Category: Analysis

On Goodness and God

I believe in goodness without God. Although, it's impossible to prove good without Him. It's kind of a conundrum Nietzsche trapped the whole atheist community in, and also Hume. But, generally, they force the argument, that if you prove there's good, there ha to be a God. Because if there's good without God, then it remains subjective, and determined by human opinion, which then it can't be called good, can it? But, I think good is so self evident, that we can move up to God's existence.

But, generally, I think atheists can indeed understand it. I would be doubtful to say that they can't. We all do, that's written in the Bible. And Christ aligns with that natural conscience better than anyone else. But the danger here... and here is the true danger... is saying good is not self evident. And that's a trap both Atheists and Christians fall into. When, I'm aware that both good and evil are self evident, and necessarily proves God exists. Because it relies on superior judgment, existing outside of human consciousness. It's a Law of Nature, not a Law of Human Choice. And since nature proves what's ethical and moral, based on what will create the most beneficial society for all, and naturally create patterns of healthy attachments and material prosperity,  which God's grace will achieve, and has achieved, we move to Christ Jesus.

Developing Healthy Reading Habits

You know a chapter a day, a poem a day, an essay a day, a short story a day, it does wonders. Most of them are about 5 pages, or 2,000 words or less. I think people are going to start consuming shorter works, like Short Stories and Personal Essays and Poetry. Because when I read, I can't really get through a whole lot, but I take it in chunks, you read 1 chapter or essay or poem or short story a day, that's 365 chapters, essays, poems, or short stories, and that's about 360,000 words a year. Which is about 5 books a year.

To give you another example, I will read a chapter from a book, and might read that book over 10 years. My memory gets refreshed as I pick it up again, and I can start from that basis. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, or The Prince and the Pauper--two of my favorites now--have been read by me for about 10 years now. Brother's Karamazov, also. Sometimes, like the Wizard of Oz, I just read the whole novel in a few days. Or Animal Farm I read in one sitting. Boethius, I read a chapter a day, and left the last chapter till now. I started him in December last year. Descartes, also, the Discourse on the Method, have been reading a little bit here and there. I might read a story from Egyptian Mythology, or read over Ptahhotep again; might read a dozen chapters of the Bible--that I fly through because I'm very familiar with it. Might read a poem, and do a deep analysis of it.

Another thing, I don't particularly like reading. I just read for wisdom. It's not my favorite activity. I'd rather listen to a video essay for 20 minutes, and break it into two segments, than read a novel. Unless I go into the flow.

Where It All Went Wrong

I talked with three professional mathematicians who didn't know Math is real. There's English Majors--which that's all they do--who can't read Charles Dickens. There's people graduating High School with 4.0s and have taken calculus who can't do simple 1st grade math. 54% of Americans read below a fourth grade level. There are experts on Husserl who work at McDonald's and men who barely passed college tenured at Yale.

A perfect example of what's wrong with our world, is we have CAD and Dynamometers, but physicists don't use them. Instead, they erase data points, and use basic calculus and well behaved curves to do their math. That and people with College Majors in Math believe Math is subjective, and people who are explicitly studying to read English, cannot read Dickens. That's what's wrong. And people in the leading edges of science are actually pontificating on whether a whale is a fish. They really don't know what a fish is. It's that bad.

There's also students who get perfect SAT scores, 4.0 GPAs, juggle three tasks at a time for 12 hours a day, have glowing recommendations from teachers and professionals, but because their college admissions paper doesn't sound like a blog post, they get denied at every school. Despite the essay being written lucidly, with perfect structure, no purple passages, good grammar and spelling, in simple and plain enough language, as they talk about something like a Non Profit that they started and how they're leaps ahead of other students their age.

Another thing, an actual school faculty told one of the best and most professional teachers in their school, that Reading and Writing are not a Twenty-First Century skill.

Why Prisoners Learn Faster than College Students, BetterU Response

I actually relate to this. I was in Jail, I read To Kill a Mockingbird, War and Peace and the Bible. I read War and Peace twice. Loved every minute of it. To Kill a Mockingbird I read three times. The Bible I read along with a Radio Ministry called Through the Bible with Jay Vernon McGee.

But, even now, I'm the same. I just learn obsessively. Something I want cracked, I think about it--I'm a little slower than other people, but can focus like a laser--and I don't stop until I understand it. I listen to teachers--YouTube videos--read books, take notes in the form of poems and stories. And I have a very accurate metacognition that will scan my work for faults.

