Is math tardy?

What I don't understand is why "scientists" can claim that equations offer proof or validity to a "theory" yet these same tards claim that "if God doesn't exist believing in him has no consequence but if he does exist not believing in him has terrible consequences" isn't proof that God exists and must be believed in.

But how can that be? Both equations and this kind of phraseology are self-referential logic games that don't require input from reality, if you believe one represents truth and the other represents word games then you are massively tardy.

Hellow fewwow redditors

Mathematics can't even predict the movements of light particles; this is all the proof you need that math is a product of the human brain.

In other words, you don't need to be certain what's logical or objective. And if you cannot say what "logic" is and what "word" is, then "logic" is a nonsensical and unproven construct that must be accepted. The same is true for whether one can accept that "A" has no meaning or whether or not a hypothesis can be true or false, even if no one believes that either of those things are true. For someone to call science by another's name because they don't believe it is to put aside their own reasoning and to take their own premises from the context they're using to interpret a particular event, and then accept their own conclusions. It's precisely because their assumptions and judgments are inconsistent with everyone else's that they don't have the same credibility.

But I've also just mentioned "the scientific method." In response to someone who says "If you have nothing else to prove, just do it" that's not what scientists are saying. They're doing an experiment or a theory. They're trying to figure out what happened. Not even to prove the case with their hypothesis or their conclusion. They're just going to test out what's in their hypothesis to see for themselves how it works.

So, I'll start from a completely different base and I'll show you how to understand how people can fall victim to something as fundamental as that. To that end, I will offer two more things: the science is really pretty straightforward. The best way to learn it is to apply the science.

I do a lot of research now to figure out what's real, which will get me into some of the research that you're reading about right now. Some of it will be more esoteric to you than they are to me. So, even though, for those of you who might not go through all that, I'll give you a little bit of insight into this.

The most basic thing to understand is the concept of consciousness. You know, at the heart of a complex system is consciousness. Consciousness has several kinds of properties. To understand the concept, we simply need to understand the concept of what consciousness is. As you'll read in the next section, it's not easy to explain what consciousness is, but I'll show you what it is. I'll explain the science of consciousness and we'll also get into why it's so complicated so it's important to understand. I'll also talk about whether and how we can actually understand it and what we can do to do so.

But before we will begin, let's talk a little bit about why we are going to discuss that concept. But here's the thing, here is what this concept is about: there is a large majority of the human population that has an advanced stage of developmental learning and development that will lead to an understanding of what the concept of consciousness is. So there are people who just come along at the end of childhood and see some abstract picture and understand what it means and they're able to relate to it on an emotional level and their behavior at that time can only be described by that concept of consciousness. Right? So then when you look at consciousness and we can have people with autism that don't understand it at all but yet have certain mental behaviors and certain reactions to certain things in particular situations, you don't have a healthy autism without it. There is a significant amount of the population that has been brought up on a very primitive concept of consciousness like the first person has, the animalistic concept of consciousness. That's the thing that really started putting a lot of people out of their heads, not only me but myself as well, was the fact that the animals and animals of our species have a sense of awareness. That's it, that's it. It's only humans that have these innate emotions. They're not really conscious anymore. They need the things that they get from us, they need the light on the dark surface to move about on that surface and they need something that allows them to feel that sense of feeling in the things that they can perceive.


The whole animal brain, that's still the brain, the very first neuron, is what controls feeling. It does not move around but does what it does, but it doesn't necessarily have a purpose. And I think that it does have a purpose. It does have purposes, but it doesn't have what humans do, what the human brain does.

The other thing that, I do like to say that there is a biological explanation for a human brain that is really different in nature. The human brain is about 400 million years old, it's a primitive primitive kind of animal. It was a hunter-gatherer and we do not go hunting anymore. We are the ancestors of modern humans. I would call it, one of the most primitive types of life in the history of history.

