Purpose of life????

LQ · 2010-04-11 03:54:06

The purpose of all things, is simply to become a maximon. To become real. To be able to experience. Something.

bobbym · 2010-04-11 13:11:04

Hi G_Einstein;

I know that there is a secret society who is eccpecting his arrival,and their sygns is the "everything sight eye" or how it's called in english.....

I know. I won't say anything else about it. Thank you for answering truthfully.

bobbym · 2010-04-11 14:38:53

Hi Ricky;

Intellectual arguments are one of the great joys of life

Yep, so are lots of cash, fast cars, orgies, liquor and drugs. They come with a big disclaimer though.

I don't understand why you think they're wrong.

Not wrong, and not all. Just ones about religion, politics or Micro$oft. Arguments about these usually lead to someone being dead. Since this thread has not degenerated into mayhem, I am willing to discuss.

Do you still think that Einstein was a theist?

Yes. The author of the book I pulled that quote from, took it out of context because he thought so too. I have Einstein on film at the United Nations where he says, "I am a good European and I am a Jew." This was later in his life, the time when most men rediscover God.

Ricky · 2010-04-11 17:15:05

I have Einstein on film at the United Nations where he says, "I am a good European and I am a Jew." This was later in his life, the time when most men rediscover God.

This is the standard confusion about the term "Jewish". Being Jewish can mean two different things, the first a belief in a certain religion, and the second is more or less a "race". Many people state they are Jewish because they're parents are Jewish, even though they don't believe any of the faith. It is the later which I believe Einstein was referring to, and I use my three previous quotes to support this contention.

Ricky · 2010-04-11 17:19:16

If you want quotes from when Einstein was older, check this one out from January 1954, just over a year before he died:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

bobbym · 2010-04-11 17:21:23

Hi Ricky;

The phrase I am Jew in this context means All Jews are followers of Judaism, they believe in the one God. Look at this:

So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
I'm an not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.

He is certainly not an atheist or even an agnostic.

Ricky · 2010-04-11 17:57:33

bobby, Einstein in that quote is talking about the natural universe. Moreover, that quote was from the 1930s. From what I've been reading, Einstein's views changed quite fundamentally during this time period. Einstien says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", which is a naturalistic, not theistic, belief.

I have given you feedback on every quote you have provided, but you have not yet replied to a single one of my three quotes (I'm not counting the latest because it seems to me Einstein was only referring to the Christian god).

bobbym · 2010-04-11 18:19:32

Ricky wrote:

I have never observed any supernatural phenomenon, a god or otherwise. I have never heard of any evidence, based in the principles of science, suggesting such phenomenon. Using the principles of science, I find no evidence and therefore will not accept the conclusion.

The fact is Rick, you missed the point of my original post. You implied because you believe in science you or anyone else cannot believe in a God. I have only tried to show that claim is spurious. Einstein believed in some form of deity. Einstein clearly stated he is not an atheist, what is hard to understand about that? Could he be clearer than that?

Your choice is just that, your choice. It has nothing to do with science. It is just as easy to believe in a God if you are scientist as if you weren't. There is no contradiction. Your next implication that if you believe in some deity you are unscientific. This is also false.

The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.-Werner Heisenberg

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to religion-Francis Bacon

God never wrought miracles to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. -Francis Bacon

Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. ... -Carl Friedrich Gauss

God does arithmetic. --Carl Friedrich Gauss

Gauss wrote:

"There are problems to whose solution I would attach an infinitely greater importance than to those of mathematics, for example touching ethics, or our relation to God, or concerning our destiny and our future; but their solution lies wholly beyond us and completely outside the province of science."

"Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and since it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope." -Michael Faraday

If Gauss, Newton,Leibnitz, Kepler,Galileo, Heisenberg, Francis Bacon (the father of the scientific method) can find room for some supreme being than surely it is not anti-scientific.

Ricky · 2010-04-12 16:40:35

You implied because you believe in science you or anyone else cannot believe in a God.

You're reading between the lines, and more importantly you are reading something that isn't there. I honestly can't believe you think I hold such a position, as thinking it would require a complete denial of reality. There are theistic scientists, there are great theistic scientists, and more importantly, there are great theistic mathematicians.

