Tenspace

Yes, as a matter of fact I do think that good is created by individuals. You make a decision at every turn. If it affects others (I am assuming that's what you mean by "good") in a positive fashion, you have created good for them, or yourself, or whatever.

Where did you come up with the flower analogy? You had to realize how weak and unrelated that was as you were typing it. If beauty is truth, then yes, the flower contrived its own beauty, through its ability to attract pollinators better than they less beautiful flowers, in the population of these flowers you mention.

How on earth would hypotheses back up my statements?

Well, you gave us a bit of insight by stating that God cannot be judged objectively. I'll chew on that tonight.

Thank you. I felt the logic was strong in my statement. I'll have to work on the premise, tho, eh? Thanks for the advice; I just wish you would answer the question.

Going to bed, pick this up tomorrow, if the thread survives.

Tenspace

yguy

I'll take that as a no.

Lobstrosity

yguy, I am doing no such thing--perhaps you're just trying to change your position? You have stated many times in this thread that you know God exists just like you know 1+1=2 (implying that the same mechanism of knowledge is at work). I assert in my posts above that 1+1=2 is isomorphic with x=x. It is a mere tautology. You cannot demonstrate that this claim is false in any way whereas I can demonstrate that it is true. As such, I am by no means misrepresenting your argument by saying it is identical to "I know god exists just like I know x=x." The gist of your argument is that there are some things you simply know because you know. They are self-evident. There is no justification required. As an example of such a thing, you list x=x (i.e. 1+1=2). This is not a valid example simply because it is trivial. It does not reveal any possible mechanism by which you might know God exists. So where have I gone wrong here? How am I misrepresenting your position? How is what I say here and in my earlier posts unjustified? Please give me a detailed refutation demonstrating the error of my ways.

Lobstrosity

Do you actually understand what math is? Posulates are predefined as truths. You can't prove them because they are by definition the way things are. The entire universe of mathematics is then built from the ground up based on those fundamental truths for that abstract universe. These postulates are then used to obtain self-consistent tautologies. 1+1=2 because it is defined as such. This is why your argument is holding no water.

For example, I could say "let x = 5." Asking one to prove an axiom would be like asking me to prove that x = 5. It's simply a nonsense request.

Jesse

I don't agree. Are you familiar with how Godel's incompleteness theorem works? I think it shows pretty clearly that a purely axiomatic approach to arithmetic will always be insufficient to capture our knowledge of arithmetical truth. We know that a Godel statement for arithmetic is true, because we have a model (see my previous post to you) of what the various undefined terms and operators "mean" that tells us that the axioms will not ever lead to an inconsistency. For example, we can know that the axiom that says a*b = b*a will not lead to an inconsistency regardless of the values of a and b, because we can represent the numbers as a matrix of a on one side and b on the other, with the product being the total number of elements in it, and it's clear that two matrices are equivalent to each other under a rotation. For example:

4*2:

****
****

2*4:

**
**
**
**

Lobstrosity

As far as I know I'm not advocating a purely axiomatic approach to arithmetic. I'm simply saying that the axioms present in arithmetic are defined as the truth and the arithmetic universe is constructed from them. The only requirement is that these axioms do not lead to inconsistencies. I'm not saying you can define any axioms you want, for if they conflict then your universe will be quite poorly designed (perhaps it would be fair to call it unstable?). I'm just saying that questioning the validity of axioms that survive the model of which you speak is meaningless within the universe for which they are axiomatic. Or am I still misunderstanding what you're trying to say?

Jesse

I'm saying that we can see the axioms of arithmetic are consistent because we have a mental model of what the various symbols "mean", and that when we say "1+1=2 is true" we are referring to this mental model, not just saying "the statement '1+1=2' is provable using the axioms of peano arithmetic". Likewise, we can see the Godel statement G for peano arithmetic is a true statement about our mental model of arithmetic, even if it's not provably true or false within the axiomatic system itself.

"1+1=2" is true by definition within a particular axiomatic system which we use to represent part of our mental model of arithmetic. But in the context of the mental model itself, "1+1=2" is not true by definition, any more than the Godel statement G for peano arithmetic is true by definition. But we know both statements must be true if the symbols correspond to the elements of our mental model (for example, the symbol "+" corresponds to our mental idea of addition).

Kimpatsu

Then you'd be wrong.
So no change there, then.

yguy

True, that by itself would be insufficient grounds for my assertion.

It's not logically impossible, but it is actually impossible.

It is not so much the sentience of butterflies that is outlandish, but the idea that I could be a figment of such a creature's imagination. That would make the butterfly my creator, and me the creation of another creation. There is only one Creator.

No, and it's not far from the truth. It is my consciousness being the creation of another creature that is the problem.

The observations are not the basis for the realization, only the catalysts for it.

yguy

You can't create good for people, you can only lead them to the source of good within themselves. If you really create good for a person, you are that person's god.

So let me get this straight: a flower's beauty comes from the fact that it is beautiful?