-->
@FLRW
Like what? Why do you suppose he wasn't an atheist back then?
Can Math Prove God?
Posts
Total:
114
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Everything is natural.
Distinctions are a human thing.
-->
@Athias
The converting to atheism is a process.
First you have to overcome fear of God.
Then you have to overcome indoctrination from youth spent in religion.
Then you have to care enough to take steps and think about if God exists.
It doesnt happen at once. It takes time, and plenty of doubt and self-talk involved.
-->
@Athias
Ask FLRW.
-->
@Athias
According to Einstein: A Life, a biography published in 1996, he was devoutly religious as a child. But at the age of 13, he “abandoned his uncritical religious fervor, feeling he had been deceived into believing lies”.
I was 12 when that happened to me.
-->
@zedvictor4
Haha! My bad.
-->
@Best.Korea
The converting to atheism is a process.First you have to overcome fear of God.Then you have to overcome indoctrination from youth spent in religion.Then you have to care enough to take steps and think about if God exists.It doesnt happen at once. It takes time, and plenty of doubt and self-talk involved.
And this was easier done at 75 than 42?
-->
@Athias
Bedtime.
Goodnight.
-->
@FLRW
According to Einstein: A Life, a biography published in 1996, he was devoutly religious as a child. But at the age of 13, he “abandoned his uncritical religious fervor, feeling he had been deceived into believing lies”.I was 12 when that happened to me.
So if he had abandoned his uncritical religious fervor at the age of 13, then why would he would suggest an anthropomorphic God at 42?
And if "intelligence quotient," as both you and Best.Korea have attempted to use in a means to marginalize the intelligence of theists, is positively correlated with age, then wouldn't that by fallacious cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning suggest that your adoption of Atheism would have happened at a point in your life when you were near your least intelligent?
-->
@zedvictor4
Goodnight, sir.
-->
@Athias
And this was easier done at 75 than 42?
Its different for every person.
I dont know exactly when Einstein became atheist, but yes its easier as time passes.
-->
@Best.Korea
Its different for every person.I dont know exactly when Einstein became atheist, but yes its easier as time passes.
So you would allege that Einstein's subscription to Atheism was independent of his work in theoretical physics, his purported intelligence, and his age, per se. It just happened when the moment was right for him?
-->
@Athias
His intelligence definitely contributed, as did plenty of other factors.
However, intelligence is not the only factor, obviously.
Kinda like push and pull. Some things push, some pull. Its impossible for me to figure out all the factors.
-->
@Best.Korea
His intelligence definitely contributed, as did plenty of other factors.However, intelligence is not the only factor, obviously.Kinda like push and pull. Some things push, some pull. Its impossible for me to figure out all the factors.
So why are you and FLRW attempting to push the idea that one's "intelligence quotient" some how qualifies one's propensity either way (Theism or Atheism) if as you've conceded, it's impossible for you to figure out all the factors, much less gauge the extent it plays in what you characterized as an internally individual process?
-->
@Athias
As explained, on average, atheists are smarter.
So either being an atheist makes you more likely to be intelligent, either being intelligent makes you more likely to be atheist.
-->
@Best.Korea
As explained,
Neither you nor FLRW explained anything. Not that you have to -- I'm familiar with the "studies."
on average, atheists are smarter.
Is that what you think? You subscribe to a "psychometric" which tells you that you are particularly "6 points" (which doesn't qualify as one standard deviation) higher in intelligence quotient than a non-atheist, and you think you're smarter? You really believe intelligence can be captured in "points," but you can't quantify the change in Einstein's intelligence that changed his opinion from at least a deist to an atheist?
So either being an atheist makes you more likely to be intelligent, either being intelligent makes you more likely to be atheist.
To how many points should an atheist aspire? Or does merely declaring "God does not exist" grant an automatic "6 point" boost? What if one states it but doesn't mean it? What if one thinks it but doesn't state it? Are there point boosters?
*Note: if you can't tell, I'm being facetious. But it's no more nonsensical than attempting to gain an edge on the subject of ontology using points.
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think you're wasting our precious time.If you had used the word "universal mind" instead of "God" I would have engaged the discussion. The word "God" has been so prostituted by religions that I'd rather not use it.
Well, I am not referring to a certain religion.
And it wouldn't be a universal mind, because that would assume it needs the universe to exist.
Like I explained, it would have to be a supernatural mind.
And if you want to use a synonymous term that makes sense, then be my guest, but I think God clearly defines what I am explaining.
God:
Supernatural (above nature)
Omniscient (all-knowing)
Omnipresent (exists everywhere)
Omnipotent (can do anything)
So, I am saying that math is substantial evidence for a mind, that is above nature, knows everything infinitely, exists everywhere, and can do anything.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
There is also a lot of evidence showing that math has a designer.
You should have started off with this. Yours is a creationist argument.
To me, this argument is not enough to prove the existence of God, specially if it's the God of christians which is what you refer to, I suppose.
I would argue though that creationism can prove the existence of a "universal mind" or a "universal conciousness", but God is not just this according to religious people. For theists, God is omniscient, omnipotent, almighty, vengeful and loving, harsh and compassionate, unforgiving and merciful, in other words God is a mother fucker but also a saint, which is, as you noted, soundly ridiculous.
When you, christians, start to understand that your bible is pure nonsense, I think we can sit down and talk like the big boys we are.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said:
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything. Math is an extension of logic, so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.
Let's start at the beginning. Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?
If you say he's not, then your belief in him is irrational by definition. The rest of your post as well as any argument you make for him is now worthless because it's all based on the idea that you're making a rational case for God.
