GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:If mathematical ideas can be "discovered," do they exist prior to the very act of discovery? If so, where do they reside?

Where does the wind reside?

"where does the wind reside"

It's amazing how something so simple can communicate so much.

The Genius minds/genes discussing here to prove the existence of God is amazing! Now really I think, GOD exists, or else where from this thinking, penetrating, provoking, refining mind has come from other than that creator GOD!

I am too illiterate to make head or tail of what is going on here, eventhough I admire and respect the tremendous intelligence thrown in the views, counter views here.

My simple hunch is that this existence doesn't know anything called GOD. God exists only in our maimed and pumped minds - nowhere can GOD exist.

Where does the wind reside?"

Why say any more?

Where does the wind reside?
In the atmosphere.
Where does the atmosphere reside?
In our solar system.
Where does our solar system reside?
In our galaxy.
Where does our galaxy reside?
In the universe.
Where does the universe reside?

What is smaller than an atom?
an electron.
What is smaller than an electron?
Current research shows that an electron has no size at all. It is a "point
particle". As a result, there are no particles that are smaller in size,
although there are particles with smaller mass. These are neutrinos. A
neutrino has no electric charge and a mass that is one-millionth of the
electron mass, perhaps even smaller.
What is smaller than a neutrinos?
ad infinitum. When it comes to inquiring about "God", Science is no different than religion is no different than philosophy is no different than art - ad infinitum.

AlyOshA;

The Internet is such a funny method people use to reach out to one another.

Yes, may be it is; thanks for sharing that, and your post of course.

Someone could say, “Something has overcome me.

Someone else could say, “ Life has no meaning.

And yet someone else could say, “God doesn’t need any other name or any other association”.

God is such a stupid term by itself.

I believe it is.

But if one uses the term to describe some kind of personal experience or to fill in the blanks that science and philosophy have yet to fill in, then one shouldn’t waste something so personally significant and profound on another who has either failed to understand, refuses to understand, or to one who prefers to call it by another name.

Calling (defining) God by any other name would still hold the same personally projected significance, and thinking that someone else does not understand or agree to MY personal significance, is where the ego problem lies. For in expressing it, one is but looking for objectivity in and of agreement with others; trying desperately to prove that his personally deduced significance holds universal reality. Substituting the name does not lessen the profound personal significance one projects onto whatever one chooses to represent his personally projected significance.

I guess it is quite difficult to accept that any Absolute is necessarily relative to what that it self is not, but one can however egotistically project Absoluteness onto the very understanding of this very sentence itself, failing to see that it yet remains (yin– yang’ly) relative to personal significance however.

A thoughtful post, AlyOshA.

What is the difference between this classic debate over the existence of God and a game of chess?
When playing a game of chess, most people know that they are only playing a game of chess.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If mathematical ideas can be "discovered," do they exist prior to the very act of discovery? If so, where do they reside?

Where does the wind reside?

Why... causal conditions of course.

AlyOshA wrote:What is the difference between this classic debate over the existence of God and a game of chess?
When playing a game of chess, most people know that they are only playing a game of chess.

In my opinion, for some Chess is much more than a game; ask the professionals about its significance, and so is it for those that play the God "game". However, the difference is, in the God-game one plays with ones self, essentially, and it may take eons to conclude, or a split second; it all depends on an individual self.

Yes. Very well put.

However, the difference is, in the God-game one plays with ones self, essentially, and it may take eons to conclude, or a split second; it all depends on an individual self.

Very well put, indeed. If the relationship is only between God and self, then I choose the eons, not the split second. The longer game. "Eons" clearly lasting beyond a single lifetime. You may have done it inadvertantly, but you have made my point very nicely.

"You may have done it inadvertantly, but you have made my point very nicely."

Chuang Tzu
"Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and bright; little words are shrill and quarrelsome."

