Religious

[thaskalos]

To "believe" is good...but we should also DOUBT.

[Actor]

Definitions

Socrates said “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Logic starts with definitions. Euclid begins his Elements with 23 definitions. The first of these is

“A point is that which has no part.”

To understand this definition one obviously has to know what the word “part” means. If you define “part” you will inevitably use another word which needs defining. Defining that word leads to the need for yet another definition. Etc, etc. There are three ways out of this dilemma.

1. Reach a definition which uses only words that have been previously defined, i.e., accept a circular definition. This is not an ideal solution.
2. Reach a definition which uses only words that all parties to the discourse already understand. The problem here is that while all parties may claim to understand all the words there is no way to assure that all parties have the same understanding. This approach also excludes anyone who is not a party the original discourse, including future generations.
3. Simply leave some words undefined. We call such words primitive terms. The assumption here is that everyone knows what these words mean and there is no need to define them. The more modern view is that the exact meaning of a primitive term is irrelevant, consistency is all that is necessary.

The use of primitive terms is the one which modern logicians (notably David Hilbert) use and the one which I will use. At least one mathematician claims that only two primitive terms, point and between, are all that are necessary to derive all of Euclid’s geometry.

Going back to the definition “A point is that which has no part” we note that this sentence has a total of 8 words. Point is the word being defined. Part is the operative word in the definition which we may choose to define or else let stand as a primitive. The remaining 6 words assume an understanding of the English language (or whatever language the discourse is in) or else they are treated as primitives. However, there is another approach which I will cover when I discuss notation.

A major point about definitions. Definitions are “ad hoc,” i.e., for this case only. Their purpose is communication. A jabberwock is whatever the author says it is, or whatever the teacher says it is, or (in the case of a live group discussion) whatever the group says. It matters not what the dictionary says it is.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

That's your belief, anyways.

I hold no beliefs, except truth.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

"We ALL do...? You have a mouse in your pocket? I know misery loves company but not all in the world love your kind of misery.

Why would you think that I am miserable? I'm not miserable at all, right now....misery is something that most humans experience in their lifetimes at some point or another...I certainly do not consider myself immune to it....but generally speaking.....I'm happy....

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You cannot deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and claim to be a "believer in him".

Once again you read into my post something that is not there. I never denied the resurrection of Christ nor did I even mention it.

[Light]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

So how does the perpetual motion entity that is G_d work....?

Just exactly HOW does He sustain all things....? What is the nature of His so-called power....? With invisible strings....? With the oxymoronic SPIRIT-FORMS.....? Again, your god is a complete ghost, a holy ghost.... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...? Stuff like that....time to wake up from the dream of salvation....no one is coming to save you boxcar....not even some Jewish messiah....

What I find strange about your God posts is that you have a warped view of God that you yourself don't even believe in but then go bitching about it. Huh?

The God that you bitch about doesn't even exist because God is not the stupid caricature you make him out to be.

First thing you should know about God is that we cannot understand God. Way above our little ignorant minds.

Second thing is that you need to forget everything mainstream you have been told about God. That is also ignorant. Just like they thought the world was flat.

Third and final thing is that God is all around us and in us. That is clear because your very life is nothing short of a miracle.The fact that you can't understand where you came from or where you are going should make you realize that you are not in control. There is a power higher than you that knows what you don't and you can only speculate on an internet forum. However, the reason for your existence exists, but you won't find out with a boxcar like mentality. Because God is not going to knock on your door and tell you from an external position as the boxcars of this world say. Because God is within and until you stop looking for him in the sky, you will continue to bitch about it.

And every time I say God is within, it goes right past people's heads. Because they have no idea what it means to go within because they don't know how. They are as superficial as I was before I understood that all power comes from within a man or woman. Whatever we create is not from some external God but an internal one.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Light

What I find strange about your God posts is that you have a warped view of God that you yourself don't even believe in but then go bitching about it. Huh?

The God that you bitch about doesn't even exist because God is not the stupid caricature you make him out to be.

First thing you should know about God is that we cannot understand God. Way above our little ignorant minds.

Second thing is that you need to forget everything mainstream you have been told about God. That is also ignorant. Just like they thought the world was flat.

Third and final thing is that God is all around us and in us. That is clear because your very life is nothing short of a miracle.The fact that you can't understand where you came from or where you are going should make you realize that you are not in control. There is a power higher than you that knows what you don't and you can only speculate on an internet forum. However, the reason for your existence exists, but you won't find out with a boxcar like mentality. Because God is not going to knock on your door and tell you from an external position as the boxcars of this world say. Because God is within and until you stop looking for him in the sky, you will continue to bitch about it.

And every time I say God is within, it goes right past people's heads. Because they have no idea what it means to go within because they don't know how. They are as superficial as I was before I understood that all power comes from within a man or woman. Whatever we create is not from some external God but an internal one.

God within...? Within WHAT within us....? Within our minds....? Within our cells....? Please be specific about your so-called WITHIN....

