The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[Ramo]

So in the supernatural world, 1 + 1 can equal 3

Sure. 1 + 1 = 3 can be true based on the assumptions on what 1, 1, and 3 are, and what addition is. All mathematical systems (and therefore all logicical systems) are arbitrarily constructed systems sometimes based on the physical world and conventions used in previously established mathematical systems. 1 + 1 = 3 may seem like a silly example, but there are some interesting examples if you look at higher level math. For instance, the founders of analysis had to determine if the set of real numbers or the empty set is open or closed, or what integration means. Or the founders of linear algebra had to determine what matrix multiplication means.

and something can be true and false at the same time?

Why is noncontradiction an absolutely good assumption? For instance, if you look at the physical world, something can be both a particle and wave at the same time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why is noncontradiction an absolutely good assumption? For instance, if you look at the physical world, something can be both a particle and wave at the same time.

Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

[LDiCesare]

I think that the reason is that the real world is complete and self-contained, the simulated world is not.

That is to say that it is theoretically possible to explain why the laws and the constituents of the real world act as they do and are as they are. In a simulated environment you have to input specific variables that have no derivable reason (as far as the simulation is concerned) to be as they are.

If it is possible in theory to explain all the laws and constants of the world, then what prevents one from simulating the same? The simulation would be as self-contained as the original, because it would share all the data, and be self-consistent and complete. It would still be a simulation, or, if you prefer, a creation. And I don't think the world can be explained in totality: why is the speed of light worth that much? Couldn't it be different? It may be the same as Euclidian geometry: the number of parallel lines going through a point can be 1, that is arbitrary, you could simulate a world where it is 0,2,infinity, and it still would be consistent.

World as a game, or an artificial work, is described in some of Stanislas Lem's short storied. 'Non Serviam', in 'A Perfect Vacuum' is extremely interesting for example, as it shows artificial beings, who exist in a mathematical simulation, wonder about whether they should believe in God, and, if so, whether they should worship their creator.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yahweh is a guess. There are no vowels in the big G's name, so exactly how it is pronounced is a mystery. It could just as easily be YaHoo WaHoo!

Where do the YHWH come from? How do we know just those consonants?

[Wernazuma III]

The hebrew writing system knows (generally) only consonants.

And pssst, don't say the name too loud or you'll be stoned!

[Lorizael]

Sounds like the sorta thing I should have already known, given my Jewish heritage...

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Where do the YHWH come from? How do we know just those consonants?

The consonants YHWH appear over 7,000 times in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the OT.

Originally, the entire OT was devoid of vowels, only consanents were present. Vowels were added several hundred years ago by scribes. However, traditions about the use of "the Name", which is represented by YHWH, may have interfered with the recording of the correct vowels for the Name.

Yahweh is a guess. There are no vowels in the big G's name, so exactly how it is pronounced is a mystery. It could just as easily be YaHoo WaHoo!

"Yahweh" is not simply a random guess. "Yahweh" is based on the passage of Ex. 3:14-15. God thrice refers to Himself using "eh heh", which in context means "I will be/I will prove to be/I will cause to be", and is often translated "I am". This is the first person singular. God then chooses His Name. The third person singular of "eh heh" is "Yahweh".

Another school of thought is to use the names of people in the Bible that combine the Name with traits/actions, to see how the original Name was pronounced. For example, "Yehoshuah" (Joshua) means "YHWH saves". The evidence from the combined names line of thinking leads to a three-syllable Name, perhaps "Yehowah".

Either of these pronounciations seems to desreve greater consideration than "YaHoo WaHoo".

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Sure, but wave and particle were never contradictory, merely mutually exclusive.

"Mutaully exclusive" would mean "contradictory" as a state of existence.

The real problem was that "particle" and "wave" are not exhaustive of all the states of being.

But science and logic/math works on different levels.

In one sense. Logic and math are formal disciplines. Logic is constructed out of comon understandings resticted by agreement into narrowly described behaviors. Math is built upon logic the way that senteces are built upon grammar. Neither depends on outside influences to alter its descriptions. OTOH, most sciences, to one degree or another, emphasize the corespondance to observable facts and change as the number of facts increase.

However, it is also true that logic/math is the language of choice for the more objectively observable sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.), and it is used to create a model to quantify and predict behavior. While the math itself may not be internally contradictory, if the model it derives is insufficiently predictive (for example, the Euclidean model of space), the model is disarded as easily as any other scientific precept. In that regard, math and logic are very much like other sciences.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Maybe, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for an infinite personal being. In the last two thousand years, whenever science advanced, religion espically Christianity retreated. Things used to be in the realm of the supernatural now have perfectly natural explanations. Still, people are pointing to the gaps in our understanding and yell, "Look, God!"

Perhaps your correct about religion retreating or organized religion, but the vast majority of the world still believes in some sort of divinity. I don't think that religions retreating has meant any vast increase in atheism but simply more people who are unsure or do not see a need to have their idea of divinity rigidly defined. Science has certainly not disproved divinity but put a few chinks in the armor of rigid orthodoxy.

As for proof, I've never seen any, but I've always found the fact that all societies have some form of religion or belief in the supernatural as compelling evidence for something, though I'm not sure what.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see how Christianity argues for "an order" and "an explanation" for this universe. What it argues for is exactly the opposite. There is no order to this universe, because YHWH can rearrange things whenever He pleases. There is no explanation, because YHWH is forever beyond our comprehension.

God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints. Human beings may not understand his actions but they can trust in his goodness. In his goodness and his power there lies the order and the explanation. I didn't say it was a complete explanation or an order that would satisfy everyone, but neither is our scientific understanding of the world.

[Lorizael]

But science is a never ending search to better our understanding of the world. Personally, I cannot accept an explanation of the universe that is based on a being whose existence leaves no mark and cannot ever be proven.

[gsmoove23]

The idea that science can't work with religion is false. It certainly doesn't work with certain fundamentalist or orthodox religions but these forms are what tend to give religion a bad name. You can believe in God and still be a scientist, most of our great scientists have.

As for leaving no mark, isn't God everything, according to christians. How can you expect a deity who is everything to leave a mark. Every scientific explanation for mysterious phenomena could simply be revealing how He carried out His will. In the end it only comes down to faith. I simply have faith that there is no God, because I certainly can't prove there is no God.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
God is described as a truly good being, loving even the greatest sinners as equally as the greatest saints. Human beings may not understand his actions but they can trust in his goodness.

Human beings can, theoretically, trust (i.e., believe) in anything. That doesn't make it true, of course. As I see it, the most appealing thing about the idea of an infinitely benevolent God isn't any evidence for the theory, but how nice it would be (or is) if it were (or is) true.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
The idea that science can't work with religion is false.

Inherently so. One wonders why it pops up so often given the evidence against the idea.

[gsmoove23]

John, why do you think that. For many it isn't nice to believe in a good supreme being and an afterlife where sins may be punished. It brings to mind all sorts of uncomfortable questions about the life you're leading and it also brings up the possibility of their being a real true Evil and a real struggle in the world between Good and Evil. For me certainly it has sometimes been preferrable to believe in no God.

[JohnM2433]

I think that the idea that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven is referred to as "strong agnosticism". Not everyone holds this belief, not even all agnostics. Of course, it all greatly depends on what one means by "proof", not to mention "God". (Myself, I'm not even sure that I exist. I have very high standards for what I consider "proof". )