God doesn’t need any other name or any other association. Tacking on Judaic-Christian descriptors only turns something simple into something absurd. If you are an Atheist or a rationalist, but have plenty to motivate you to live, then who needs a term like God? It then only becomes an argument of semantics and a waste of time. If you’ve reached a state of comfort and confidence, a thirst for life by providing a foundation through deep philosophical inquiry - then philosophy is your “God”. God is such a stupid term by itself. It’s utterly laughable to an intellectually honest and inquisitive mind. But if one uses the term to describe some kind of personal experience or to fill in the blanks that science and philosophy have yet to fill in, then one shouldn’t waste something so personally significant and profound on another who has either failed to understand, refuses to understand, or to one who prefers to call it by another name.

AlyOshA, this quote shows you have an agile but weak mind. You read and read and understand little.
You think a term like God is laughable and yet you procede to dump into this forum. "Utterly laughable"? I am so glad we amuse you.

By the manner of your expressions, it seems that you are trying to convince yourself of something – not me.

Good luck with your approach. I hope that you continue to learn.

Matthew 25:14-30

14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his
servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five
talents [a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one
talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16
The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his
money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two
talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one
talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and
settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five
talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me
with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You
have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many
things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you
entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You
have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many
things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24 "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he
said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not
sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was
afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is
what belongs to you.'

26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I
harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered
seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the
bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with
interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have
an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken
from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the
darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'


Luke 17:21
nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of Heaven is within you."

Chuang Tzu
Hence it is said: the Heavenly is on the inside, the human is on the outside

Exodus 3:13,14
What is his his name? And what should I say unto them?
And God said to Moses, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, I am what I am, or I shall be as I shall be."

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.


Deut. 33: 27 eternal God is thy refuge.
Ps. 90: 2 from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Ps. 93: 2 established of old: thou art from everlasting.
Ps. 102: 27 thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Isa. 57: 15 lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.
Isa. 63: 16 thy name is from everlasting.
Mal. 3: 6 I am the Lord, I change not.
1 Tim. 1: 17 King eternal, immortal, invisible.
1 Ne. 10: 19 (Alma 37: 12; D&C 3: 2; D&C 35: 1) course of the Lord is one eternal round.
Alma 11: 44 one Eternal God.
Moro. 7: 22 God . . . being from everlasting to everlasting.
D&C 19: 10 I am endless.
D&C 20: 17 God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal.
D&C 76: 4 From eternity to eternity he is the same.
Moses 1: 3 Endless is my name, for I am without beginning of days or end.
Moses 7: 35 Endless and Eternal is my name.

Enough with the quotes. If you have anything to say, say it in your own words.

AlyOshA wrote:Good luck with your approach. I hope that you continue to learn.

How patronizing. Keep copying and pasting, since that seems to be your approach.

Kevin, I understand, I think, what you are saying, but not why you are saying it.
You speak about cause and effect. In the physical universe, every location and moment in time has around it its "light cone." No cause that is not inside this volume can have any effect whatsoever at our point in time and space, and nothing happening at that place and time can cause an effect outside of the volume. What resides outside of the volume is called "elsewhere." I take it you are familiar with this concept.

You cannot prove the "elsewhere" exists. You cannot even demonstrate it. In other words, when I look out at the stars, I am not seeing them as they "are." As they "are" resides in the elsewhere, by definition, since it takes a finite amout of time for the light from them to reach the earth.

Yet I make a logical "leap" to concede that the stars in some sense exist right now. That is, my leap assumes that "elsewhere" exists.

Are you saying it does not? Are you saying that the universe is in fact coincidental with your light cone?

I do not think you are saying this. So there must be an "elsewhere."

Within this "elsewhere" lie things of which a mortal cannot know. ("Mortal" here specifically implying "existing for a finite period of time.") You are a mortal. Therefore there are things of which you in principle cannot comprehend or know in any way.

Yet I, for one, am hungry to know more and more. That's why I bother with these forums. I'm simply saying that in that elsewhere there may be satiation for my curiosity. When I look around me, I see not life but Life. I see patterns in nature amid the seeming chaos and meaninglessness of existence. The evidence of my own two eyes says there is a Mind at work behind Creation.