Your WITHIN is nothing but Boxcar's holy ghost....it is your mantra that you have latched onto, Light, a ghostly talisman that reduces all your theories to absurdities, a classic example of the reductio ad absurdum....your WITHIN solves all your dilemmas...... But I have no idea what you are talking about....this mystical WITHIN.....what is there some little man inside of you steering your ship...? Is it some glowing ember that inhabits you that is distinct from you? Your alter ego of some sort...? Your doppelganger....?

Methinks thou art a pantheist....god within, god without, god everything and everywhere, methinks thy head be haunted....

[Actor]

Axioms

The next step in a logical discourse is the declaration of axioms, sometimes called postulates. Axioms are statements that are accepted as true without proof. In The Elements Euclid declares five axioms. In the classical era axioms were regarded as “self-evident.”

An axiom should be easily understood. It should be stated in such a way as to eliminate multiple interpretations. Of course it should also not be controversial since this would violate the requirement that it be self-evident. A controversial statement is obviously not self-evident.

A discourse on any subject requires a set of axioms. While it is certainly possible to define a system with only one axiom such a system is trivial.

While the classical view was that axioms were self-evident, the modern view is that axioms are accepted as being “for the sake of argument” (for lack of a better expression). This came about because of Euclid’s fifth axiom. Then during the 19th century mathematicians began to ask “What if Euclid’s fifth axiom is not true.” With that as a starting point they then developed “non-Euclidean geometries” which were entirely consistent. Non-Euclidean geometries have turned out to be quite useful in celestial navigation and in cosmology.

An absolute requirement is that no axiom in the set be allowed to contradict any other axiom in the set. While this may be obvious contradictions can creep in. For example we cannot have an axiom which says “Parallel lines do not exist” (obviously a non-Euclidean geometry) and another which says that “the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.” Although it is not immediately obvious, these two statements are contradictory since it can be proven that if the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees then parallel lines must exist.


Theorems

A theorem, sometimes called a proposition, is a statement whose truth value (true or false) can potentially be proven by application of primitive terms, definitions, axioms and previously proven theorems. A theorem which has yet to be proven or disproven is called a conjecture.

Possibly the most widely know theorem is the Pythagorean Theorem, viz., “the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.” It is easily proven once you know the trick. (Start by drawing a square such that one side of the square is the hypotenuse and the right angle lies inside this square.)

Another widely known theorem is Fermat’s Theorem. Captain Picard of Star Trek had a hobby of trying to prove this theorem. Unfortunately for the writers of Star Trek a proof was published while the series was still on the air.

Since proven theorems can be used to prove additional theorems we have an ever growing arsenal of tools as the discourse proceeds.

[Light]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

God within...? Within WHAT within us....? Within our minds....? Within our cells....? Please be specific about your so-called WITHIN....

Your WITHIN is nothing but Boxcar's holy ghost....it is your mantra that you have latched onto, Light, a ghostly talisman that reduces all your theories to absurdities, a classic example of the reductio ad absurdum....your WITHIN solves all your dilemmas...... But I have no idea what you are talking about....this mystical WITHIN.....what is there some little man inside of you steering your ship...? Is it some glowing ember that inhabits you that is distinct from you? Your alter ego of some sort...? Your doppelganger....?

Methinks thou art a pantheist....god within, god without, god everything and everywhere, methinks thy head be haunted....

So you got nothing within you?

For starters you have a brain within you. OK. That brain connects to our everyday consciousness. It also connects to the unconsciousness mind which your conscious mind is not privy too. That unconscious mind controls our bodily functions including our sleep and dreams. Our unconscious mind controls 95% of our daily life! If our bodily functions were left up to our ignorant conscious mind we would perish as a species. So there is a higher intelligence than our conscious mind already within us on a purely physical level that you can't deny.

So now you know there are at least two minds within you Your conscious and subconscious or unconscious mind. Remember the score is your everyday conscious mind 5% and your subconscious is 95% control of your life. A scientific fact. And again, you are not privy to what your subconscious does.

Your subconscious mind which never sleeps has another function that you may not be aware of. It connects to the universal mind. A higher plane of consciousness that your conscious everyday mind again is not privy to . Communication with the universal mind is sometimes manifested in your sleep through dreams, such as accurately seeing the future or the answer to an impossible situation. There are many other examples where the universal mind manifests. All one's power comes via your subconscious minds connection with the all powerful universal mind /consciousness. Again, you are not privy to this activity. So you have to "access" it.

What you have inside you is the ability to directly connect to the universal mind and the wisdom,love and beauty it can deliver in your life. This is what all religions are talking about in their own way.

The way to access it is to suspend your "everyday conscious mind " with its doubt and stupidity and surrender to your inner self's connection to the universal mind via meditation. You kind of go where your subconscious mind goes as it falls asleep. But you stay awake. Your everyday conscious mind recedes to the background and the love comes from the universal consciousness through your internal connection of your subconscious to the universal consciousness. This is Divine love. It's not connected to a person place or thing and is non egoic. It is a form of spiritual nutrition.