A Novel Idea

I had a similar idea to this, but it was much different. Kind of an alien invasion, where a super race of Extra Terrestrial Terrans--who are smarter, stronger, and more beautiful--come to Earth, and take it over. And I would have one of their families who shipwrecked on Earth, but they never told their children, and the child grew up among us, and was super beautiful. And she had to stop them. Kind of like a Superman sort of deal, you know? But, they're just smarter, better looking, and stronger. Like, they can grow muscle fast, they have a mean IQ of 150--that's the middle of their bell curve--and they're super beautiful, and also very coordinated as is what happens in upper echelons of intelligence. But, they hate our earth because our people aren't smart enough to understand the objectivity of mathematics, or understand the objectivity of ethics. It'd be a cleansing of them because they're too stupid to understand morality, science, aesthetics or law. And they sent sages to the Earth, to test them to see if we were advanced enough. And we failed. But, she has to prove to them that humanity has intrinsic value, even if they're too dumb to understand morality, aesthetics and truth. The whole conflict would be around habitable worlds, that it's a lot of resources to make a world habitable for humanity, and if we advance too far, we could destroy an entire planet, and that would be the Terran's reason for doing it. There'd be all the races in the Terran forces, as they advanced beyond racism, but they'd just be more beautiful, and the racism would be against ugly people as there'd be a way to determine intelligence based on facial features and muscle and bone density, which are metrics for beauty. And the protagonist is only 172IQ. About one standard deviation above the norm for her race, so equivalent to a 120 IQ.

“Mathematics Are Made Up”

That's not true. We didn't make up mathematics. Mathematics are a language, that describe the way the world works. Yes, the language is made up, but the things they describe aren't. Like any language, it requires context to fully understand, and through context we describe the real world. Math is also a form of logic, and like language, there's true and false statements and valid and invalid methods of reasoning to further principles. A math problem, that relates to no context, is like a novel, that it's fictitious, but still the logic works, and is proven to work.

A Little Bit of Set Theory

So, if I have a pair of glasses, I have one frame, two lenses, two earplacers, four screws, and two nose rests, and two arms.

All together, that would be like this:

1(x)=1+2+2+4+2+2

If I'm talking about the the number of individual sets of components it's:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+1/2(2)+1/4(4)+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

If I want to take the screws as two sets it's:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+1/2(2)+1/2(4)+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

So forth. That's how set theory ought to work.

If multiplying it by two pairs of glasses, you just do this

2(x)=(1+2+2+4+2+2)2

If you want to combine sets it's just:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+[(2+4)/(2+4)]+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

Little Reigns

“Some bold adventurers disdain

The limits of their little reign,

         And unknown regions dare descry:” – Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

Please, mathematics makes sense. You're just not smart enough to understand it. Please... know your limits. The derivatives are finding the limit to the area underneath a curve, and averaging out the total slope. So, when you download a file, it could create an X/Y graph, through the curve based on bytes and time, and the total file will relate directly to the area. That's how calculus works, and a derivative is a shortcut to build a similar curve, to get an approximation--or it just takes the actual raw data of the curve itself, and gets its area, or the curve. It's an exact science, and makes perfect sense. And it takes geometric series and infinite sums using secants to do this. And this is important, because in things like energy waves on a stove, or even a car driving on a dyno machine, it gets us measurements we can actually use to understand our world.

Please... don't say this kind of thing.

Yeah, you can't lawyer math. I mean, you could, it'd actually make better understanding of how evidence relates to things in a courtroom, but definitely, this is just stupid. We need a little faith, and a little bit of a leap to the conclusion. That's how division works. Without it, we can't have math. Division is the most important operation, because it kind of guesses the right answer, based on the obvious pattern.

On Metaphysics, Logic and Descartes Argument

[ How can you have] a syllogism? What can a syllogism prove, if there are no axiomatic or tautological statements? From the foundation, you need to build and settle your logic on what's true. Having a syllogism isn't going to work, where you invalidate all true statements.

But Descartes said, that since all he could know was that he thinks therefore he is, and since he was often wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God outside of Him which ordered reality, therefore, there had to be a God to establish proof, and therefore, since God is good, He allowed us to trust our senses about that proof.

Like I said, we need tautologies and axioms to make sense out of logic. You didn't follow my or Descartes' argument.

Again, why have a syllogism in the first place, if you can never establish a truth claim?

We're arguing on the being of being, which is a metaphysical presumption, and you brought up Descartes, which his argument was that since he got things wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God to establish and order existence. Since, he found that he could make false claims, something bigger than him had to establish the truth of those claims.

And God is good, because we see there is good. Without God, there can be no good. As then it's humanity's judgment, and we've established humanity cannot be God, from even Descartes, that we get things wrong. Therefore, a being more powerful than us, i.e. God, needs to order what is Good and also what is true. But, good is self evident as is truth, as all things relate back to tautologies, of either being true or false. And I observe good, and I observe truth. And since I see good, I know God is good, and we can therefore trust our senses. Therefore, God exists, and we can know reality is real.

[If we're] basing it on the axiom that reality itself is real, then the organizational framework of reality, that it makes sense [is the proof of design]. There's a lot of structures that appear in physics and nature that are directly related to geometry--they have to be--and by number, which inherent in that organizational framework is proof of a design. And how we get to the God of the Bible, is that if there's good that can be seen outside of human judgment--and I'm pretty certain there can be--then we need to find which God best represents it. And I think the God of the Old and New Testament, reflect what we do know about the good. That ultimately there must be judgment by means of a sword, but also grace for those who truly want to receive it, and better themselves.

[I]t's just what the laws of nature prove, that there's a design. At some point, you have to look at it, and it makes sense.