It is a tough sell to say that a living organism merely has self-interest. If living things seek to reproduce, why? Doesn't making a copy of yourself that will compete for resources contradict sheer self-interest? How can anyone not concede this point, that life as we know it cannot spontaneously appear?

My curiosity about the world and drive to understand it is what makes faith highly appealing. It expands the light cone. I don't want to believe in life after death because I am so enamored of this life, but rather because then I will continue to learn and know things.

If you keep alert, if you keep your headlights on, there is always something new to know and grasp. The minute somebody wants me to come and share their "perfection," I get claustrophobic and can't breathe. Believing in a God keeps you young. When I hear a person reject the possibility out of hand, or laugh it off, I feel morbidly sorry for that person. So if I myself chose to deny the possibility of a Creator, I would have to live out my days morbidly sorry for myself. And my life is good. It would be a shame not to enjoy it. I just can't understand why if a.) "God exists" cannot be proven, and b.) "God does not exist" cannot be proven, a person should want to lean towards embracing proposition b.)

And if you accept neither proposition, you are saying, make no mental "leaps" along those lines at all. The same effort it takes to believe that the stars exist.

It costs you nothing.

brokenhead wrote:In the physical universe, every location and moment in time has around it its "light cone."

There are always things we can see and those we can't. For example, I can see what is inside the room I am in right now, but I can't see outside of this room. Is that what you mean?

Even though I am inside this room, I can infer that there is something outside this room (the outside of this room is the "elsewhere" than this room).

No cause that is not inside this volume can have any effect whatsoever at our point in time and space

Causes can't be segmented in that way. There are no barriers which can entirely block the action of all causes.

My point in time and space is inside the room I am in right now. But there are causes operating from outside of this room.

and nothing happening at that place and time can cause an effect outside of the volume.

What I do inside this room right now can have an effect on things outside of this room.

What resides outside of the volume is called "elsewhere." I take it you are familiar with this concept.

Only in the sense that "elsewhere" is some place other than some particular place.

You cannot prove the "elsewhere" exists.

Let's say we are talking about a light-cone.

We can infer that there is a source to the light. The source of the light is outside of the light-cone. It is elsewhere than than the light-cone.

You cannot even demonstrate it. In other words, when I look out at the stars, I am not seeing them as they "are." As they "are" resides in the elsewhere, by definition, since it takes a finite amout of time for the light from them to reach the earth.

Likewise when you look at your computer. You cannot know how your computer really is. It is elsewhere than the things you can know for sure.

Yet I make a logical "leap" to concede that the stars in some sense exist right now. That is, my leap assumes that "elsewhere" exists.

Yes, you assume that there is a cause, or a source to your observations.

Are you saying it does not? Are you saying that the universe is in fact coincidental with your light cone?

No. I am saying that all things have a cause, or a source.

Within this "elsewhere" lie things of which a mortal cannot know.

When I throw a dice, I cannot possibly know what number will come up, even if the dice is biased and I drop it from a height of a hundredth of one millimetre. No mortal can know such things.

The evidence of my own two eyes says there is a Mind at work behind Creation.

It's not the evidence that says that, but your interpretation of the evidence.

My interpretation (the correct interpretation) is that there is no obvious evidence for conscious input into evolution.

I don't see any difficulty with the formation of life from non-life through random variation and natural selection.

See here for an example of how fully-working clocks can evolve, using essentially the same rules as our own evolution.

If living things seek to reproduce, why?

Not all living things are caused ("seek") to reproduce.

But if living things don't reproduce they will not pass on their genes, and so will become extinct.

Countless living things have taken the path of non-reproduction in the past, and all have become extinct.

Doesn't making a copy of yourself that will compete for resources contradict sheer self-interest?

You really don't understand evolution.

Try obtaining a school biology textbook and studying it. Seriously.

Believing in a God keeps you young.

I don't believe life is worth living if you have to believe things that aren't true.

Kevin Solway wrote:

You really don't understand evolution.
Try obtaining a school biology textbook and studying it. Seriously.

I think I do. I have studied biology. At university and outside as well.