What I said on the other hand is that I believe in the observable universe. This is my philosophy, and I claim the world has shown it to be a successful one because it's the same philosophy that science uses. But it remains a philosophy, and as such can be seen as more or less a matter of taste. A very very successful taste.

If Gauss, Newton,Leibnitz, Kepler,Galileo, Heisenberg, Francis Bacon (the father of the scientific method) can find room for some supreme being than surely it is not anti-scientific.

This is not true at all. Indeed the fallacy you are committing is a false dilemma. There is a third option, that the men you mentioned compartmentalize. They apply their skepticism (i.e. science) to questions of the natural world, but not the supernatural world. For the idea of god will never survive scientific scrutiny. It is this compartmentalization which allows them to have a foot in both worlds.

The idea that we should accept things without questioning (which is at the heart of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) is the entire antithesis of science.

bobbym · 2010-04-12 17:24:36

Let's start here:

For the idea of god will never survive scientific scrutiny.

Depends on what your concept of God is. Science and even math cannot answer all questions. God is outside the perview of science. This compartmentalizing you speak of is a bit of eastern philosophy more akin to Szen and probably unknown to people like Faraday or Heisenberg.

Why would they use such a method of holding contradictory ideas at the same time? Maybe because it is a good method. You do not reason about God. You do not map God to the set of Integers. These men were wise enough to know that. That is why they compartmentalized. The proper study for man is not God, but man. The tool we call science is for the investigation of the physical universe, not for the investigation of God (remember the Wittgenstein quote). We have philosophy and religion for that.

When St Thomas Aquinas was asked what was God doing before he created all things, he said he invented hell for people who ask such questions. There are questions we can know the answer to and questions we cannot. But you already know that.

It is this compartmentalization which allows them to have a foot in both worlds.

Human kind has a lot to learn from those men.

They apply their skepticism (i.e. science) to questions of the natural world, but not the supernatural world.

This is where the stumbling block lies. If I understand correctly you feel that they are foolish in not being skeptical. It is very difficult for me to believe that men like Isaac Newton and all the rest who did so many brilliant things suddenly became irrational concerning a supreme being. I trust Gauss' judgement a lot more than Carl Sagan's or Richard Dawkins.

LQ · 2010-04-13 03:21:41

G_Einstein wrote:

Well, as it is written in the Quran,the last prophet was Mohamed..
But,I know some thing about the Dejjal..
The Dejjal is a one eye blind persone,wich will say that he is God,because he will have "supernatural" forces and will rule the world...I know that a lot of fals personne will say that they are the Dejjal...I know that there is a secret society who is eccpecting his arrival,and their sygns is the "everything sight eye" or how it's called in english.....
I know that he will rule the world,and when he will came to Mekka,Jesus will descend from heaven into the Mosuqe,and when he will open the door,the Dejjal will be so scared and he will run away,and Jesus will kill him with an arrow....
I think is't like the Antichrist,even if I didn't read so much about it..........
I saw a book of Nostradamus about the 3 world war and I made a copy of it a week ago,but I must go and take it at the library.....
I read just shortly an islamic book about prediction of the 3WW and it was quite interesting...
It's a bit complicated because I have to explain events which will take place and I read that book last year so I don;t remember,but I just know that the 3WW will be between the coallision USA-Muslims-EU VS Persia(Iran)-Russia-China if I remmber well ........
It's like I think like the Armagedon

All I know is we still have a very old system up in the black hole, that says that anyone who makes the planet get's to sleep there.
Jesus here, Jesus there, no Jesus made the earth I'm sorry to say it. I was one of them who made it, But I'm in some kinda memory loss atm. I just remember the really important details. There are worse things then bows.

ZHero · 2010-04-13 03:43:38

Hi LQ
I just wish u had made the Oceans a little Sweet and Secs a little "Long Lasting" and More enjoyable!
Amen

LQ · 2010-04-13 08:01:56

Oceans cannot be sweet, they evaporate. after that all photons leave the place and it's snow everywhere.

If humans were perfect it wouldn't be nice.

I personally like the planet, it's not too much of much, a little paradise.

My opinion? Hm. With the proper attitude you can live anywhere.

