Christianity is commonsense

[harvey1]

I'm not an expert on other religions, so I won't compare Christianity to other religions, but I will say that Christianity makes a great deal of sense. Here are some sensical notions that I think make it a 'no-brainer' to be a Christian:

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

[harvey1]

It seems that you are saying that it is intuitive(a part of our nature to naturally beleive in God) and because we are denying this we are not some of us are not using common sense. Since most cultures worship something there may be a genetic dispostion to worship something whether it is real or not but that does not mean the Christian God is the correct one to go to. The reason why common sense does not prevail as much as it should was already discussed when humans emotions and other psychological factors interfere. As far as birth rates go we know that when a naked woman is put in front of a man his ability to make the correct decision is greatly influenced. It's human nature that makes him go to the woman and that same thing interferes with common sense in other situations as well such as gambling when you should be paying the bills first.

I don't know if there is an intuitive nature in humanity to believe in God, but there sure is such an intuition to believe that every effect has a cause.

Regrding Christianity, the common sense that I'm talking about is the major perspective of the religion which equates logical action with God. What could be more common sense than that? Look at the universe, it obeys logico-mathematical laws and does it to near precision. What more obvious role for God can you envision?

[concerro]

It seems that you are saying that it is intuitive(a part of our nature to naturally beleive in God) and because we are denying this we are not some of us are not using common sense. Since most cultures worship something there may be a genetic dispostion to worship something whether it is real or not but that does not mean the Christian God is the correct one to go to. The reason why common sense does not prevail as much as it should was already discussed when humans emotions and other psychological factors interfere. As far as birth rates go we know that when a naked woman is put in front of a man his ability to make the correct decision is greatly influenced. It's human nature that makes him go to the woman and that same thing interferes with common sense in other situations as well such as gambling when you should be paying the bills first.

I don't know if there is an intuitive nature in humanity to believe in God, but there sure is such an intuition to believe that every effect has a cause.

Regrding Christianity, the common sense that I'm talking about is the major perspective of the religion which equates logical action with God. What could be more common sense than that? Look at the universe, it obeys logico-mathematical laws and does it to near precision. What more obvious role for God can you envision?

I would not equate the actions of the christian God in the bible with logical actions. (There are a few thread that discuss this so I wont give the reasons here)

As far as the universe I think it would take a god to make the laws of physics not work.

momentum= mass x velocity is one of these laws. if two objects with differing velocities collide the one with the smaller momentum will have its course affected the most. when small things that are slower start to overrun big things then that would be more of a proof of a god.
if this is not what you were talking about i need an example

[harvey1]

I would not equate the actions of the christian God in the bible with logical actions. (There are a few thread that discuss this so I wont give the reasons here)

I think you misunderstand me. My view of religion is that, methodologically speaking, it developed in a purely naturalistic way all over the planet, including the Semetic religions (e.g., the Hebrews). The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

As far as the universe I think it would take a god to make the laws of physics not work. momentum= mass x velocity is one of these laws. if two objects with differing velocities collide the one with the smaller momentum will have its course affected the most. when small things that are slower start to overrun big things then that would be more of a proof of a god. if this is not what you were talking about i need an example

This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics.

Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret.

Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.

[concerro]

I would not equate the actions of the christian God in the bible with logical actions. (There are a few thread that discuss this so I wont give the reasons here)

I think you misunderstand me. My view of religion is that, methodologically speaking, it developed in a purely naturalistic way all over the planet, including the Semetic religions (e.g., the Hebrews). The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.

What religious truths are these and what type of developments are you talking about?

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

It is illogical to accept the sacrafice of Jesus Christ on at least two accouts. One if he was a human then no one person's life can replace all the sins of all other people who ever lived. If he was a God then he did not lose anything since gods cant die. Being God he simply could have stayed on Earth if he chose or left and came back. Some might want to accept it because he was God's son. We are all God's children according to what I have been taught about christianity so the only thing aobut Jesus was that he had a few abilities that the rest of us did not.

As far as the universe I think it would take a god to make the laws of physics not work. momentum= mass x velocity is one of these laws. if two objects with differing velocities collide the one with the smaller momentum will have its course affected the most. when small things that are slower start to overrun big things then that would be more of a proof of a god. if this is not what you were talking about i need an example

This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics.

example please

Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret.

Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.

It makes no sense how math can be the cause of, and at the same time be seperate from the cause of the universe. That statement requires an explanation.