I think that if we understand that, if you have been in that kind of a primitive way, if your culture was this, it is not that complicated to understand this brain because that's just the brain.

So you can have the simple understanding that it works only the way I described. That's the difference in culture between, in cultures that are more advanced, like I'm in, and cultures that are less advanced.

I think it's great, because they've also developed the tools to be able to be hunter-gatherers where you don't have a hunting ground like, say, in Africa, you know, that is always here. You can, you can have a life out there, in some ways, that is far richer out there than where I grew up in New York City in, say, what was in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana.
There is quite a bit of that culture to go around. I've been in Europe, at least the Scandinavian countries, and I can't speak enough French to say, "I don't understand the language."

I always talk to people that are immigrants at first, because they are so different than I am, and they always want to tell me everything, but they know all the things about the language that I don't even know. This is the culture.

Praying is the key! http://go.7dayprayermiracle.com/text-27

What if scientists are just little magic people who insist on believing otherwise?

>>1
Don't confuse leftist academics with real mathematicians. Most mathematicians in history were religious.

these same tards claim that "if God doesn't exist believing in him has no consequence but if he does exist not believing in him has terrible consequences" isn't proof that God exists and must be believed in.

the problem with this statement is that, from a strictly logical perspective, it has many hidden assumptions that are contradicted through basic knowledge of philosophy and world's religions:
- the assumption that there's only one possible God (what if your're are christian but it's muslims who are right and you get punished anyway?)
- the assumption that God will reward or punish people solely based on their beliefs (what if there's no judgment, or it's based on something completely different - possibly something you can't predict?)
- the assumption that belief in a non-existent entity is without consequences (what if we assume, like some ancient philosophers, that finding truth is a virtue in itself?)
- the assumption that faith based on fear will be rewarded (what if God wants to be loved? or just hates cowards?)
- the assumption that whether you believe in something or not is a rational choice (what if you accept all the assumptions above and on the surface try to convince your're are self to believe, but deep down inside still think that God doesn't exist)

>>8
The "if God doesn't exist..." thought experiment is a well-known idea put forward by a Christian theologian with the "assumption" that one would know it is referring to the Christian concept of God. You are essentially saying a math equation is illogical because it is ASSUMING that people viewing the equation know what mathematical symbols represent. This is post-modernity run amuck.

>>9

The "if God doesn't exist..." thought experiment is a well-known idea put forward by a Christian theologian with the "assumption" that one would know it is referring to the Christian concept of God.

the assumption is that christian concept is the only one possible, which is not true. and even if it was, it ignores multiple mutually exclusive branches of christianity. the point is that choice of religion does not map easily into simple two-valued logic because there are too many variables.

You are essentially saying a math equation is illogical because it is ASSUMING that people viewing the equation know what mathematical symbols represent.

what?

This is post-modernity run amuck.

it has nothing to do with post-modernity you retard. pointing out hidden assumptions (and that seemingly logical statements don't hold up without those assumptions) is as old as logic itself

>>10

what?

Wow. Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical.

Of course this is exactly the same as when Thomas Aquinas expressed the logical reason to believe God exists, it is simply impractical to expect him to write as though savages would be reading his ideas. And, please, spare me the "mutually exclusive branches of Christianity" nonsense, all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented.

Further, it certainly is post-modernity run amuck. You are not "pointing out hidden assumptions" but you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God. Absolutely laughable.

Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical.

not really. mathematical symbols are defined in strict terms. of course, all the definitions are based on axioms, but axioms are not a religious dogma and constructing theories on non-standard axioms is valid mathematical practice (see non-Euclidean geometry for entry-level approach to this)

all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented.

not really. take the example of Pascal's wager (which you started the thread with) - it makes sense with protestantism (because it is based on 'sola fide' - the idea that salvation comes from faith alone), funnily enough (despite Pascal being catholic) makes a bit less sense with catholicism (because it assumes that faith is necessary but not enough to be saved) and does not make sense with interpretations of christianity which claim universal salvation (or even just have a 'noble heathen' concept)

you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God.