Ricky · 2010-04-13 09:42:38

God is outside the perview of science.

Which is precisely why it would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

This compartmentalizing you speak of is a bit of eastern philosophy more akin to Szen and probably unknown to people like Faraday or Heisenberg.

One does not need to take a course in logic to use implications in everyday life. The same goes here: one does not need a well-defined philosophical idea to use that idea in practice. Many people do this without ever realizing it.

You do not reason about God.

Why?

When St Thomas Aquinas was asked what was God doing before he created all things, he said he invented hell for people who ask such questions.

This is a great example showing once again that the Western religions are the antithesis of science.

If I understand correctly you feel that they are foolish in not being skeptical.

I disagree with them from a philosophical standpoint. I find their views to be hypocritical. But foolish is another matter entirely.

I trust Gauss' judgement a lot more than Carl Sagan's or Richard Dawkins.

It's not about trust. And why Gauss over two other great scientists?

LQ · 2010-04-13 10:20:56

anyway, I've been thinking about these weird spells, like the sovereign rite and some kinda spell that can break the soul of a god, and I have doubts that this planet will be aloud to continue after preforming such spells. That is why I must tell you quick, that it wouldn't be tolerated even to think about it in the black hole that I came from. And I believe that they, the gods, will... make the apocalypse if you progress that far. And don't tell me I didn't tell you. They will simply aim something terrible in this direction... You didn't do that, did you?

Did you?

bobbym · 2010-04-13 10:29:14

Why?

Because it will be futile. It's like reasoning about life, or why you are here. Some questions have stumped the best minds for thousands of years and will continue to do so. Some questions may be improper. How Do you feel about continued questions about .999999... = 1 after you have explained it. St. Thomas' quote is the same thing. God could be considered an axiom.

The same goes here: one does not need a well-defined philosophical idea to use that idea in practice. Many people do this without ever realizing it.

Yes, they do. It works. Why not try it. A mind is many compartments. Each with local concepts and ideas.

It's not about trust. And why Gauss over two other great scientists?

Why? A choice. You told me you do not have freedom of choice, I do. I do not consider them great scientists. I consider Newton,Gauss and all the rest that have been mentioned great. Do you consider everyone intellectually equal? Have you bought into that? Also, trust is everything, it is about trust.

Ricky · 2010-04-13 15:34:08

God could be considered an axiom.

Either god influences our world in an observable way or does not. If he/she/it (which I will say he from now on) does not, then from a practical standpoint it's the same as there being no god. If he does, then there would be evidence of it by definition. So far we've found none. If this were any other hypothesis, you would reject it (more than 2000 years of research!). Why does the factual statement, "There is a god" get special treatment?

And before you say "because god is supernatural", the assumption that god influences the world in an observable way forces the acts of god to be in natural, and thus not supernatural.

Why? A choice.

Typically people have reasons behind the choices they make. Typically.

You told me you don't have freedom of choice, I do.

Huh?

I do not consider them great scientists.

Why? Do you know of their work in science education? Or Dawkins research in evolutionary biology? Have you seen Cosmos?

bobbym · 2010-04-13 16:29:57

Ricky wrote:

So far we've found none.

Whoa, who is "we've" ?
You meant you have found none didn't you? All the scientists, mathematicians, philosophers that I have quoted until I wore my keyboard out have found evidence enough. Their convictions are not a whim as you believe.

Ricky wrote:

Huh?

You told me you are unable to change your mind at will. You claimed that it is changed for you. I thought Huh, also!

Ricky wrote:

Why? Do you know of their work in science education? Or Dawkins research in evolutionary biology? Have you seen Cosmos?

I am sorry, You were serious? I thought you were joking when you compared Dawkins and Sagan to Newton and Gauss. I think I will let history decide.

Ricky wrote:

Have you seen Cosmos?

Yes, I am under the impression that most of it was written by someone else (his wife perhaps). He is not without influence even now, even deceased. I can't say any more about him.

Ricky wrote:

Or Dawkins research in evolutionary biology?

Yes, he is infamous in some circles. I do not think he is an atheist...

Ricky · 2010-04-13 16:51:51

Their convictions are not a whim as you believe.

Perhaps not a whim, but they didn't have scientific evidence. Or if you think they did, then perhaps you would care to provide some.

