The God Theory

so pretty much x=2 from a geometrical stand point. if x=1+1 which also =2 then x=2

I wouldn’t dwell too much on the OP, no offence but it’s not very well conceived. :slight_smile:

x both equals the set 1 and {1} and {0}, or 2 {0} a subset of 1 and 1 and {0}. Further sets have 2 and 1 and most importantly 0 as components. Numbers is just a collection of sets on the whole, proof wise, you can prove something with 0 all along the watchtower as long as each time each set is different because of 0. Religion on the other hand is a collection of nothing entirely logical or mathematical, it’s proof not that nothing should not exist but that nothing is a damn good way to build an ideology, which means something to someone presumably somewhere because of human nature. :smiley:

Once you introduce abstraction into the equation, ie yes no, on off though, it is no longer uniquely a solution of pure numbers. It has an application, one which an interpretation can hence be made on. Maths is abysmal at abstractions into the real unless it is uniquely and rigorously defined, maths and philosophy hence are not the same subject, logic or otherwise.

´as long as humans remain curious, they shall believe in god´-me

´god=ignorance´-me

Your quotes seem contradictory.

to be curious you must not know something. Curiosity=ignorance=not knowing=god.

I think your logic is flawed.

I can see how Curiosity is a side effect of ignorance and ignorance is not knowing.

But how is not knowing equal to God?

The perfect example is this threads theory, ´god´ is the susbtitute to an answer. It is the simplest route to its understanding. God is the ideal answer to everything, the unknown takes the form of god. Its not hard to see really. :confused:

That doesn’t make it wrong.

Thats like saying believing in God is ignorance and ignorance is not knowing; therefore Atheists are all knowing, only god is all knowing , therefore God is an Atheist because God doesn’'t need to believe in God because God is Ignorance… :-"

its a phrase not a logical absolute. but first maybe its best if I define god. God in this context means: any form of believe or religion which is not based on personal experience and is subjected to the scientific method of verification.

atheism is a believe so atheist are still ignorant. they believe in not believing.

Everyone is ignorant of something.

But to be curious, you must also know or at least sense something. Something must whet your appetite for ‘more’.

You need to rethink your equation.

Perhaps the atheist chooses not to ‘believe’ because sometimes a belief is so far-fetched. It might not be so much an unwillingness to accept the concept of a god, but an unwillingness to go along with the unbelievable beliefs that sometimes swirl and evolve as a result of that concept. The lenses get muddied because reality gets muddied and the possibility of a god fades more and more into the distance as the absurd is seen more and more. But the absurd still must be seen and examined in order to not lose the light of reality. Perhaps the atheist simply does not have the heart for that.

Or maybe you should tell me what ignorance means to you. sensing is not the same as knowing (at least by my definition).

the athiest chooses not to believe because it is more convinient for him to do that, so its his ´heart´ who is deciding, it is simply that his “heart” has another direction.

True, sensing is not the same as knowing. This is why I also used the phrase ‘or at least’. In order to be curious, one must at least ‘sense something’ and there is the knowledge of knowing that it does exist. That is knowing something. For example, a little boy sees a whale for the first time. He is in awe of it, senses its beauty and meaning to him (for me, real curiosity must hold those two characteristics) though he knows nothing of that whale. It is that which causes him to be so curious and want to learn about the whale, which eventually causes him to become a marine biologist. :laughing:

For me, the real definition of ignorance is not having studied and learned something. There are many people who have a great intelligence but they are ignorant of certain matters because they have not had the opportunity to learn.
The other connotation for ignorance may be in having learned a thing and yet still not knowing it, understanding it or living our lives according to it. But that to me is more in line with stupidity.

I wasn’t putting all atheists into the same category. I was only speaking of a particular kind there.
And there is your kind - the one who chooses not to believe because yes it is more convenient for him, more comfortable for him, not to - just as it is more convenient and comfortable for a particular type of ‘believer’ who chooses to believe without examining his beliefs and the validity or rationality of them. We all have our particular coccoons.

Perhaps for the atheist I was speaking of before, it has more to do with integrity and living in truth (heart) as he at least subjectively sees it, rather than getting sucked into what he sees as someone else’s silly dogma, doctrine and perspective, especially when he sees that that believer’s beliefs do not affect the world in any good way.

Well there you go to me ignorance is not knowing something. Which means that the less you know the more curious you will be and as such the greater need for “god” you will have. The bigger the ignorance at a social level you have the greater the need and thus believe in “god”. Ignorance =god since they are both directly proportional.

Therefore more convenient. Who said I am an athiest? I am a philosopher.