Is god a number?

[Tesla]

What logical object can be truly measured when measurement itself is just a necessary way of coping and creating descriptors? Philosophies and religions talk of the all, the unity, the absolute but none of this is essentially real. Where does a whole, a one, an all, a God begin and end? Existence is immeasurable, we are immeasurable, isn't that the sanest starting point, rather than a logistic such as 'one' or 'God' or 'existence'?

No. because it suggest cynicism. A whole is the sum of its parts.

Agreed. So what is the point?

I am not cynical if I acknowledge what is really out there: infinity, impersonal, alive beyond imagination.

Don't reject a greater sanity for sake of a comfy, familiar but lesser one.

The way you approach a problem has much to do with its potential solution. In the realm of mystery, you would be somewhat correct. However, are we dealing with a mystery, or a problem? That is what must be decided.

Examine the universe: why? Because it is knowledge of ourselves. what if we ARE liken to bacteria, and we are staring into the body we exist in, unable to see that it is but one part of a magnificent body of life with conscious ability way beyond our capacity to dream? It’s potential. and for that reason we should recognize mystery, but not give up on the possibility we could come to an understanding in our evolution: that we may evolve into 'God', or that We might communicate with the life that exists that is called 'God' on the lips of many.

What could come of that is beyond imagination, with infinite possibilities. So as we are a part of this 'thing' existence, what it is being a mystery: it is better to be a little uncomfortable, and more sane to admit our limitations in 'knowing' from this perspective, may change at a later date.

[tillingborn]

Acknowledging ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, but to accept that because ignorance will always be a part of your life means to stop all growth would be very foolish.

Yes it would; has anyone claimed otherwise? Are you equating the discovery of 'truth' with growth?

[Bernard]

I think any valid God is one that evolves toward us as much as we toward it. This way there is no over seer of final goal. Yes, seeking understanding is as necessary as growing our bones but expecting totality of knowledge of ourselves is like expecting one day to be able to inhale all the air of earth in one go. We need to be thankfully and content with what we are capable of. Perhaps death will allow knowledge to engulf our total beings but we will never engulf total knowledge. Knowledge itself is without bounds.

[Tesla]

Acknowledging ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, but to accept that because ignorance will always be a part of your life means to stop all growth would be very foolish.

Yes it would; has anyone claimed otherwise? Are you equating the discovery of 'truth' with growth?

Truth is an opinion. Opinions change. All I am saying is that the path to self-deception lies in dogmatism, which is stopping at a 'truth' that is poorly examined. What ever you choose, will be the truth to you. I once chose a truth, and believed it honestly, that I later discovered through years of research and argumentation to 'not' be true.

We are having this discussion for what purpose? to discover if our truth's are really 'true' for ourselves? or to convince another their truth is false? For me, I'm suggesting an honest examination of your interpretation of what is true may change with honest research and evaluation and new information.

[tillingborn]

Truth is an opinion.

Years ago, as an undergraduate, I was discussing the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. It seemed plausible enough, but justification and truth are slippery buggers. Belief on the other hand is in some people absolute, often without any foundation, occasionally in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I think you are right; anything that is presented as 'truth' or 'knowledge' should be treated with utter derision.

[Tesla]

Truth is an opinion.

Years ago, as an undergraduate, I was discussing the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. It seemed plausible enough, but justification and truth are slippery buggers. Belief on the other hand is in some people absolute, often without any foundation, occasionally in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I think you are right; anything that is presented as 'truth' or 'knowledge' should be treated with utter derision.

I do not endorse treating the presentation of 'truth or 'knowledge' as mockery, I would rather say a healthy sense of skepticism. Thus only when strong evidence presents itself within the agreement of the knowledgeable in their fields (from whom we learn from and have based our beliefs on) be endorsed by any free thinker.

We all must be judges of truth, and what we decide is true, is true to us. Therefore we should pick our battles carefully, research well and utilize what wisdom we have to properly argue our case for our accepted beliefs: to the end that we will grow in knowledge, and help others grow in knowledge, to be able to make wiser decisions.

Together the species will fail, and together the species will succeed, but apart we have only chaos and the law of nature that will react according to our actions within our systems we effect.

Do you believe that these statements are true? If yes, why? If no, why not?

[tillingborn]

Do you believe that these statements are true? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Well, let's see.

I do not endorse treating the presentation of 'truth or 'knowledge' as mockery, I would rather say a healthy sense of skepticism. Thus only when strong evidence presents itself within the agreement of the knowledgeable in their fields (from whom we learn from and have based our beliefs on) be endorsed by any free thinker.

Yes. The people in the field will have access to the best and most recent data. Any opinion they choose to air is subject to rigorous peer review, it follows that their assessment of their specialism will be better informed than that of members of the public.

No. A lot of 'the knowledgeable in their field' work within what Kuhn called a paradigm. Max Planck made the point that new theories do not replace the old ones, so much as the old scientists die and their ideas with them. Kuhn called the gathering of data (among other things) 'normal' science; it is pointless to argue with the empirical data, but there is no commitment to any theory that underpins it. Henry Kissinger made a joke to the effect that the battles in academia could afford to be vicious, because the stakes were so low.

We all must be judges of truth, and what we decide is true, is true to us. Therefore we should pick our battles carefully, research well and utilize what wisdom we have to properly argue our case for our accepted beliefs: to the end that we will grow in knowledge, and help others grow in knowledge, to be able to make wiser decisions.