You told me you are unable to change your mind at will. You claimed that it is changed for you. I thought Huh, also!

What I said is that one can not simply choose to believe in a god. You have taken that, extrapolated, twisted it around, and somehow wound up with a statement about the ability to choose in all matters. That seems a bit dishonest to me.

I think I will let history decide.

I don't care who is actually "better", I was wondering why it is you think Gauss is.

I do not think [Dawkins] is an atheist...

If there is anyone who falls under the term atheist, then it is Dawkins. Why do you say that?

bobbym · 2010-04-13 17:46:25

Perhaps not a whim, but they didn't have scientific evidence. Or if you think they did, then perhaps you would care to provide some.

I am not in the class of Newton or Gauss, or Kepler and Galileo, I have no idea what runs through the heads of those guys. I never even said what position I hold dear, I just said it is not unscientific to believe in God because a lot of great men of science do.

Ricky wrote:

I don't care who is actually "better", I was wondering why it is you think Gauss is.

I do care but that is not important. History rates Gauss and Newton ahead of Sagan and Dawkins, not I. In a hundred years no one might remember the latter 2.

Ricky wrote:

What I said is that one can not simply choose to believe in a god.

Again, the statement is false. You can change anytime you want to. You are holding on to the view that you are buried under a mountain of evidence supporting atheism. This also is false.

You are asking me to provide evidence that my theorem is true, and if I cannot you will without a single counter example say it is false. I told you, science and logic can't decide the matter. Science attempts to describe the physical world, nothing more.

Ricky wrote:

That seems a bit dishonest to me.

Totally incomprehensible and uncalled for. If I were thin skinned or smarter I would be insulted.

This is what you wrote:

Ricky wrote:

Certainly. But it wasn't because I sat there wanting to change my mind. My mind will change whether I will it to or not. Indeed, willing my mind to change will have no effect at all.

Here you are saying your mind changes without your control. Looks like you are saying I have no will of my own. Misreading this is easy as it is unclear. Nothing dishonest or twisted about my interpretation of it.

Ricky wrote:

If there is anyone who falls under the term atheist, then it is Dawkins. Why do you say that?

He preaches atheism, there is a difference.

ZHero · 2010-04-13 18:17:43

Update: here's the Scores so far....

G_Einstein----> 04/10
bobbym-------> 07/10
Ricky----------> 08.5/10 (good going!)

that's an Interesting GD!

Last edited by ZHero (2010-04-13 18:18:07)

Ricky · 2010-04-14 09:39:55

I do care but that is not important. History rates Gauss and Newton ahead of Sagan and Dawkins, not I. In a hundred years no one might remember the latter 2.

Really? Where do you get this from?

Here you are saying your mind changes without your control. Looks like you are saying I have no will of my own. Misreading this is easy as it is unclear. Nothing dishonest or twisted about my interpretation of it.

The difference is the same between deciding whether or not you like the color green, and whether or not you like the taste of broccoli. One is entirely a choice, one is not. Just because you can choose everything doesn't mean you can choose nothing.

He preaches atheism, there is a difference.

Sure, if you make a new definition for the word "atheism". Just out of curiosity, what is your definition for atheism? He is an evangelical, there is no doubt about that. Just like every single political organization, science educator, and D.A.R.E. employee.

bobbym · 2010-04-14 13:29:43

The difference is the same between deciding whether or not you like the color green, and whether or not you like the taste of broccoli. One is entirely a choice, one is not.

Under hypnosis you would love the taste of broccoli. You could use self hypnotic techniques to change your opinions about broccoli. If you were starving or even had not eaten for say 2-3 days you would relish broccoli. This too is a choice.

Sure, if you make a new definition for the word "atheism". Just out of curiosity, what is your definition for atheism?

I have the dictionary definition. That wasn't my point. I do not know if he is an atheist. If he is he cannot be evangelical.

To be evangelical, this is required:

* A belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again")
* Some expression of the gospel in "effort"
* A high regard for biblical authority
* An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the death and resurrection of Jesus.[2]

And In that sense, to be evangelical would mean to be a believer in the gospel, that is the message of Jesus Christ.