Of course truth exist and and whether it satisifes your mind or not it is still true. I dont need a mathmatical formula to tell me that.
As far as the beleif in God. I am sure that if there is a God it is not the one described in the bible.
What cosmological and casual reasons are you referring to.

[ST88]

Bear with me, please. The conversation evolved significantly from where this conversation left off...

I think symmetry is central to Christianity. The Gospel of John (chapter 1), I believe, tried to summarize the main structure of Christianity as follows (notice the key position of the symmetry we have been discussing):

"In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God. He was with God in the beginning."

This is the class of coordinates which is the first triad of any symmetry...

In effect what this is saying is that A=B. Then B=C+D. Look how A also equals C+D! Sorry, but I don't buy it. These are all unknown variables. You may state that any variable has a particular relationship to any other variable, but if they are all unknown, then the equation makes no sense.

The Hebrews generally had an entirely different conception of reality than other regions, so it is probably not the case that hundreds of people went around preaching something similar. I'm not going to say that there weren't any others, but Christianity obviously grew very quickly as even independent commentators knew at the time, so Christians couldn't have had too much competition in their central message or they would have no way to have capured so much attention.

This would make sense if the claim was that the ancient Hebrew prophecies were being fulfilled. That in itself would have made the movement spread quickly. I doubt that the first sentence in the above quote is entirely true. It is just one that survived to tell its tale.

You act like Christianity was on its last legs by the time Constantine came along. In fact, Christianity grew so much by that time that it could no longer be ignored or persecuted.

There were many different Christianity sects, and Constantine chose one of them. The members of that sect then went on to wipe out all the others.

What you call a perspective that is clear and easy to grasp, I call intellectual laziness. The world & the universe is remarkably complex and interrelated and does not require a counter-intuitive supreme intelligence in order to make it work.

I'm curious as to why you think that last statement you just made is correct. It seems exceedingly false in my mind.

What about it does not seem correct? The universe has its own laws, which it follows. Where those laws break down, they do so predictably.

I see no contradiction in selecting a comforting belief system that also meets the challenges that we'd like belief systems to also accomplish. At the end of the day, any belief is susceptible to doubt, but this is when faith is required to maintain one's belief system despite all the doubts one could have about it. Everyone has faith on every belief otherwise they would be forced to doubt just about everything (leading to extreme skepticism - I mean philosophical skepticism where all knowledge of the world is rejected).

Lack of faith and skepticism of knowledge are two completely different things. It is not common sense to have faith. That's the whole point. It's common sense to not have faith. If your God gave proof of Himself, there would be no need for faith, and serving God would be common sense. But He hasn't. He has asked you, against all rational reason, to believe in Him. Against all common sense. So you either believe and have faith that your belief means something or you don't.

If this is true, it is only because Christians are looking for these symmetries in a long and complicated book that contains everything from how to kill pigeons to how to beat your mistress.

I see that you have not read the New Testament.

I will only acknowledge this to say that the New Testament was not in issue here. People go back to the OT to prove their wacko theories & pad their prophecies until such time as it becomes necessary to explain Christ. Then the OT is merely an artifact designed to help the Israelites tread water until the Savior rises. I say that for the sake of discussion -- do not assume you know what's in my head at any given time. I was saying that the Bible is so long and complex that you can justify and prophesy just about anything.

I think science offers an opportunity to find universal principles of nature, so it makes sense to compare those principles with religious principles to see if there are any similarities.

Except that "compare" is the wrong word. "Scan for regularities" is more like it. Like the science of fractals, if you look long and hard enough, the edge of a rock looks like the edge of a mountain. An atom looks like a solar system. Does this mean religion and science have the same properties or share similarities? They are both human constructs designed to help explain the world. It would make sense that there were similarities based solely on this. The earliest scientists may have explained the world in terms of a pantheon of gods. Now that makes sense.

I'm not talking about Bible codes. I'm taking biblical principles which are either common or explicitly stated, and then summarizing those principles in terms of what they mean. Likewise, if you disagree, then my suggestion (if you care to share your viewpoint) would be to show the biblical principle is taken out of context or I'm making up principles that either do not exist or do not actually compare enough with modern views.

Logos: Logic rules the world. The world was created by logic.
I think we can agree on this. God and Christianity have nothing to do with it, however. By your definition of God, it doesn't make sense that God would require a separate Logos in order to accomplish his goals.

Trinity: God is symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.
The three states: present, future, and future present are not all that difficult to grasp in terms of linguistics or non-religious philosophy. I fail to see why the injection of religion into this concept makes it more sensible. Rather, it is the sensibility of it that makes it ideal for a religious concept.

