Well, Let's Try This Proof

[Detales]

When you take the red pill you know you know. If you are on the blue pill, you think you know. Faith = “I think I know” because faith, by definition, is not knowledge. This is the huge religionist trap; the substitution of belief for fact. The first requirement of religion, any religion? Believe.

 

[spockrates]

When you take the red pill you know you know. If you are on the blue pill, you think you know. Faith = “I think I know” because faith, by definition, is not knowledge. This is the huge religionist trap; the substitution of belief for fact. The first requirement of religion, any religion? Believe.

I think I know what you mean, but I suppose that depends on what you mean by the word believe. What definition do you prefer?

be·lieve
(b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.

1. To accept as true or real; to know: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity; to trust: I believe in you.
3. To expect or suppose; to think: I believe they might arrive shortly.

 

[Detales]

1: to accept as true or real; to know What is that about? to accept something as true or real doesn’t mean it is true or real, only that it is accepted as such. It is not knowing. This, again, is the error of religiosity I’m speaking of. Is that directly form a dictionary? Has the error become that pervasive?

2: To credit with veracity; to trust: “I believe in you.” Again, “credit” is from “Credo”–“I beleive.” Who is it you believe in? A saint or a huckster? In either case there is belief, but the outcome is different based on the object of belief. QED, belief is not knowledge. It harmonizes well with the “credit” collapse we are in the throes of. There will be similar, but psychological, ramifications for believers in other quales of faith.

3. To expect or suppose; to think: “I believe they might arrive shortly.” And they may not. Here belief is synonymous with wishing. “I believe Jesus is coming soon.” In that case there is significant doubt that there was a Iesua, or Iusu in Egyptian, or that he was not the God/Man of legend and myth. Even St Paul never in the what? 200 times he referred to Jesus Christ referred to Him as a Jew or as from Nazareth. Read The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

So my definition of “belief” is that it is an adult word for “let’s pretend.”

 

[Detales]

Why do I ask you to read a book? Why did you read whatever you did to get to wherever you are? You are beginning to sound like a "spook"rates, now.

My experience with paintings and pictures is never silence, but a vast richness of conversation, often dependent though on the “aesthetic grammar” used by the artist. Some inform me by demonstrating a vocabulary of new relationships I hadn’t noticed before, and some I feel I could inform. The latter inspire me to new work.

And the same may be said of written words. They have no intelligence, of course. they are ink on a page or dancing electrons. And they can be fulcrums for leveraging their own meaning into greater depths of understanding. The purpose of repetition, as my Mentor said, is penetration. So perhaps my words are unsuitable for you. I am hoping that your experience with food is far more tasty than your seemingly bland and blase lack of appreciation for words.

A book or a picture is always a reflection of the one experiencing it. A museum or a library is basically a hall of mirrors with “you” as their subject and object.

My guess is that, since I’m not sure I understand you when you tell me about this book, I’m pretty sure I won’t understand the book, either. However, if you were to discuss the meaning of the book with me. Well, then I’d have someone to explain things when I misunderstand. Or understand. Holy cow, Spocrates, what did you expect?

 

[spockrates]

1: to accept as true or real; to know What is that about? to accept something as true or real doesn’t mean it is true or real, only that it is accepted as such. It is not knowing. This, again, is the error of religiosity I’m speaking of. Is that directly form a dictionary? Has the error become that pervasive?

2: To credit with veracity; to trust: “I believe in you.” Again, “credit” is from “Credo”–“I beleive.” Who is it you believe in? A saint or a huckster? In either case there is belief, but the outcome is different based on the object of belief. QED, belief is not knowledge. It harmonizes well with the “credit” collapse we are in the throes of. There will be similar, but psychological, ramifications for believers in other quales of faith.

3. To expect or suppose; to think: “I believe they might arrive shortly.” And they may not. Here belief is synonymous with wishing. “I believe Jesus is coming soon.” In that case there is significant doubt that there was a Iesua, or Iusu in Egyptian, or that he was not the God/Man of legend and myth. Even St Paul never in the what? 200 times he referred to Jesus Christ referred to Him as a Jew or as from Nazareth. Read The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

So my definition of “belief” is that it is an adult word for “let’s pretend.”

Do you believe in the multiplication tables? If so, how?

Do you believe in yourself? If so, how?

Do you believe in your computer? If so, how?

 

[Detales]

I don’t believe in any of those things. I know my experience of them so far. I utilize them and they offer results commensurate with their correspondence to reality and I deal with that teleologically. I have an expectation of multiplication tables as they describe numerical relationships in a base 10 system as I know and use it in common with others. They don’t work if you change the base, as you have then to change the relationships. I don’t believe in my person as real; I know better. But its vagaries are all I have to interface with in this plane of experience. I do not doubt my Being. The only thing anyone can say with certainty is “I am.” My computer works as long as there is power and its programs are uninfected, but I don’t know what it will do when I hit a key. Once it burned up. Usually it permits me to have a conversation similar to ours or to do research. Sometimes, like the power outage three days ago, it was just so much scrap.