I think you do not understand what I mean by "light cone." It is a specific term used by physicists when speaking about causality. Believe it or not, causality is one of the most central concepts in physics - it is what physics is about. What causes what and if and how we can predict what the effect will be.

Not all living things are caused ("seek") to reproduce.

But if living things don't reproduce they will not pass on their genes, and so will become extinct.

I didn't mean to imply all living things. That any living thing seeks to reproduce is the "evidence" I am submitting that there is a Mind behind Life.

My interpretation (the correct interpretation) is that there is no obvious evidence for conscious input into evolution.

The reason you are not correct is that there is plenty of obvious evidence. You are entirely missing the point. I can see your viewpoint - you refuse to see mine. Or else you just haven't been able to, which is why I am persisting. Evolution can proceed without conscious input (although it doesn't.) It could not have begun without conscious input.

Go here for a quick definition of what I mean by "light cone." Then reread my last post and see if it doesn't make more sense. Your speaking of inside and outside of rooms leads me to believe we are not on the same page.

Causes can't be segmented in that way. There are no barriers which can entirely block the action of all causes.

The causal barrier is what the light cone is. I didn't use the word "barrier," you did. "Boundary" would be a better term.

It's not the evidence that says that, but your interpretation of the evidence.

What else are you supposed to do with evidence?

brokenhead wrote:I think you do not understand what I mean by "light cone." It is a specific term used by physicists when speaking about causality.

It is a term they use when talking about light. Since it is specifically about light it's not relevant to what we are discussing.

That any living thing seeks to reproduce is the "evidence" I am submitting that there is a Mind behind Life.

You haven't indicated why it might be evidence of a conscious creator.

Evolution . . . could not have begun without conscious input.

Firstly, evolution can't "begin" because evolution is made up of cause and effect, and is therefore beginningless. Secondly, you don't provide any reason why evolution might be dependent on conscious input.

Go here for a quick definition of what I mean by "light cone." Then reread my last post and see if it doesn't make more sense.

It still doesn't make any sense, because even if there are light cones, there is a cause for the existence of light cones which is external to the light cone.

The causal barrier is what the light cone is. I didn't use the word "barrier," you did. "Boundary" would be a better term.

Since light cones (if they exist) are caused, they are entirely caused by what external to themselves. Since such a thing is created by that which is external, it can also be destroyed by that which is external to it. Thinking that such a light-cone is impervious to anything, if indeed anyone thinks that, is a grand delusion of extreme arrogance.

It's not the evidence that says that, but your interpretation of the evidence.

What else are you supposed to do with evidence?

Realize that it is your interpetation that says things, rather than the evidence.

Kevin Solway wrote:

It's not the evidence that says that, but your interpretation of the evidence.

What else are you supposed to do with evidence?

Realize that it is your interpetation that says things, rather than the evidence.

If you wouldn't resort to semantics so often, your arguments might be more convincing.

Since light cones (if they exist) are caused, they are entirely caused by what external to themselves. Since such a thing is created by that which is external, it can also be destroyed by that which is external to it. Thinking that such a light-cone is impervious to anything, if indeed anyone thinks that, is a grand delusion of extreme arrogance.

I am afraid many very educated people do believe that. It wouldn't be in print otherwise.
That they exist means they are caused? Thank you! That is my point! If all the physical evidence we have up until now says that nothing can physically affect or be affected by anything outside its light cone in any way, the light cone must in fact be a physical boundary to causation. It is a real boundary - yet it exists only in our minds as a concept, much like the Schwartzschild Radius of a black hole, which is another such causal boundary.
It demonstrates that we can have meaningful discussions about things that cannot in principle be proven to exist, such as anything in the region called "elsewhere." That this is possible demonstrates an ability which has evolved far beyond that which is necessary in order to survive. We are supposed to be contemplating Deity. It is in our genes.

One more point:

Thinking that such a light-cone is impervious to anything, if indeed anyone thinks that, is a grand delusion of extreme arrogance.

It is physically impenetrable to anything of which a mortal can possibly conceive. Speaking of its destruction is the arrogance - note that I made no such claim.