The real problem with this is that there are many other different combinations of symmetries that meet this definition also. This one just happens to be the one you are pointing to.

Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.
It also makes perfect sense to an agrarian civilization who was expecting the end times soon. This is a clever metaphor that doesn't really point to anything. Instead it is given a religious context in order to make a point about the religion, not about the mustard seed.

This is the Anthropic Principle writ small. This is what we have, so this must be what we are supposed to have. It doesn't make sense to subscribe to Candide's "This is the best of all possible worlds."

[ST88]

My view of religion is that, methodologically speaking, it developed in a purely naturalistic way all over the planet, including the Semetic religions (e.g., the Hebrews).

If true, this can be explained within the context of human evolution.

The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.

This is also how a virus replicates. It does not require that its own truth be TRUE for the host organism.

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

This is not my experience. If you are referring to the order of the books of the Bible, I would have to take issue with your conclusions. If you are referring to history, between the ancient Hebrew culture and the Christian ideas that arose from them was the Greek civilization, where logic and syllogism was the new tool of how to think about the world. It would make sense that within a Roman culture -- itself bastardizing the Greek culture -- the best way to evangelize a religion would be to take the functional language that was working and twist itm around your message. This is assuming I buy into your argument, which I don't, really. In my opinion, Jesus made the tenets of that religion more real in terms of day-to-day living, not more logical.

This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics.

Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret.

You're completely misunderstanding the application of mathematics to physics. Mathematics does not represent some ethereal ideal out in the mists of the ether. Mathematical laws are based on observation and interpolation. I really can't make the leap into the ether that you seem to want to make here. That there are some principles of one type of science that can be applied to another type of science does not imply that the second science is somehow "incomplete." For an example, Chemistry is just Physics applied to multi-atomic substances. This does not make Chemistry any less of a field of study.

God is not required for any of this. Truths from mathematics exist because that's what mathematics is. We use the term one-third in our language in order to describe a concept in mathematics that is actually incomputable (0.333333333...). But because we can use the language of mathematics as mathematics, we can use the term as a concept and mean the exact same thing as the incomputable number. E.g., we can add three of these incomputable numbers and come up with an integer (1). In this way, we can come to the TRUTH without actually having to do the math.

Quantum theory is the latest bugaboo because it's one of those things that tests the limits of our understanding. This is usually where God can be found. String theory blows that all to Heck, however, and can explain just about everything without the use of God. In other words, that you find God in quanta says less about God than it does about you. (Not necessarily you personally, but Quantum-Christians who look for God and then are surprised when they find Him.)

Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.

None of this follows from your arguments (or from any other argument). The laws of physics do not point to God. Even if they point to the unknown, what makes that God? I would argue that it is your preconception of a God that leads you in this direction. There is no difference in saying that God caused the universe to explode into existence than in saying that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. In either case, the adherents can be convinced of their own particular versions provided with the same information.

[harvey1]

I would not equate the actions of the christian God in the bible with logical actions. (There are a few thread that discuss this so I wont give the reasons here)

I think you misunderstand me. My view of religion is that, methodologically speaking, it developed in a purely naturalistic way all over the planet, including the Semetic religions (e.g., the Hebrews). The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.

What religious truths are these and what type of developments are you talking about?

There's too many to elaborate, but for argument's sake, let's just stick to the one's mentioned in the starting post to this thread. If you have problems with these, then we already have a problem.

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

It is illogical to accept the sacrafice of Jesus Christ on at least two accouts. One if he was a human then no one person's life can replace all the sins of all other people who ever lived. If he was a God then he did not lose anything since gods cant die. Being God he simply could have stayed on Earth if he chose or left and came back. Some might want to accept it because he was God's son. We are all God's children according to what I have been taught about christianity so the only thing aobut Jesus was that he had a few abilities that the rest of us did not.

Let's try to stay within the subject matter of this thread. However, if you want me to respond to a specific issue into another post, then let me know where and what to respond to and I'll do it.

As far as the universe I think it would take a god to make the laws of physics not work. momentum= mass x velocity is one of these laws. if two objects with differing velocities collide the one with the smaller momentum will have its course affected the most. when small things that are slower start to overrun big things then that would be more of a proof of a god. if this is not what you were talking about i need an example

This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics.

example please

Sure...

"Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0411169

"The Significance of Information in Quantum Theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0410071

"Schroedinger revisited:How the time-dependent wave equation follows from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409018

"Information and The Brukner-Zeilinger Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Investigation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0407198

"Probabilities from Envariance"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0405161

"Deriving laws from ordering relations"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0403031

"An Information-Theoretic Link Between Spacetime Symmetries and Quantum Linearity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401190

"From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402197

"Matter and Light in Flatland"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401153

"Can quantum cryptography imply quantum mechanics? Reply to Smolin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0311065

"Elements of information-theoretic derivation of the formalism of quantum theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0306079

"Weakly nonlocal fluid mechanics - the Schrodinger equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304062

"Quantum mechanics as a measurement theory on biconformal space"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0406159

"A geometric approach to the canonical reformulation of quantum mechanics"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409086

"Entropy is complexity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0408040

"Categorical Foundations of Quantum Logics and Their Truth Values Structures"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402174

"Why the quantum?"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402149

Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret. Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.

It makes no sense how math can be the cause of, and at the same time be seperate from the cause of the universe. That statement requires an explanation.

If quantum theory is an approximation of some axioms of general information theory or other mathematical axioms , then this means that a mathematical order is instantiates the universe while at the same time transcending the universe. Instantiation is due to the fact that all material things are based on quantum laws, and these mathematical statements transcend the universe since there could also be other universes, outside our own, which these mathematical statements could also instantiate.

Of course truth exist and and whether it satisifes your mind or not it is still true. I dont need a mathmatical formula to tell me that. As far as the beleif in God. I am sure that if there is a God it is not the one described in the bible. What cosmological and casual reasons are you referring to.

Well, it's not so simple. According to materialism, truth is an emergent property. That is, there is no such thing as 'truths' that do not equate with some material thing possessing such and such a configuration. For example, '1+2=3 is true' doesn't mean that there exists numbers, rules of arithmetic, etc. It only means that material things possess this relationship, and it can be shown through mathematical abstraction that you can generalize this material relationship without mentioning the material things themselves. Therefore, in this setting, truth is emergent property to a material universe. This is not the case, though, if mathematical statements instantiate the universe since the statements come logically prior to the material thing, and in that case, truth is fundamental - not emergent properties of a material universe.

The problem for the atheist is that saying a statement 'is true' means that you need a mind for a statement to be confirmed true. Otherwise, the problem exists on differentiating a true statement from a gibberish statement. For example, if I said that "Chan + Sal=Chimney", then such a statement is gibberish. You can't add names of people and deduce that they equal an unrelated physical object. On the other hand, a mind that understands the formal language of mathematics knows this as the case, and therefore, truth is known to be true when the mind judges something as true. So, there exist many possible true statements, but only those judged in a judgement to be true, those are true, those that are not judged to be true, they are considered false statements. Therefore, if truth exists, therefore a mind also exists.

[concerro]

I would not equate the actions of the christian God in the bible with logical actions. (There are a few thread that discuss this so I wont give the reasons here)

I think you misunderstand me. My view of religion is that, methodologically speaking, it developed in a purely naturalistic way all over the planet, including the Semetic religions (e.g., the Hebrews). The difference between my view and a non-Christian view is that I accept God working behind the scenes in inspiring the development of religious truths that otherwise would not have existed. The key to that development is a community of believers who undergo specific kinds of evolutionary development.

What religious truths are these and what type of developments are you talking about?

There's too many to elaborate, but for argument's sake, let's just stick to the one's mentioned in the starting post to this thread. If you have problems with these, then we already have a problem.

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

1.How is one supposed to know that the God who you claim is the source of this logic even exist. Until this God shows irrefutable proof of his existence then your first that statement is not valid
2.In symmetry things are supposed to be equal. In the Trinity which is doutable The father portion is definitely in charge(bigger) than the other parts. He could have simply done away with Jesus at any point in time so there was no way they are equal.
3.from st88--->It also makes perfect sense to an agrarian civilization who was expecting the end times soon. This is a clever metaphor that doesn't really point to anything. Instead it is given a religious context in order to make a point about the religion, not about the mustard seed

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

It is illogical to accept the sacrafice of Jesus Christ on at least two accouts. One if he was a human then no one person's life can replace all the sins of all other people who ever lived. If he was a God then he did not lose anything since gods cant die. Being God he simply could have stayed on Earth if he chose or left and came back. Some might want to accept it because he was God's son. We are all God's children according to what I have been taught about christianity so the only thing aobut Jesus was that he had a few abilities that the rest of us did not.

