The God Theory

How can there be intellligent discussion if you presume to know not only my mind but my emotions. Respecting that someone else is capable of seeing things from a perspective other than your own limitations is a prerequisite for debate.

I would also like to point how inaccurate they’re numeric value’s are also, but I think I have.
There is always an answer to my questions, and there are always questions to my answers.

You’re only as intelligent as the man next to you, and the same applies to his emotions but not his mind.

It currently is…

Tork I just want to say that you must be a very gifted individual to have had the insight of yours represented by that equation. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept you express but it only came to me in a book I recently read. In that book the author describes how we either by nature or by being taught always try and digress our reasoning to a central point as you describe. In algebra we always try and reduce and equation to balance it in its smallest form at the equal sign. The author shows that in more complex calculus we try and digress as close as we can to the Bernoulli limitation of zero. The big question he asks is why is zero limited? He goes on to state that zero is limited because it is the inner limit to our reasoning that keeps us from seeing beyond a dimensional universe. He states that zero is limited from us because even though it occupies a place in the number line it does not really exist. It is the center of all dimensional thinking where in becomes out but that is only our limitation. He calls zero the residence of chaos energy because it is the source of reaoning and therefor contains all that exists and yet is so far beyond our awareness that for us it does not exist.

What is the name of the book/author?

This is perfect… Very good, Thanks.

Torx the name of the book is "My Heart is on the Left Side’.

Within yourself?

No but as someone who once possessed religion, I did finally notice that the feel good factors out weighed the logic of the thing in the long run. I do tend to agree that people use religion as a crutch, so as to spare them from the toils of their life. Some chose drugs some chose legal ones, some chose religion (which can no doubt be a very socially rewarding experience to some), some chose running, or vigorous exercise to cheer themselves up. I’m not aversed to any of them per se, but religion as has often been opined is not better than the alternatives.

“Alcohol is a very necessary article… It makes life bearable to millions of people who could not endure their existence if they were quite sober. It enables Parliament to do things at eleven at night that no sane person would do at eleven in the morning.”

George Bernard Shaw.

The same could be said of any crutch though, and even though he was a teetotaller he had a point.

If I may interject, feeling good about religion or religious insights is not a bad thing or disqualify them from anlaysis. However neither does it prove anything to be real or true. Our senses are our most reflexive kind of reasoning, at least if you are in touch with them. Feel good is subconscious reasoning. It is reflexive and fast and therefor easily susceptible to illusion. However feelings can sometimes be more reliable than our conscious minds because our conscious minds have learned all sorts of prejudices that may be completely untrue. Fellings are just another source of data to consider, and neglecting them can be very unhealthy. In regards to your comments on alcohol I would just like to say that you almost directly quote the book of Sirach in the bible. It states that God created alcohol to give man relief from his daily burden. Funny how that book of the bible didn’t get included in any post reformation protestant bibles.

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


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.