# ponderer

Senior Members

125

• Meson

• Occupation
retired

6

3. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

The complexity of an explanation within the premise has at its root the number of distinct substances and the associated dynamic geometric description of their distribution and behavior. I don't understand what you are driving at. The relative complexity of geometric shapes and arrangements is fairly straight forward for the most part. However, as a caveat, we must consider that in a reductionist environment, more instances do not equal more complexity. The introduction of more instances is accepted it they are identical and they reduce the complexity of the root explanation. Thus the existence of electrons, protons, and electrons are accepted even though they must exist in countless numbers, resulting in very complex geometry. There are fewer of them in type, than there are of things that would have to each be considered their own primary substance, if they did not exsist, and their dynamic geometry is simpler than the sum of the countless gross geometric shapes into which they can be assembled. In generating a TOE we are concerned with the root geometry of the system, which may be then employed to manifest all else, and not the overall well know geometric complexity of everything out there. Surely you know these things already. And yes, without knowing the observations you cannot see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is why I felt safe talking about it to a point. Outing God would be an offense to God. It is for God to come out if and when he is ready. It is not for me to expose him in a way or at a time that he does not wish to be exposed. I am a guest in God's house, and I really like what he has done with the place, and I would like to make a long term commitment, and stick around. I am sure he has his reasons.
4. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

Say what?! I am sure if you think that over you will reconsider. If A=B and B=C, then A=C Certain facts (A=B and B=C) in association will show the obvious (A=C). If you do not consider these facts together (A=B and B=C), you do not see the obvious conclusion. It is how science works. It is how axioms work. It is the way of things. I have no idea what you are intending to say. Every axiom must be considered to be timeless, so that there was for each a very long time before they were discovered, because no one happened to consider the facts together in such a way that the conclusion was obvious. I think you need to reread the premise. You seem to think all the facts are specifically itemized in the premise. It is a premise for a TOE! A premise for a TOE must include the given universe. Perhaps, it should read, "Given the universe we live in and that on cosmological and subatomic scales the simplest explanation is the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be expressed soley in dynamic geometry, and that only the simplest explanatory geometry will be considered, based soley on geometric complexity .... In any case everyone is upset about my refusal to substantiate my assertion, so I appoligize for breaching the forum rules. I will refrain from making such assertions in the future and keep such things to myself. If I wish to share something I have discovered I will go through a publication process.
5. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

I was going to edit my post when I saw your reply. When I said "without even knowing me", I meant to say, "without even knowing the reasoning or me". So, you have no basis for believing the assertion, and no basis for disbelieving it, except that it conflicts with your world view, and you are possibly suspicious due to some past experience. And that is of course your objection. That I am not supplying the reasoning. If you are upset/frustrated, it is understandable. You find no obvious connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is the way of things. I do not think you are an idiot. Once you look at the right facts in association something can look obvious. But you have to know what facts to look at. That is not the point. The point is that if I am unwilling to substantiate a claim, I should not make it. It is bound to result in this sort of situtation. Being unwilling to substantiate an assertion is the same as being unable from a functional standpoint, for the observer.
6. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

You seem to think I set out intending to prove that God exists, or that I made some sort of logical copout. You imply prejudice that does not exist in the premise, or incompetence/ignorance in applying the reasoning. Your lack of belief in my assertion requires that you attribute these qualities to me without even knowing me. You are making negative assumptions about me and being quite condescending. This appears to be an emotional response based on my refusal to explain further, and the disruptive nature of the assertion within your world view. I am sorry if I have upset you. Have a nice day. Condescend some more if it makes you feel better.
7. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

Perhaps you did not catch the discussion in the other thread. The reason that I wont discuss the proof is not because I will think you lost your way by not agreeing with me. It is because it would be an offense to God to prove his existence to everyone. When I say I can prove God's existence, you are left to your imagination. You may imagine some Bible quotes, or some fossil thrown out as proof of God's existence. You are not likely to expect that the proof would be based on the premise shown. At least you now have an idea the proof started on a reasonable footing, with good intentions. Proving God's existence was never the intention. It was a consequence. Thanks
8. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

Sorry, if I have not been able to help you in any way. My intention was to allow challenge to the premise, not to explain the proof. I have said previously that I wont do that. I felt it only fair to allow challenge to the premise, on which the proof is based. Like I said the proof itself is axiomatic. There is no need. Since no challenge has been raised on the premise, I see no need to discuss it further. You are simply in a position of believing that proof of God's existence can be shown from the premise, or that I am making a false claim whether intentioned or not. Good luck finding your way.

10. ## Battle : Science vs. Religion

We have two accepted practices in physics. One is the application of Occam's Razor, and the other is the reduction of physical events and systems into mathematical models. We may take these two behaviors in physics and form a generalized logical premise for a TOE. On sub-atomic and cosmic scales the simplest answer is the correct one, the simplest answer will be expressed purely in dynamic geometry, and the simplest answer must always consist of the simplest explanatory geometry, judged only by geometric complexity. From this premise it follows axiomatically that God exists. Of course you can always reject the premise, in which case the alternative ultimate explanation must lose comprehension, eloquence, and simplicity, if you can find one. Other arguments about creationism, Noah, the Garden of Eden, etc..., based on tribal verbal traditions, are secondary. The dicotomy between science and religion, is more along the lines, of geometric existence and spiritual existence. As such the real area of contention becomes sociology and religion, where sociologist may contend over moral issues, and social practices. Here we may see a disagreement between instituionalized religion and science.
11. ## Does God accept bribes, ransoms, indulgences and sacrifice of Jesus?

People have propensities. It is the propensities of a person that show their true inner character or spirit if you will. These propensities are your honest compulsions, and not self control over your compulsions. These propensities change over time as people have new experiences. This can lead a sinner to repent and change his ways, having developed new and more righteous propensities. However, if the spirit does not change in its propensities, no indulgence or bribe, or whatever you wish to call it, is going to appease God. That's my take on it.
12. ## Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil.

A very human centric point of view. You will judge everything based on how well it serves you calling it good and evil. God whom you claim defines good and evil, is declared evil by you, because he acted in a way that may have been brutal to some people. You will judge God. It's all about people, and what's in it for them.
13. ## What is your justification for believing in a God?

I didn't bring it up. I was asked to prove that God exists. You would like it, and feel smug I suppose, if I would quietly fold and say that I can't do that. but I can, axiomatically from first principles. I am revealing nothing of the proof, only that there is one. It matters little. You will never believe me. I am not beating any drum or trying to convert anyone. I am not trying to make a name for myself. You don`t even have any idea who I am. I am very comfortable. God has blessed me. It is a satisfying personal milestone, little more.
14. ## What is your justification for believing in a God?

No. Proving God's existance to you would be an offense to God. I said that. You do not consider God in your proceedings. I do. I can prove to you he exists, but it would offend him to do so. Get it? Who here would stand against God, knowing him? Would you stand against God? How then could you ask me to do so? I would rather serve God, than stand against him. It's fundamental. God could reveal himself most convincingly to any and all at any time. Clearly he has chosen not to do so. Is it surprising then, that he would not want to be outed by some upstart? As for being done here, we'll see, but as far as I am concerned, I was finished passing on any useful information some time ago. I answered the OP, then I got asked to prove that God exists. Then I got dumped on for explaining that I could do that, but I wont. Now, I am just confronting the insults. If you do not believe in God, I could hardly expect you to believe me. Clearly that goes without saying. You are free to be as skeptical as you please. That's the idea isn't it? Even if you believe in God, you have no call to believe me. Like I care. shrugs
15. ## What is your justification for believing in a God?

Even after I have explained why. (shakes head)
×