Just like every single political organization, science educator, and D.A.R.E. employee.

What are you trying to say here? I do not follow it.

Obama,both Bushes, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Nixon ... all believed in God. Apparently belief doesn't interfere with one's ability to win elections.

Ricky · 2010-04-15 05:19:23

You could use self hypnotic techniques to change your opinions about broccoli. If you were starving or even hadn't eaten for say 2-3 days you would relish broccoli.

This is what you call, "deciding whether you like the taste of broccoli"? That is an exaggeration to the point where it does have anything to do with actually liking it. The hypnosis will only work while in a hypnotic state, which may not even occur in the first place. Typically a person has to be "suggestible" in order to induce a trance.

My point stands, one can not choose whether or not they like the taste of broccoli. Over time it can change however.

To be evangelical, this is required:

While the word typically has a Christian connotation to it, it has changed to also mean anyone who focuses on proselytizing their beliefs.

Getting back to the point, why is someone who "preaches" atheism not an atheist?

What are you trying to say here? I do not follow it.

Dawkins preaches in the same way political organizations, science educators, and D.A.R.E. employees do.

bobbym · 2010-04-15 05:57:21

Hi;

Ricky wrote:

My point stands, one can not choose whether or not they like the taste of broccoli. Over time it can change however.

The broccoli point is this, your dislike of broccoli is not a natural law like gravity. Dislikes change. We are talking about eating the broccoli, you can overcome your dislikes at will. You cannot however suddenly fly.

The hypnosis will only work while in a hypnotic state, which may not even occur in the first place. Typically a person has to be "suggestible" in order to induce a trance.

Affirmations made through hypnotic trances or without trances can last long after. Usually they need to be periodically strengthened, again a choice. Most people are highly suggestible and easy to hypnotize.

While the word typically has a Christian connotation to it, it has changed to also mean anyone who focuses on proselytizing their beliefs.

Their beliefs. Why are his beliefs any better than what he is bashing? He is not a theologian or a philosopher. What makes his opinions valid enough to even listen to? Why trade one belief for another?

Getting back to the point, why is someone who "preaches" atheism not an atheist?

I thought the point was the purpose of life? But if you insist, you are phrasing it incorrectly. My statement is, just because someone preaches something that does not mean he/she is for it. People like that are sometimes paid lobbyists for a much larger group. I won't be able to convince you of this but those people are firm believers in God. In fact their beliefs are much stronger than most non-atheists. They are the spokespersons for a group that is in competition with mainstream religion.

Math Is Fun Forum

#151 2010-04-11 03:54:06

Re: Purpose of life????

#152 2010-04-11 13:11:04

Re: Purpose of life????

#153 2010-04-11 14:38:53

Re: Purpose of life????

#154 2010-04-11 17:15:05

Re: Purpose of life????

#155 2010-04-11 17:19:16

Re: Purpose of life????

#156 2010-04-11 17:21:23

Re: Purpose of life????

#157 2010-04-11 17:57:33

Re: Purpose of life????

#158 2010-04-11 18:19:32

Re: Purpose of life????

#159 2010-04-12 16:40:35

Re: Purpose of life????

#160 2010-04-12 17:24:36

Re: Purpose of life????

#161 2010-04-13 03:21:41

Re: Purpose of life????

#162 2010-04-13 03:43:38

Re: Purpose of life????

#163 2010-04-13 08:01:56

Re: Purpose of life????

#164 2010-04-13 09:42:38

Re: Purpose of life????

#165 2010-04-13 10:20:56

Re: Purpose of life????

#166 2010-04-13 10:29:14

Re: Purpose of life????

#167 2010-04-13 15:34:08

Re: Purpose of life????

#168 2010-04-13 16:29:57

Re: Purpose of life????

#169 2010-04-13 16:51:51

Re: Purpose of life????

#170 2010-04-13 17:46:25

Re: Purpose of life????

#171 2010-04-13 18:17:43

Re: Purpose of life????

#172 2010-04-14 09:39:55

Re: Purpose of life????

#173 2010-04-14 13:29:43

Re: Purpose of life????

#174 2010-04-15 05:19:23

Re: Purpose of life????

#175 2010-04-15 05:57:21

Re: Purpose of life????

Board footer