So what? Are you avoiding something?

 

[spockrates]

I don’t believe in any of those things. I know my experience of them so far. I utilize them and they offer results commensurate with their correspondence to reality and I deal with that teleologically. I have an expectation of multiplication tables as they describe numerical relationships in a base 10 system as I know and use it in common with others. They don’t work if you change the base, as you have then to change the relationships. I don’t believe in my person as real; I know better. But its vagaries are all I have to interface with in this plane of experience. I do not doubt my Being. The only thing anyone can say with certainty is “I am.” My computer works as long as there is power and its programs are uninfected, but I don’t know what it will do when I hit a key. Once it burned up. Usually it permits me to have a conversation similar to ours or to do research. Sometimes, like the power outage three days ago, it was just so much scrap.

So what? Are you avoiding something?

Sounds to me you believe in them, at least in the sense of definition (3). You think the multiplication table will be correct today, for it was correct yesterday. But you don’t trust that it will be correct, nor do you know that it will. You might wake up and reality will be standing on its head. Am I apprehending what you are saying?

 

[spockrates]

Why do I ask you to read a book? Why did you read whatever you did to get to wherever you are? You are beginning to sound like a "spook"rates, now.

My experience with paintings and pictures is never silence, but a vast richness of conversation, often dependent though on the “aesthetic grammar” used by the artist. Some inform me by demonstrating a vocabulary of new relationships I hadn’t noticed before, and some I feel I could inform. The latter inspire me to new work.

And the same may be said of written words. They have no intelligence, of course. they are ink on a page or dancing electrons. And they can be fulcrums for leveraging their own meaning into greater depths of understanding. The purpose of repetition, as my Mentor said, is penetration. So perhaps my words are unsuitable for you. I am hoping that your experience with food is far more tasty than your seemingly bland and blase lack of appreciation for words.

A book or a picture is always a reflection of the one experiencing it. A museum or a library is basically a hall of mirrors with “you” as their subject and object.

My guess is that, since I’m not sure I understand you when you tell me about this book, I’m pretty sure I won’t understand the book, either. However, if you were to discuss the meaning of the book with me. Well, then I’d have someone to explain things when I misunderstand. Or understand. Holy cow, Spocrates, what did you expect?

Well, what do you expect from someone who is a disciple of Socrates? After all, he said nearly the same thing to his friend that I did to you:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)

If I am a spook-rates, then the Father of Philosophy is more so! For I got the idea verbatim from him.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Fascinating! (and, like Spock, I never use the word lightly, but only when I’m genuinely surprised)! I’ve never considered, nor heard anyone say, that God does not do what is good, but what is good is merely what God does! Please explain why you believe this.

God is the immutable consistency, the determiner of what can or cannot be. It is by God’s hand that what you do leads to what it does. When you breathe, you gain a refresh on living. Each time you breathe, you gain that refresh. It is consistent and its consistency is by what means you know to do it. If it were random as to whether you gained breath from the attempt, you could never realize to even try. You could never learn. You could never learn anything at all.

Everything is formed of what is consistent. Every change is only due to what doesn’t change. Everything predictable is only so predictable by the consistency of the determiner.

Joy is the inner perception of progress. Such progress could not exist at all if not for discernible consistencies, if not for the determiner, if not for God. How could there be anticipation if there had never been reason to believe in consistency? In randomness there can be no joy, no anticipation, nor even life.

What is good if it is without life or joy? How could it be known if not for that which ensures its existence.

Good is determined by the need. The need is determined by the determiner of all things. If there was no need, there could be no good fore the good is only that which answers the need. If not for the consistency of the determiner, how could the good be known?

Without need, there can be no good and without the determiner, there can be no need.

God determines good and by the consistent determining, God is the good from which joy and life can be known.

No God ==> no good.

 

[spockrates]

It’s past my bedtime, boys. Thanks for the stimulating conversation! Let’s play again real soon!

 

[James_S_Saint]

So did you catch that before you went to bed?

 

[spockrates]

God is the immutable consistency, the determiner of what can or cannot be. It is by God’s hand that what you do leads to what it does. When you breathe, you gain a refresh on living. Each time you breathe, you gain that refresh. It is consistent and its consistency is by what means you know to do it. If it were random as to whether you gained breath from the attempt, you could never realize to even try. You could never learn. You could never learn anything at all.

Everything is formed of what is consistent. Every change is only due to what doesn’t change. Everything predictable is only so predictable by the consistency of the determiner.