If you say he is subject to the laws of logic then he cannot be their author, and certainly not their arbiter.
At that point, the rest of your argument falls apart.
There are 2 possibilities:
- Math is something that humans invented to explain what we observe in the natural world.
- We discovered math because it controls the universe.
The first option would define math a natural thing, and the second would define math as a supernatural thing.
Neither option makes sense. Humans didn't invent math, we discovered it. Just as any other intelligent form of life, from earth or not, would have done.
Math doesn't "control" the universe in any coherent sense of the word. It's not acting, is not making decisions, it just is.
Nothing about either option denotes a choice between natural vs supernatural. I would even go further to argue that the distinction between the two is ultimately meaningless, but that's an argument for a different thread.
Math, like logic, are best thought of as necessary qualities of existence itself. This is why God is subject to them, because the argument is that he exists.
-->
@Best.Korea
The converting to atheism is a process.First you have to overcome fear of God.Then you have to overcome indoctrination from youth spent in religion.Then you have to care enough to take steps and think about if God exists.It doesnt happen at once. It takes time, and plenty of doubt and self-talk involved.
When did you become an atheist?
Aren't you the one who started an entire thread saying logic didn't matter and we should believe based on faith alone, or am I confusing you with someone else?
-->
@Double_R
When did you become an atheist?
At age 15.
Aren't you the one who started an entire thread saying logic didn't matter and we should believe based on faith alone, or am I confusing you with someone else?
Yes... I did try being a Christian for some time just to see how it works.
However, God is very hard to justify, as he killed lots of people for no reason and basically caused lots of pain which negates him as morally perfect.
-->
@Athias
you think you're smarter?
No, I dont think that I am smarter.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
.
YouFound_Lxam,
Here is another one of my posts that you can RUN AWAY from and go into hiding again, okay? To prove this point for the membership to see you run again, here is some very EASY MATH for you to accept about our Jesus, READY?
Adamantly within the scriptures, Jesus is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and a malevolent. I accept the aforementioned true description of Jesus within the Bible, and I do not try and apologetically spin doctor His true self away, understood Bible fool?
RUN YOUFOUND_LXAM, HURRY, RUN AND FIND THE EQUALLY BIBLE STUPID "MISS TRADESECRET" WHERE YOU TWO CAN HIDE TOGETHER RELATIVE TO NOT BEING ABLE TO RESPOND TO THIS FACTUAL POST OF MINE, WHOOOOOSH, YOUR GONE! LOL!
.
-->
@Best.Korea
No, I dont think that I am smarter.
But you're an atheist, so according to your description, why not? Or do you recognize that employing composition fallacies in contests over one's intelligence could be characterized as "not smart"?
-->
@Best.Korea
you think you're smarter?No, I dont think that I am smarter.
Do you think you got smarter when you became an atheist?
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you think you got smarter when you became an atheist?
Yes.
-->
@Athias
But you're an atheist, so according to your description, why not?
I dont know, I didnt take part in statistics.
However, statistics do say that atheists better solve IQ tests.
So yeah, atheists are cool now and Christianity is doomed to disappear now that we know how being Christian lowers IQ score.
-->
@Double_R
Math doesn't "exist" in any sense of the word, nor is it a product of anything.
Then how does that which does not exist interact with that which does exist without unilateral or "co-"dependency?
Math is an extension of logic,
Very much so.
so when you argue that math comes from God you are arguing that logic also comes from God, which is incoherent.
Not really.
Do you believe God is subject to the laws of logic?
Well, let me ask you this: if we presuppose that logic does come from God, would he not be subject to it?
If you say he is subject to the laws of logic then he cannot be their author, and certainly not their arbiter.
Why not?
At that point, the rest of your argument falls apart.
Not really. You would first have to explain how his being both the origin and subject of/to logic are mutually exclusive.
Humans didn't invent math, we discovered it.
Nope, humans invented it. Abstracts according to materialist standards don't "exist" in nature; "discovery" implies observation, where as abstracts, like logic and mathematics, imply conception.
Math doesn't "control" the universe in any coherent sense of the word.
According to materialist standards, the laws of physics control the universe; and EVERY PHYSICAL LAW MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN. In that sense, in concordance with materialist description, math does control the universe.
It's not acting, is not making decisions, it just is.
And yet, according to you, we "discovered" it.
Math, like logic, are best thought of as necessary qualities of existence itself.
They're important abstracts in rationalizing our existence -- with that much, I can agree.
This is why God is subject to them, because the argument is that he exists.
Why is his being the origin of logic and being subject to logic mutually exclusive? Case in point: we are the origins of our own minds, and yet we are subject to them.
-->
@Best.Korea
I dont know, I didnt take part in statistics.
So why reference them?
However, statistics do say that atheists better solve IQ tests.
And this is because they're more "intelligent" and say... not more in line with the subject matters that align with the classroom discipline, which I.Q. attempts to "measure"?
atheists are cool now and Christianity is doomed to disappear now that we know how being Christian lowers IQ score.
So it's not being atheist that makes one "smarter;" it's just that being a Christian makes one "6 points" dumber?
-->
@Athias
So why reference them?
I dont understand the question.
And this is because they're more "intelligent" and say... not more in line with the subject matters that align with the classroom discipline, which I.Q. attempts to "measure"?
Uh sure, I can agree with that.
So it's not being atheist that makes one "smarter;" it's just that being a Christian makes one "6 points" dumber?
Yeah. Christians dumb.