Let's try to stay within the subject matter of this thread. However, if you want me to respond to a specific issue into another post, then let me know where and what to respond to and I'll do it.

You said salvation through Chist was logical and I simply pointed out what could be a flaw in that reasoning. I debated with someone else in another thread about the same subject so I see no reasons to list repeat everything here.
here is the thread salvation

As far as the universe I think it would take a god to make the laws of physics not work. momentum= mass x velocity is one of these laws. if two objects with differing velocities collide the one with the smaller momentum will have its course affected the most. when small things that are slower start to overrun big things then that would be more of a proof of a god. if this is not what you were talking about i need an example

This equation is based on a large-scale approximation of quantum theory. If you look at particle behavior at the quantum scale, then you have to consider wavefunction probabilities. The funny thing is that a whole bunch of new investigations are showing how to construct quantum physics from areas not related directly to physics. For example, information theory is starting to be successful at generating quantum theory from basic axioms. This is called foundational physics.

example please

Sure...

"Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0411169

"The Significance of Information in Quantum Theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0410071

"Schroedinger revisited:How the time-dependent wave equation follows from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409018

"Information and The Brukner-Zeilinger Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Investigation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0407198

"Probabilities from Envariance"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0405161

"Deriving laws from ordering relations"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0403031

"An Information-Theoretic Link Between Spacetime Symmetries and Quantum Linearity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401190

"From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402197

"Matter and Light in Flatland"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401153

"Can quantum cryptography imply quantum mechanics? Reply to Smolin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0311065

"Elements of information-theoretic derivation of the formalism of quantum theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0306079

"Weakly nonlocal fluid mechanics - the Schrodinger equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304062

"Quantum mechanics as a measurement theory on biconformal space"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0406159

"A geometric approach to the canonical reformulation of quantum mechanics"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409086

"Entropy is complexity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0408040

"Categorical Foundations of Quantum Logics and Their Truth Values Structures"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402174

"Why the quantum?"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402149

Thanks for the references

Because of the very nature of subatomic objects, it is impossible, even in theory, to know with arbitrary precision both the position and velocity of any given wave / particle; position and velocity can only be described in terms of probabilities.
-->In other words just because we dont have devices to track subatomic particles due to their size that does not mean math does not apply.

Schrödinger's theory of the quantum world is called wave mechanics. He worked out the exact solutions of the wave equation for the hydrogen atom, and the results perfectly agreed with the known energy levels of these atoms, seemingly without any of the complications and metaphysical speculations associated with the uncertainty principle. Moreover, the equation could also be applied to more complicated atoms, and even to particles not bound in atoms at all. It was soon found that in every case, Schrödinger's equation gave a correct description of a particle's behaviour, provided it was not moving at a speed near that of light.
-->In order for there to be a solution there has to a formula which requires math which leads back to physics.

If you are reading an electronic version of this page on a computer, then the microprocessor on which it runs is ultimately based on Bohr's theory. Much of the microelectronic devices, indeed the electronic revolution itself, is indebted to quantum physics. Scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) is another very useful device based on a concept known as barrier tunnelling, which is derived from quantum theoretical principles.
-->Once again we see math/physics. You seem pretty intelligent so I should not have to explain how cpus and other electronic devices use mathematical formula to work correctly

point being that physics/math is always present it is just a matter of someone figuring out how things work.

Hence, what you call laws that only God could overturn, start to look like 'laws' that are true for apparently non-physical reasons. That is, mathematical truth exists separately from and is the cause of the laws of the universe. Well, if truth exists, then it opens a whole can of worms for the atheist since truth requires a term that Alfred Tarski called 'satisfaction', a language-based term. But, satisfaction of truth conditions is always a function of mind since language requires mind by which to interpret. Therefore, it would appear that God exists based on our knowledge of the physics laws alone. This is not even considering the cosmological reasons for concluding there is a God, or even the causal reasons to concluding there is a God. All three reasons is sufficient for a rational belief in God. Add to that the human need for meaning and there really is no reason to be an atheist other than the comfort that it might provide to someone who might have been a victim of religious abuse (for example). Those reasons I can respect, but intellectual justification of atheism just isn't there to begin with, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many atheists think that they are justified in their non-belief.

It makes no sense how math can be the cause of, and at the same time be seperate from the cause of the universe. That statement requires an explanation.