Joy is the inner perception of progress. Such progress could not exist at all if not for discernible consistencies, if not for the determiner, if not for God. How could there be anticipation if there had never been reason to believe in consistency? In randomness there can be no joy, no anticipation, nor even life.

What is good if it is without life or joy? How could it be known if not for that which ensures its existence.

Good is determined by the need. The need is determined by the determiner of all things. If there was no need, there could be no good fore the good is only that which answers the need. If not for the consistency of the determiner, how could the good be known?

Without need, there can be no good and without the determiner, there can be no need.

God determines good and by the consistent determining, God is the good from which joy and life can be known.

No God ==> no good.

When you say God is the determiner, in what sense do you believe God determines?

Definitions of 'determine’
(dĭ-tûŕmĭn)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary - (11 definitions)

[Middle English determinen, from Old French determiner, from Latin dētermināre, to limit, dē-, de-, + terminus, boundary.]
(verb: -mined, -min·ing, -mines.)

(transitive verb)

1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively.
   b. To end or decide, as by judicial action.
2. To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation; to discover.
3. To cause (someone) to come to a conclusion or resolution.
4. To be the cause of; regulate: Demand determines production.
5. To give direction to: The management committee determines departmental policy.
6. To limit in scope or extent.
7. Mathematics: To fix or define the position, form, or configuration of.
8. Logic: To explain or limit by adding differences.
9. Law: To put an end to; terminate.

(Please pick a number.)

 

[stenlis]

A god == who/whatever absolutely determines what can or cannot be.

The God == Who/Whatever absolutely determines all that can or cannot be.

A combination of a processor and a computer program absolutely determines what can or cannot happen in a computer. Does that mean processor + program = a god ?

You might argue that I was the determined the program but I may die and the program can still run. Is it possible that god determined the universe and then died?

If such a power and characteristic is not essential to being a god, then in what way is anything a god???

---

Determination is the effect of a determiner and thus if determination exists, a determiner exists.

A) If things are determinate, then whatever is determining them exists (the determiner).
B) If nothing else is determinate, such a law is determinate and exists.

Thus determination exists.

Where did the ‘thus’ come from? I agree that determination does exist but you surely haven’t demonstrated it.

Therefore a determiner exists.

The determiner is what determines what can or cannot be and exists.

Because what determines what can or cannot be exists, God exists.

Nice. Except that with the way you defined ‘god’ you can only demonstrate that ‘whatever absolutely determines all that can or cannot be’ exists. The problem is that it might be anything - including an inanimate set of unchangeable physical laws.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nice. Except that with the way you defined ‘god’ you can only demonstrate that ‘whatever absolutely determines all that can or cannot be’ exists. The problem is that it might be anything - including an inanimate set of unchangeable physical laws.

I imagine James would concede this. His strategy is to find some causal element in all things that we can agree on, and then say “call that God”.

The next step is to analyze what characteristics “God” would have. He’s not assuming that God looks like the Christian God. Your proposal, I suppose, is that God is an inanimate set of physical laws. The natural response to this, from James’ perspective, might be the question:

Can you tell us what you mean by an unchangeable physical law? What kind of *thing *is it?

(How well did I do reading your mind, Sainty?)

 

[James_S_Saint]

When you say God is the determiner, in what sense do you believe God determines?

Definitions of 'determine’
(dĭ-tûŕmĭn)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary - (11 definitions)

[Middle English determinen, from Old French determiner, from Latin dētermināre, to limit, dē-, de-, + terminus, boundary.]
(verb: -mined, -min·ing, -mines.)

(transitive verb)

1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively.
   b. To end or decide, as by judicial action.
2. To establish or ascertain definitely, as after consideration, investigation, or calculation; to discover.
3. To cause (someone) to come to a conclusion or resolution.
4. To be the cause of; regulate: Demand determines production.
5. To give direction to: The management committee determines departmental policy.
6. To limit in scope or extent.
7. Mathematics: To fix or define the position, form, or configuration of.
8. Logic: To explain or limit by adding differences.
9. Law: To put an end to; terminate.

(Please pick a number.)

To be the determiner means to be the cause. 4,5 and 6 probably fit best in this context.

 

[James_S_Saint]

A combination of a processor and a computer program absolutely determines what can or cannot happen in a computer. Does that mean processor + program = a god ?

I can’t discern the limits you intend with that analogy.

You might argue that I was the determined the program but I may die and the program can still run. Is it possible that god determined the universe and then died?

If “God” died, as in no longer has effect, then the most that could be said is that “God was the determiner, but is no longer.” This would mean that whatever now determines has taken that God’s place and is God now. But such cannot actually be the case.

Where did the ‘thus’ come from? I agree that determination does exist but you surely haven’t demonstrated it.

It comes from the fact that (A) and (B) are the only 2 possibilities and because both lead to the same conclusion, the conclusion is certain.

