religious person, and I don't go around saying down with science.

__________________
One nuclear bomb could wreck your whole day.

Some religious people do, however. It's not that science wants to eradicate or even replace religion, it's that science has nothing to do with religion. They are generally imcompatible. The only time there is ever debate is when certain religious people try to pass their beliefs off as science. They aren't necessarily wrong, they're just not science.

From the link:
If you're only considering the two objects, then that's dubious. The smaller one won't be captured by the larger. You need more than two objects. A simple Newtonian equation using two spherical bodies doesn't result in a capture, ever, unless the second body impacts the first.

This is a common view by those who are anti-science. It is, however, a false view. Science is not any kind of religion. Religion is based on belief without evidence. Science is based on hard evidence. Belief without evidence has no value in science.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

That was Soupdragon's contention in the thread Is science a belief system? The answer was no, because of the definitions presented at the time. That doesn't mean someone can't cnange the definition of "belief system" and have Science shoehorned in, but very few people would accept such a defintion, I imagine.

That was one wild thread!!! On page 18 I pointed to Carlo Lastrucci's book "The Scientific Approach" in which he referred to science as a belief system with a different referent.

The thing I found the funniest in that thread was that Soupdragon said that philosophers did not have a definition for "belief system" and could choose a definition to their liking - which was pretty much how he started the thread!

The way I remember it, we asked him for his definition of belief system, and pretty much everybody agreed that science didn't fit that definition. That didn't restrain the thread, though.

Yeah, I seem to recall losing it a few times on that one. ops:

Have you found it?

Philosopher Lastrucci also very reasonably defined science as... "an objective, logical, and systematic method of analysis of phenomena, devised to permit the accumulation of reliable knowledge."

Sounds like a plan!

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Yep, but it likes to get away ... perhaps why I lost it a "few times". Right now I know where it is.

Sounds like a plan that's been put into action!

Your approach clearly appears to assume that if someone says "There is a God that created the universe" the burden of proof falls upon skeptics to prove the claim is false. But that's not how it works. Mere claims absent explicit empirical evidence do not warrant any degree of belief. So the claim that some invisible god created the universe does not need to be refuted because it is without content.

Yes. Sorry, I rather wrote that signature in a hurry and may change it if it offends anyone.

Posters have spoken against your view, Space Cadet, but I would rather not have an argument with you.

However, I DID ask posters not to use my links if they were deeply religious.

Perhaps your curiosity got the better of you?

To everyone...

Ladies and gentlemen I expect to post further material after the weekend. Thank you for your comments, particularly the correction with regard to planet going into orbit around each other. =D>

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I believe space cadet is talking about your signature on your posts on this board. Discussion of religion, even negative discussion of religion, is probably not approved by the BA. I think the intent is to avoid the inevitable controversies.
You're welcome.

But is it chaos? How do we really define it? You seem to be a bit in a cold Dutch oven (hopefully, with some nice “broon breed”) . So I will try this approach.

Imagine you’re a happy-go-lucky hydrogen atom in a vast uncrowded gas cloud. Suddenly you, and all your friends, get slammed together by that blasted supernova. Next thing you know you are getting clobbered more and more as you are sucked in toward a massive ball. Next thing you know you are sweating your little electron off and there’s no end in sight. You are stuck forever, so you think. But after a few hundred million years go by of constant battering and gamma ray attacks, you see your friends explode and become things you ain’t never seen before [this reminds me of a 3 Dog Nite song - your mama told you not to come]. You long for those easy days back in the cloud.

So which is chaotic? The nice thing with science is it makes clear that the difference is not just a matter of opinion. In this case, there is a constant direction downhill in available energy in the universe (which is why your old hydrogen friends aren't getting back to normal). The best it ever was, was when the Big Bang was barely a bang at all.

The bigger issue you may be seeking is purpose. Is there a greater good requiring hydrogen to degenerate? Without the suns energy what nice things will you find? You might get some nice 24 hr. night sky views but you could be more preoccupied with starvation and cold.

We can’t let any religious model control our thought process but we must recognize that theological and philisophical models are important and certainly can overlap our scientific model. Rationality must be a requirement for all. Blind faith and other related superstition should be highly questioned. Nevertheless, the science model does not serve all of our needs and desires. We are wired to consider great issues such as mortality, love, kindness, peace, as well as, evil and all moral issues.

Allow me to now quote your first statement.

Yes. Ain't it great? But why is that?

Well, I've blabbed enough I reckon. Don't know if I'm making much sense. #-o

[I edited a change: "psychological" to "philosophical" as this is what I had meant]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I don't want to have an argument with you either. And I wasn't offended by your link. I consider myself to be a very open minded person. I'm not going to get bent out of shape just because you think different from me.

What I was trying to point out is the fact that someone can appreciate science and still maintain their religious beliefs. But when people go around saying things like "up with science, down with religion," it causes many religious people to feel alienated from the scientific community. Which is very sad, in my oppinion, since many people who believe in God have also contributed a great deal towards science. It's fine to disagree with religious people, and by all means feel free explain your own position... but please, don't try to tear down what many consider to be sacred.

__________________
One nuclear bomb could wreck your whole day.

To George,

Thanks for that..will study it later, and I WILL change my signature, Space Cadet, I think I'm behoven to.

But got to go out for a haircut for the work Christmas party..a spiky sticky-up-in-the air cut (at age 55!!!)

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Ok Spike. But at least you have hair on top. I have to clip my spikes after a couple of mm's. [It is so cool doing posts in this board when you can look over to the left and see 20 self-portraits - :wink: However, BA left my ears off - [-( ] !]

Hope the party is a blast!

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Yep, no offense taken. But that's not the point. The signature is apparently against the rules of the BABB. Just a friendly warning--the BA hasn't banned anyone in hours, and I think he doesn't want to get out of the habit.

Excellent point.

Unfortunately, a majority of Americans apparently require no evidence whatsoever in order to buy into such unfounded claims. As Shermer and Gell-Mann say, such people apparently do so simply because "it makes them feel better - it comforts them." I suppose there's something to be said for false comfort, but certainly not for anyone seeking the truth....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.