If quantum theory is an approximation of some axioms of general information theory or other mathematical axioms , then this means that a mathematical order is instantiates the universe while at the same time transcending the universe. Instantiation is due to the fact that all material things are based on quantum laws, and these mathematical statements transcend the universe since there could also be other universes, outside our own, which these mathematical statements could also instantiate.

Of course truth exist and and whether it satisifes your mind or not it is still true. I dont need a mathmatical formula to tell me that. As far as the beleif in God. I am sure that if there is a God it is not the one described in the bible. What cosmological and casual reasons are you referring to.

Well, it's not so simple. According to materialism, truth is an emergent property. That is, there is no such thing as 'truths' that do not equate with some material thing possessing such and such a configuration. For example, '1+2=3 is true' doesn't mean that there exists numbers, rules of arithmetic, etc. It only means that material things possess this relationship, and it can be shown through mathematical abstraction that you can generalize this material relationship without mentioning the material things themselves. Therefore, in this setting, truth is emergent property to a material universe. This is not the case, though, if mathematical statements instantiate the universe since the statements come logically prior to the material thing, and in that case, truth is fundamental - not emergent properties of a material universe.

The problem for the atheist is that saying a statement 'is true' means that you need a mind for a statement to be confirmed true. Otherwise, the problem exists on differentiating a true statement from a gibberish statement. For example, if I said that "Chan + Sal=Chimney", then such a statement is gibberish. You can't add names of people and deduce that they equal an unrelated physical object. On the other hand, a mind that understands the formal language of mathematics knows this as the case, and therefore, truth is known to be true when the mind judges something as true. So, there exist many possible true statements, but only those judged in a judgement to be true, those are true, those that are not judged to be true, they are considered false statements. Therefore, if truth exists, therefore a mind also exists.

whether material things exist or not the numbers and rules of arithmetic still exist but they just cant be applied since there is nothing to apply them to.

you said -->So, there exist many possible true statements, but only those judged in a judgement to be true, those are true, those that are not judged to be true, they are considered false statements. Therefore, if truth exists, therefore a mind also exists
I never said that the mind did not exist, and my point is that if something is true then it is true whether it is accepted/recognised or not.
It is possible for something that is true to incorrectly be judged false, but that does not make it false.

If I misunderstood what you said explain. It should not be to hard since all of this is supposed to be commonsense anyway

[harvey1]

I think symmetry is central to Christianity. The Gospel of John (chapter 1), I believe, tried to summarize the main structure of Christianity as follows (notice the key position of the symmetry we have been discussing): "In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [Logos] was God. He was with God in the beginning." This is the class of coordinates which is the first triad of any symmetry...

In effect what this is saying is that A=B. Then B=C+D. Look how A also equals C+D! Sorry, but I don't buy it. These are all unknown variables. You may state that any variable has a particular relationship to any other variable, but if they are all unknown, then the equation makes no sense.

No, what I'm saying is:

A) Logos=beginning with God
B) God=beginning with Logos
C) Logos='God'
D) Only 'God' in the beginning

The first triad of the symmetry is 'D'

You act like Christianity was on its last legs by the time Constantine came along. In fact, Christianity grew so much by that time that it could no longer be ignored or persecuted.

There were many different Christianity sects, and Constantine chose one of them. The members of that sect then went on to wipe out all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

"The new heresy of Arianism was causing intense controversy, and Constantine wanted to bring about peace. Essentially, the followers of Arius said that Christ was created by God the Father and that "there was a time when he was not."... The first Council of Nicaea was the first general gathering of bishops from the whole Church, to resolve differences of faith that had arisen and to define clearly the faith received from the apostles... The council was formally opened May 20 [325], in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question... The Arians entrusted the representation of their interests to Eusebius of Caesarea. His scholarship and eloquence made a great impression on the emperor. When Eusebius read out an Arian profession of faith, he provoked a storm of resentment. In time, Eusebius intervened as a mediator; he was no longer a spokesman for the Arians. Now, in saying that the chief aim to be pursued should be peace within the Church, Eusebius at the same time reflected the sentiments of the emperor... as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. It is evident that the convinced Arians were very much a minority. It is also evident that the bishops expressed a firm dogmatic consensus, in direct opposition to the central tenents of Arianism... In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea accepted the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The number of bishops in opposition was small. After a month of discussion, there were only two adherents of Arius who remained steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Of three others on whom Arius might have counted, Maria of Chalcedon finally agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the explicitly anti-Arian statements. Now, the emperor actually carried out his previous threat; everybody who refused to endorse the Creed had to face exile. Arius, Theonas, Secundus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were excommunicated. The works of Arius were confiscated and consigned to the flames... In many ways, however, the emperor experienced both disappointment and misfortune. Another synod in 327 questioned every result achieved in 325. Arius as well as the friends punished with him and the Meletians regained nearly all rights they had lost. Worst of all, the Arian "heresy" continued to spread and to cause division in the Church, during the remainder of the fourth century."