Nice. Except that with the way you defined ‘god’ you can only demonstrate that ‘whatever absolutely determines all that can or cannot be’ exists. The problem is that it might be anything - including an inanimate set of unchangeable physical laws.

If it is not God that is doing the determining, then whatever other idea you have for “God” would be subject to the determiner and could only do what that determiner allowed and in fact, would only do what that determiner caused. Thus in reality, that determiner would be the God or your God. I would say that your “God” is only “a god”, not “The God” in such a case.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I imagine James would concede this. His strategy is to find some causal element in all things that we can agree on, and then say “call that God”.

The next step is to analyze what characteristics “God” would have. He’s not assuming that God looks like the Christian God. Your proposal, I suppose, is that God is an inanimate set of physical laws. The natural response to this, from James’ perspective, might be the question:

Can you tell us what you mean by an unchangeable physical law? What kind of *thing *is it?

(How well did I do reading your mind, Sainty?)

Half right.

Yes, I concede that “the determiner” might (at this point) be anything. Who or what that determiner is, at this point, is irrelevant to the argument that “a determiner” must in deed exist and any such determiner is The God above all others. It is only an argument for existence, not further attributes.

Once it is accepted that God must indeed exist for the stated reasoning (omnipotence), then we can get into the other attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and so on.

“Who/What is omnipotent is God even if not very bright, immoral, or seldom around to be found.”

 

[spockrates]

To be the determiner means to be the cause. 4,5 and 6 probably fit best in this context.

Yes, I suppose you are right. But something you said still puzzles me:

… God determines good and by the consistent determining, God is the good from which joy and life can be known. …

You say that God determines what is good, but also that God is good. So what I wonder is this: Does God determine Himself? That is, does God (1) decide what is good and then act according to His determination? Or does God recognized (2) the inherent goodness in Himself and then determine that as He is, so is goodness?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You say that God determines what is good, but also that God is good. So what I wonder is this: Does God determine Himself? That is, does God (1) decide what is good and then act according to His determination? Or does God recognized (2) the inherent goodness in Himself and then determine that as He is, so is goodness?

What is “good” or not is a question answered only by what your actual need really is. Good in itself is meaningless without a need to answer to. What leads to the need, is what is good (by definition). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a better that better answers the need or perhaps answers many needs at once. There are degrees of good.

God causes there to be a need, without which there could be no such thing as life. But also, God is the answer to that need (Reality). But even more, God’s consistency provides the means to be aware of both the need and the answer to the need.

In a sense, God creates in the mouse a hunger for cheese. In so doing, he causes life in the mouse to seek cheese. But then God also provides the cheese. But in addition, God ensures that the cheese always smells the same and is instinctively associated with the hunger.

All that we call “good” is directly from God by such means.

1. God created the need so as to have life
2. God created the resolve of need to as to continue life
3. God IS consistent so that the resolve can be found.
4. Creating the need was good because it causes life.
5. Creating the resolve of the need is good because continues life
6. Consistency is good because it allows the resolve to be known.

All Joy comes from the instinctive perception that the cheese is getting closer. God causes ALL joy.

 

[Detales]

I admire your ability to quote Plato, Spockrates, but his characterization of Socrates and I seem to have different experience with words. It isn’t an matter of comparative valuation, it seems to me, but rather that we know that words are, very much in English, subject to various interpretations that make a sentence more like a musical phrase than a mathematical equation. Not knowing Greek, perhaps in that ancient language it was more of a math consideration than a musical one, I don’t know.

The question reminds me of a poem of Naruda’s that I once researched. In their best sincerity, scholastic aptitude, and aesthetic sensibilities, a number of translators had tried their hand at “getting” the essence of his poem. Each translator’s version was somewhat different, and carried or lacked certain nuances or even entire ideas. This is even more pronounced in the translation of, say Adi from the original Hungarian into English, the difference in going from a romance language to English being somewhat less of a stretch than to English from a language with Alt-Uralic roots not even related to the Indo European family of our own tongue. Other considerations, such as culture and world view of the author and his milieu also have bearing on the meaning of words as used as distinct from their dictionary meaning. Even a contemporary speaker of corporate English educated, say, in India, China, or Japan, may be totally mystified upon hearing something like “Wazzup, Blood? Word! Waz hap-pen-in’?”

So, you see, I can’t agree with Socrates on the invariability of words, unless he was being made to refer to the spelling of words, or some such. You might also perceive why, when someone gets pious about the correct meaning of passages in the Bible, I list about fifteen factors that actually make the over 100 versions of that book more like a focus of a bimillenial game of telephone rather than something that yet carries in our understanding much of its original intent, other than that which we project on to it which co-incidentally, but unproved, might match. In fact, what may be far better translations of especially the Identity statements in the Bible may be had from other languages and philosophical viewpoints.