I think your problem is, you want to stay at step 1 too much, and never move beyond it. But, generally, there's sense in the universe, based on the laws of physics, and their geometric construction. And X = X is the foundation of logic, so you're basically trying to undo logic, while telling me to prove something logically. So, that's kind of nonsensical, and if your doubt is like that, then that's doubly why I believe in God, so X does equal X, and so there's sense and coherence to the universe. And not my own mental faculties, or the whims of experts.

As far as the God of the Bible, like I said He is good, and sometimes there needs to be a sword to purge the Earth. It's a very dense theological argument, which I can see from the get go you're not willing to have.

But, generally, there has to be punishment for sin, and if you took the Old Testament, everyone would be put to death. If it's stoning for breaking the Sabbath or dishonoring your father, or being a part of a nation that is not Israel, that's the whole point, is that we need Grace so we aren't slain. And we need to trust on God's goodness, and His definitions and not our own, as I've clearly established--and so have you--there can be no knowledge without Him.

And you're moving to the point, where you're saying X=X can be put into doubt, and that's generally why I'm a little leery of people like you, and believe in God, because you do invalidate X = X. Which a Syllogism relies on X = X as much as anything, as if X doesn't = X you can't move to the next step of the causal chain. You're stuck in infinite loops of trying to prove ontological existence, and metaphysics. Not moving to the assumption of reality, which you need for any basis of science to begin with.

1. I think all knowledge begins with look and listen. And we draw conclusions from it, that what I see, in mathematics, and the geometry of it--and I'm not the first to say this--is a design in the inherent structure of the universe.

2. Well, x can = y. But, you need x to = x first, as that's the fundamental groundwork of logic. If it's not, then there's no way to ever move from x to y.

3. It is a dense theological argument. You're not going to understand it. But, generally, sin causes suffering, and there needs to be judgment against it. Which without God's judgment, it falls into man's hand, and man judges incorrectly. As, we're arguing the very basic basics about logic and how to prove I have hands. That's the context. Which, you can't even get there. That's utterly specious, is what I'm telling you, but also why humans cannot establish what's right or wrong, or what's good from evil, or even that there is good and evil. Which I personally observe, and see the God of the Bible best represents what I witness to be good, and has the best solution to what's evil.

4. You can call it special pleading, but it's actually your stubborn disinterest in grasping my argument.

Also, there are no universal principles, only principles drawn through context. You don't put an honorable man in prison, but you do put a murderer in there. But, you don't put a soldier who murdered in there, unless it was murdering an unlawful agent.

You understand?

So there's nothing to special plead. God destroys sinners. He gives grace to those who desire Him and want to change. And you need Him, to understand what's lawful and not. As He's smarter than we are. And His law is indeed self evident... but so are the most difficult constructs of Geometry. It can be too difficult for people to understand, so we need to trust on God.

[D]esign is [also] self evident. In the rudiments of mathematics and the way geometry fits together, it proves a design.

If x doesn't equal x, there can be no logic at all. That's what you're failing to understand.

I think in the theological world--which again, you're not going to understand because that's always been the thing you couldn't--I think there is a nuance. There is both good and evil. Humans can--the most intelligent--discern some of it. Not all of it. Just like humans can't determine all of science. But, we can understand it. And so we need God to arbitrate, and ultimately judge. Even more than that, empower His people to live according to what's right and good.

That's what God means in Hebrew is "Judge."

Why there's evil? I don't know. But there is, and the imperfections of this world are proof that it's not a safe place to put our hopes. And generally, there could only be evil, if God didn't judge. Men are awful judges of right and wrong--not all, but some people can't understand why calculus works, while some can, and others cannot understand basic empathy.

There needs to be a judge higher than man, and also a power by which Man uses to be righteous. As men cannot act righteously on their own accord. I've never seen it, actually, and the societies that least have God, seem to be the most immoral. And they lack peace. They may have pleasure, but they have no peace.

But, generally, the laws of quanta are self evident. We just don't understand it yet. And I'd say morality is also self evident--a genius like Confucius or Mozi can describe it--but say you do codify a perfect morality, what or who holds man accountable to it? That's the real trick... I do believe men can indeed form a perfectly rational moral system, but they ultimately--because of sin--will fail to do it. And also, the chances of them completing such a thing is slim to none, also.

Because men, and it's in the first three chapters, get tempted. That's why there will never be a perfect world, until God judges and uses the Torah to hold man accountable, through the Sword--Jesus is going to war at the end--and without this, without God's power, and without God's authority, man is incapable of ever arbitrating himself. Specifically, when someone does sin, who is going to forgive them? As all men sin, and naturally all men create suffering... who's to forgive these men? Who's to restore their conscience? Are you going to kill them when they make a mistake? Then you're affirming the Old Testament, which I know you don't want to do. Or are you going to just torture them in a cell? Which you essentially make hell through that edict, and I think only God should have the authority to torment someone so.

So, ultimately, it's God's judgment, not man's, that's the new dispensation of Grace in Christ Jesus, man is not the authority, man is not creating utopia, because that's a bloody endeavor on its own, that can only make suffering. Man will fail. And that's why we need God.