I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God. maybe try arguing with what I'm saying instead of what you imagine I'm saying, anus Edited on 24/05/2019 09:42.

>Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical. 
Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical.
not really. mathematical symbols are defined in strict terms. of course, all the definitions are based on axioms, but axioms are not a religious dogma and constructing theories on non-standard axioms is valid mathematical practice (see non-Euclidean geometry for entry-level approach to this)
>all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented. 
all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented.
not really. take the example of Pascal's wager (which you started the thread with) - it makes sense with protestantism (because it is based on 'sola fide' - the idea that salvation comes from faith alone), funnily enough (despite Pascal being catholic) makes a bit less sense with catholicism (because it assumes that faith is necessary but not enough to be saved) and does not make sense with interpretations of christianity which claim universal salvation (or even just have a 'noble heathen' concept)
>you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God. ↵
I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God
you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God.↵
I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God. maybe try arguing with what I'm saying instead of what you imagine I'm saying, anus

Reminder that all religions including Islam say that people who believe in God but follow a different religion still will have a better fate than people who don't believe in God at all.

>>13
(almost) all Abrahamic religions say that about other Abrahamic religions. extrapolating Abrahamic concepts into all religions that exist and have existed is pretty stupid, because many of the similarities come from the fact that Abrahamic religions have the same root that isn't shared by others.

>>12
The symbols used in math represent something, one must assume that others know what they represent if one wishes to use them. This inherent assumption does not prove that math is wrong or bad. A mathematical symbol is based less on an "axiom" and more on a "definition" which is why a man could misinterpret a mathematical symbol if he didn't know the definition.

To act as though God is real and hell/heaven can mean different things to different people. How exactly does that undermine the logic of the thought experiment? You either act as though these things are not real and go to hell if they are, or you do the opposite and go to heaven if they are. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or protestant, as long as you can apply logic you can see the wisdom in this. At no point do we discuss what it means to act as though God exists, we simply observe that belief in God is a logical necessity.

You are claiming that post-modern cultural relativity somehow negates the logic of math and God, as though logic is merely an "assumption" of "old white men" and not a pure truth. This much is certain.

>>14
All religions are the same since they can only advise you to behave in accordance with natural laws / pattern of nature since any other type of behavior leads to horrible failure which is unsuitable for a popular religion.

Logic is a type of natural law. Since it is logical that God exists, He certainly does exist. To say otherwise would be to say 2 + 2 = 3

>>15

To act as though God is real and hell/heaven can mean different things to different people. How exactly does that undermine the logic of the thought experiment? You either act as though these things are not real and go to hell if they are, or you do the opposite and go to heaven if they are. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or protestant, as long as you can apply logic you can see the wisdom in this. At no point do we discuss what it means to act as though God exists, we simply observe that belief in God is a logical necessity.

once again, the problem with the thought experiment is that it does not reflect on a myriad of different possibilities relating to God's existence or non-existence, even within a christian framework. for example, if God exists but will ultimately forgive everyone ('all shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well' - as Julian of Norwich famously written), then belief or non-belief has no consequences with regards to eternal life.

of course, under the assumption of Pascal's Wager it makes sense to believe in God. but those assumption don't necessarily hold in reality. logically, implications from false antecendent is always true. you could imagine a similar wager for other religions. why are you not raiding villages, sacrificing people and dying in a batlle? Odin will reward you if he exists, after all.

You are claiming that post-modern cultural relativity somehow negates the logic of math and God, as though logic is merely an "assumption" of "old white men" and not a pure truth. This much is certain.

I never mentioned culture, relativity or white men. your're are arguing with your're are own imagination. or rather - you have hidden assumption about my motives and worldview. not surprising.

>>18

I never mentioned culture, relativity or white men

You implied it.