What you call a perspective that is clear and easy to grasp, I call intellectual laziness. The world & the universe is remarkably complex and interrelated and does not require a counter-intuitive supreme intelligence in order to make it work.

I'm curious as to why you think that last statement you just made is correct. It seems exceedingly false in my mind.

What about it does not seem correct? The universe has its own laws, which it follows. Where those laws break down, they do so predictably.

The universe has laws? What enforces them, that is, what keeps the laws from being X instead of Y? If Y breaks down to X predictably (let's call that law Z), then what enforces Z?

But it does present difficult concepts that can make one throw up their hands in frustration at not being able to understand it all. No one person understands quite how everything works at one time, and thinking about how everything fits together is a daunting and frightening concept. I don't doubt that it is much easier to believe in some sort of Intelligence that knows everything. It must be very comforting.

I see no contradiction in selecting a comforting belief system that also meets the challenges that we'd like belief systems to also accomplish. At the end of the day, any belief is susceptible to doubt, but this is when faith is required to maintain one's belief system despite all the doubts one could have about it. Everyone has faith on every belief otherwise they would be forced to doubt just about everything (leading to extreme skepticism - I mean philosophical skepticism where all knowledge of the world is rejected).

Lack of faith and skepticism of knowledge are two completely different things. It is not common sense to have faith. That's the whole point. It's common sense to not have faith. If your God gave proof of Himself, there would be no need for faith, and serving God would be common sense. But He hasn't. He has asked you, against all rational reason, to believe in Him. Against all common sense. So you either believe and have faith that your belief means something or you don't.

'Lack of faith' is not believing a proposition unless given evidence that justifies a belief. A justified belief must also not have any competing evidence that would leave reasonable doubt that the belief in question is false or misleading. However, the argument from extreme skeptics is just that, we are not justified in our beliefs since this condition cannot be met. Philosophers have tried for centuries to overcome the skeptics' challenge, and have been unsuccessful at justifying belief. Therefore, if faith is against common sense, then a 'lack of faith' means that we must first be justified to hold a belief, a condition that cannot be met as the skeptics' challenge has not been overcome. Hence, beliefs are not acceptable. However, the notion of common sense is a belief.

Obviously, beliefs are needed, and therefore a belief does not need to be justified by evidence in a way which would satisfy a skeptic. Rather, beliefs must conform to a pragmatic standard which is set by the context in question. So, for example, if it is pragmatically acceptable to believe in a flat earth while in front of your computer, then you are pragmatically justified in such a belief. If, on the other hand, working is an important value and your boss will fire you for such a stupid belief (e.g., you work in the field of geography), then you are not pragmatically justified to hold that belief.

I know many people do not like pragmatism, but, it is where most philosophers are today. After 1,000 years of Western philosophy, it has come to a point to where pragmatism is how beliefs are justified.

If this is true, it is only because Christians are looking for these symmetries in a long and complicated book that contains everything from how to kill pigeons to how to beat your mistress.

I see that you have not read the New Testament.

I will only acknowledge this to say that the New Testament was not in issue here. People go back to the OT to prove their wacko theories & pad their prophecies until such time as it becomes necessary to explain Christ. Then the OT is merely an artifact designed to help the Israelites tread water until the Savior rises. I say that for the sake of discussion -- do not assume you know what's in my head at any given time. I was saying that the Bible is so long and complex that you can justify and prophesy just about anything.

Well, that's true of anything and everything if what you mean by 'justify' is that there are no agreed to rules of interpretation. However, what you say is somewhat true. The rules of OT interpretation changed a little after when Christianity came about, and that doesn't mean that OT scriptures can mean anything, it just means that the rules for interpretation are different than someone in conservative Judaism. Nevertheless, Christianity is consistent with the liberal interpretation methods used at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Hellenistic Jews living prior to Jesus), so it is not Christianity which changed the rules, rather the rules of interpretation were revised after Christianity to be strictly literalist (which doesn't work as literary criticism has shown). Rather, Christianity is pretty consistent in interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and those rules do not justify any belief at all.