I've been doing this for 40 years and it is a process and there is much more to say about it. It was only a few years ago that a spiritual "being" came into my dream and showed me how to awaken this love. He taught me the secret to life without saying a word. That is the "higher" level of consciousness one can attain when one opens up within.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Definitions

Socrates said “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Logic starts with definitions. Euclid begins his Elements with 23 definitions. The first of these is

“A point is that which has no part.”

To understand this definition one obviously has to know what the word “part” means. If you define “part” you will inevitably use another word which needs defining. Defining that word leads to the need for yet another definition. Etc, etc. There are three ways out of this dilemma.

1. Reach a definition which uses only words that have been previously defined, i.e., accept a circular definition. This is not an ideal solution.
2. Reach a definition which uses only words that all parties to the discourse already understand. The problem here is that while all parties may claim to understand all the words there is no way to assure that all parties have the same understanding. This approach also excludes anyone who is not a party the original discourse, including future generations.
3. Simply leave some words undefined. We call such words primitive terms. The assumption here is that everyone knows what these words mean and there is no need to define them. The more modern view is that the exact meaning of a primitive term is irrelevant, consistency is all that is necessary.

The use of primitive terms is the one which modern logicians (notably David Hilbert) use and the one which I will use. At least one mathematician claims that only two primitive terms, point and between, are all that are necessary to derive all of Euclid’s geometry.

Going back to the definition “A point is that which has no part” we note that this sentence has a total of 8 words. Point is the word being defined. Part is the operative word in the definition which we may choose to define or else let stand as a primitive. The remaining 6 words assume an understanding of the English language (or whatever language the discourse is in) or else they are treated as primitives. However, there is another approach which I will cover when I discuss notation.

A major point about definitions. Definitions are “ad hoc,” i.e., for this case only. Their purpose is communication. A jabberwock is whatever the author says it is, or whatever the teacher says it is, or (in the case of a live group discussion) whatever the group says. It matters not what the dictionary says it is.

So then, since objective definitions don't exist, there is no reason for any of us to accept your above subjectivism. Since the communicator can attach any meaning he wants to words, then the hearers can do likewise.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

What I find strange about your God posts is that you have a warped view of God that you yourself don't even believe in but then go bitching about it. Huh?

The God that you bitch about doesn't even exist because God is not the stupid caricature you make him out to be.

First thing you should know about God is that we cannot understand God. Way above our little ignorant minds.

So, then why do you concoct posts about things for which you have no understanding? Truly, you are like the blind guide presuming to lead the blind. Your end and theirs is the ditch!

Also, your statement in your last paragraph is self-defeating! If you intend for us to take you seriously and you want for us to believe that your statement is meaningful, you need to explain to us how you KNOW that God cannot be understood. How did you come to understand anything at all about God who is not understandable at all in order to pen such words? On the other hand, if you say you have no understanding of God whatsoever then your post is meaningless because it's written out of your ignorance of God -- the ignorance that is inherently WITHIN you!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Why would you think that I am miserable? I'm not miserable at all, right now....misery is something that most humans experience in their lifetimes at some point or another...I certainly do not consider myself immune to it....but generally speaking.....I'm happy....

Because you are self-deceived, you don't know you are miserable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

I hold no beliefs, except truth.

Would that be subjective or objective truth?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Once again you read into my post something that is not there. I never denied the resurrection of Christ nor did I even mention it.

And you lie again! This is what you wrote in 27935:

Originally Posted by Light

By using words such as Christian or Jew,you transform the limitless to limited. It's purely reference but not the essence of the religion. Now JC has no body and is in spirit form. Spirits are not geographically bound or defined by a religion. They are defined by an energy. And Jesus's energy is Divine Love which traverses the physical and spiritual realms and is infinite.

(emphasis mine)

But scripture denies your heresy in many places. Here is but one:

Luke 24:36-49
36 And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst. 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." 40 [And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.] 41 And while they still could not believe it for joy and were marveling, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" 42 And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them.

44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 "You are witnesses of these things. 49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
NASB

I also want to call to your attention that scripture clearly refutes unlimited Agnosticism -- that no one can truly know (understand) God. See vv.44-45.

And the above two verses harmonize perfectly with this OT passage:

Jer 9:24
24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things, "declares the Lord.
NASB

And this one:

Prov 2:6
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
NASB

It appears, sir, that is you who is guilty of limiting God's powers -- in more ways than one!

[Greyfox]

The climate has always been changing.
Where I live today was once covered by over a half mile high sheet of ice.
Fossil fuels didn't cause that to happen.

Catholic Priests are now expected to swallow the man-made cause Kool Aid and sermonize about it from the pulpit.
The Vatican expects that of them.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/...lobal-warming/