Yes. Ultimately we all construct a 'philosophy' of some sort and the least we should hope to achieve is that it is consistent. Sharing our ideas will help us develop them further, objective opinions will highlight weaknesses and the more contributions, the more likely a suitable solution will be found.

No, a consistent philosophy is not necessarily a true one. The fact that we understand that something is 'true for us' implies that it is not true for others. We have to respect other people's point of view and the greater diversity of ideas, the harder it is for ideological 'blocs' to form and compete.

Together the species will fail, and together the species will succeed, but apart we have only chaos and the law of nature that will react according to our actions within our systems we effect.

Yes, it is only through cooperation that we have built societies and civilizations, thanks to which we all have far greater leisure than was possible for our hunter gatherer ancestors. This leisure has allowed us to develop art, science and philosophy, all of which enrich our lives.

No, if there is any such thing as a 'law of nature', it is that stress and combat strengthen the species. This is crucial for the development of individuals, but groups with competing ideologies become armies.

Frankly, I'm not sure I believe anything, I think the safest option is not to without, as you say, a healthy dose of skepticism. I take your point, I don't think it is appropriate to scoff at people who are sincerely trying to come to terms with reality, but I do believe that anyone who claims to know the answers deserves to be laughed at.

[Tesla]

No, a consistent philosophy is not necessarily a true one. The fact that we understand that something is 'true for us' implies that it is not true for others. We have to respect other people's point of view and the greater diversity of ideas, the harder it is for ideological 'blocs' to form and compete.

It does not imply anything to another, but only to self. Only through self can you decide to condemn another for disagreement, which I'm sure you will disagree that murder is good, as would I, but philosophy entails much more than mere belief. It entails ethics, and much more. You commit a generalization in this 'no', but it was an honest attempt to be cynical.

Together the species will fail, and together the species will succeed, but apart we have only chaos and the law of nature that will react according to our actions within our systems we effect.

Yes, it is only through cooperation that we have built societies and civilizations, thanks to which we all have far greater leisure than was possible for our hunter gatherer ancestors. This leisure has allowed us to develop art, science and philosophy, all of which enrich our lives.

your yes overlooks the problem of the ship being destroyed that keeps as afloat. The resource issue is relevant, as we overpopulate, we destroy resources, smaller resources and more people will crash the system quite wonderfully. Some things are 'true' regardless of what we would like to believe is true. Belief does not make things true, but in some realms you have room to say it is potentially true, and in some areas, you must agree that light is light, and dark is absence of light, or commit yourself to intellectual suicide.

No, if there is any such thing as a 'law of nature', it is that stress and combat strengthen the species. This is crucial for the development of individuals, but groups with competing ideologies become armies.

you title this 'no' but the description only verifies the statement.

Frankly, I'm not sure I believe anything, I think the safest option is not to without, as you say, a healthy dose of skepticism. I take your point, I don't think it is appropriate to scoff at people who are sincerely trying to come to terms with reality, but I do believe that anyone who claims to know the answers deserves to be laughed at.

Do you know the answer to the question: are you a man or a woman? If you do 'know' the answer, should you be scoffed at?

[tillingborn]

Do you know the answer to the question: are you a man or a woman? If you do 'know' the answer, should you be scoffed at?

I don't mind if people scoff, but whether I am a man or a woman is hardly one of the great mysteries of reality. Generally, I was trying to make the point that there are usually different ways of looking at things; granted I wasn't entirely successful, but I think it is nonetheless true. It is when people insist that their interpretation is The Truth that problems start.

[bobevenson]

Is God a number? Well, the Greek form of Jesus (Iesous) adds up to 888 in classical Greek gematria and 88 in English gematria simplex (A=1 to Z=26), which provides a mystical connection with our past according to "The Ouzo Prophecy".

[Arising_uk]

So whats 'God's' number then?

[Tesla]

Do you know the answer to the question: are you a man or a woman? If you do 'know' the answer, should you be scoffed at?

I don't mind if people scoff, but whether I am a man or a woman is hardly one of the great mysteries of reality. Generally, I was trying to make the point that there are usually different ways of looking at things; granted I wasn't entirely successful, but I think it is nonetheless true. It is when people insist that their interpretation is The Truth that problems start.

True, I guess I was being to general as to what truth we were discussing. But I still do not think it a scoffing matter, just more of an ignorance issue.

[tillingborn]

...I still do not think it a scoffing matter, just more of an ignorance issue.

That's probably because you are a nicer person than me. I did say: "I don't think it is appropriate to scoff at people who are sincerely trying to come to terms with reality, but I do believe that anyone who claims to know the answers deserves to be laughed at."
It's not an attitude I am proud of, but for the sake of argument, I will defend it. It's the Emperor's new clothes syndrome; I don't like pomposity and I really don't like exploitative money grubbing opportunism. To that end I think there are legitimate targets for ridicule; perhaps something that looks like scientology, but obviously not scientology itself, because that is a proper religion, the leaders of which believe in alien intervention and that naval uniforms look good on dry land.

[bobevenson]

So whats 'God's' number then?

In English gematria simplex, Holy Spirit adds up to 151, Jesus Christ adds up to 151 and Ouzo Cross adds up to 151. If Satan takes the place of the Ouzo Cross, the total adds up to "the seven horsemen of the Apocalypse."

[Arising_uk]

So whats 'God's' number then?

In English gematria simplex, Holy Spirit adds up to 151, Jesus Christ adds up to 151 and Ouzo Cross adds up to 151. If Satan takes the place of the Ouzo Cross, the total adds up to "the seven horsemen of the Apocalypse."

Still not hearing this 'God's' number?