I am not surprised that the new interpretations of Christianity have some roots in how science affects people. People trust science now more than ever in human history, and it would just make sense that Christians would state their case in terms of science and scientific processes in order to convert more people.

I think science offers an opportunity to find universal principles of nature, so it makes sense to compare those principles with religious principles to see if there are any similarities.

Except that "compare" is the wrong word. "Scan for regularities" is more like it. Like the science of fractals, if you look long and hard enough, the edge of a rock looks like the edge of a mountain. An atom looks like a solar system. Does this mean religion and science have the same properties or share similarities? They are both human constructs designed to help explain the world. It would make sense that there were similarities based solely on this. The earliest scientists may have explained the world in terms of a pantheon of gods. Now that makes sense.

I think you are overlooking the simplicity of the concept of symmetry. We aren't talking about an explanation of a nuclear reaction. And, it is really pretty silly to deny religion the use of symmetry since symmetry was recognized long before modern science. The difference, though, is that Christianity put extreme use on symmetry. Now, we might not agree as to why they did, but the fact is there. Even the book of Revelation ends with references galor to the book of Genesis:

"Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea." (Rev.21:1)

"In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever." (Rev. 22:2-5)

Compare with Genesis:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." (Gen. 1:1-2)

"Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day" (Gen. 1:3-5)

"The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden" (Gen. 2:9)

Note: It is clear that the last chapter of the Bible ends as it begun. God creating a new world containing a 'tree of life', except in the end the 'tree of life' is the fruit that is eaten and death is no longer. That's all a symmetry - a transformation from beginning to end.

I'm not talking about Bible codes. I'm taking biblical principles which are either common or explicitly stated, and then summarizing those principles in terms of what they mean. Likewise, if you disagree, then my suggestion (if you care to share your viewpoint) would be to show the biblical principle is taken out of context or I'm making up principles that either do not exist or do not actually compare enough with modern views.

Logos: Logic rules the world. The world was created by logic.I think we can agree on this. God and Christianity have nothing to do with it, however. By your definition of God, it doesn't make sense that God would require a separate Logos in order to accomplish his goals.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Logos is an approximation of an indescribable God. Logos is step by step, God is the whole. God transcends logic. That means that all the logic in existence cannot equate to God's existence.

Trinity: God is symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.The three states: present, future, and future present are not all that difficult to grasp in terms of linguistics or non-religious philosophy. I fail to see why the injection of religion into this concept makes it more sensible. Rather, it is the sensibility of it that makes it ideal for a religious concept.

Fine, so can we agree it is common sense for God to be described as the great Symmetry?

The real problem with this is that there are many other different combinations of symmetries that meet this definition also. This one just happens to be the one you are pointing to.

I'm not talking about symmetries in detail, I'm talking about symmetry in general. What I'm saying is that God is symmetry, or if you wish, God is YHWH (the Hebrew name of God).

Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.
It also makes perfect sense to an agrarian civilization who was expecting the end times soon. This is a clever metaphor that doesn't really point to anything. Instead it is given a religious context in order to make a point about the religion, not about the mustard seed.

I'm talking about self-similarity that exists in the world, and a religion's ability to see and identify the principle with respect to creation.

[harvey1]

1.How is one supposed to know that the God who you claim is the source of this logic even exist. Until this God shows irrefutable proof of his existence then your first that statement is not valid

Not so. I'm not saying that God exists in (1), I'm saying that it is common sense to believe that 'logic' exists. To deny it, is to deny common sense.

2.In symmetry things are supposed to be equal. In the Trinity which is doutable The father portion is definitely in charge(bigger) than the other parts. He could have simply done away with Jesus at any point in time so there was no way they are equal.

You misunderstand the Christian doctrine on the Trinity.

3.from st88--->It also makes perfect sense to an agrarian civilization who was expecting the end times soon. This is a clever metaphor that doesn't really point to anything. Instead it is given a religious context in order to make a point about the religion, not about the mustard seed

Hmm... I guess I should be debating with ST88 then...

You said salvation through Chist was logical and I simply pointed out what could be a flaw in that reasoning. I debated with someone else in another thread about the same subject so I see no reasons to list repeat everything here.

What I said was:

What is logical about the scriptures is that it progressively became more and more aware of God's logical nature, hence it arrived at the Logos as God's logical action in the world which brings salvation to humanity in the name of Jesus Christ.

The logical part is that the scriptures arrived at a progressive view of God from being Israel's God to being a God of truth and logic. That's the logical aspect which I'm discussing.