Does 2 + 2 = 4 need a god to be true?

[JimL]

only be believed if it is true.

Truth is immutable, knowledge of the truth is immutable, beliefs are not immutable, and the truth is that you have no knowledge of God whether you believe you do or not.

[Leonhard]

Truth is immutable, knowledge of the truth is immutable, beliefs are not immutable, and the truth is that you have no knowledge of God whether you believe you do or not.

This is beautiful, elegantly phrased rhetorical sentence. Unfortunately it's false. Knowledge of the existence of God, even certain knowledge, is possible. Even if you manage to show that 37818's line of argumentation, you would not have established the position of agnosticism.

[37818]

Truth is immutable, knowledge of the truth is immutable, beliefs are not immutable, and the truth is that you have no knowledge of God whether you believe you do or not.

I do not have knowledge of God just as you, JimL do not exist.

Furthermore, if no one knows God, then no one has eternal life either. And Christianity is the most dangerous false belief system in this world.

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. . . . " -- 1 John 5:9-10.

[37818]

This is beautiful, elegantly phrased rhetorical sentence. Unfortunately it's false. Knowledge of the existence of God, even certain knowledge, is possible. Even if you manage to show that 37818's line of argumentation, you would not have established the position of agnosticism.

Do you have eternal life?

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."-- 1 John 5:12.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.

[JimL]

This is beautiful, elegantly phrased rhetorical sentence. Unfortunately it's false. Knowledge of the existence of God, even certain knowledge, is possible. Even if you manage to show that 37818's line of argumentation, you would not have established the position of agnosticism.

Knowledge of the existence of God, or of the non-existence of God, may be possible, but we don't have knowledge of either yet. What we have in either case are beliefs. And that is fine. Some of us base our beliefs on empirical evidence, and some of us, to the contrary, do not, but instead base their beliefs on non evidential claims and the feelings these beliefs stir up in them. The attainment of knowledge may be possible, but we haven't attained it yet, one way or the other.

[shunyadragon]

This is beautiful, elegantly phrased rhetorical sentence. Unfortunately it's false. Knowledge of the existence of God, even certain knowledge, is possible. Even if you manage to show that 37818's line of argumentation, you would not have established the position of agnosticism.

The fact that there are thousands of different versions of the claims of this knowledge of the nature of God makes the position of agnosticism more favorable. It, of course, is possible, but being possible is not much of a reason to believe any one anecdotal version is remotely reasonable for a good argument.

[Teallaura]

Knowledge of the existence of God, or of the non-existence of God, may be possible, but we don't have knowledge of either yet. What we have in either case are beliefs. And that is fine. Some of us base our beliefs on empirical evidence, and some of us, to the contrary, do not, but instead base their beliefs on non evidential claims and the feelings these beliefs stir up in them. The attainment of knowledge may be possible, but we haven't attained it yet, one way or the other.

Which boils down to you don't not that Bible doesn't. You can use this for personal satisfaction but it doesn't hold water argumentatively.

[Tassman]

I would say it depends on whether 2+2=4 is a property of our universe or a property of logic itself. Could there be a universe where math works differently? I don't know.

The premises of maths and arithmetic are only true inasmuch we define them to be true (such as 2+2=4). They are simply rules we establish and adhere to. They aren't empirical observations.

[Leonhard]

Do you have eternal life?[

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."-- 1 John 5:12.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." -- John 17:3.

Prooftexting is not a very good form of exegesis 37818, at most you're yanking these lines out and doing damage to an understanding of them. For example the nature of salvation, which is Jesus Christ cried out about to the Father when he hung on the cross in that chapter. So yes, if I have the Son, I have eternal life. Knowing him, which is more than mere intellectual assent, is the way to salvation.

What has that got to do with whether God's existence can be known for certain by reason?

[Leonhard]

The premises of maths and arithmetic are only true inasmuch we define them to be true (such as 2+2=4). They are simply rules we establish and adhere to. They aren't empirical observations.

Actually I'd say that's a bit too quick an assertion on your part. Yes we can make some symbols and connect them with rules, but the number '2' expresses more than simple being a symbol. It expresses an abstraction of a reality, namely that objects are quantifiably. We can have two pens, or even three, or four... Without the existence of numbers, even as mere intellectual constructions, we'd be unable to assign quantity, even though it was a feature of reality. And even the fact that we can talk about the abstract existence of numbers which is immutable, though the symbols and language used to describe them can change, indicates they have a reality on their own.

This might sound trivially obvious if it weren't for the fact that a tribe of humans was found who had no numbers in the their language at all. They could talk about whichever particular item, or person was there, and they could distinguish between an individual or herd of creatures. A mother would know if all her children were present, but not how many there were.

If reality wasn't like that, and there were simple one of everything, whether item, action, thought, or event. If everything was completely unique, we might be able to talk about similarities between things, maybe logical hierarchies, but not numbers of them. I'm not even sure numbers, even if they were completely logical concepts, could exist as thoughts in the mind of creatures in such a world.

[Teallaura]

Prooftexting is not a very good form of exegesis 37818, at most you're yanking these lines out and doing damage to an understanding of them. For example the nature of salvation, which is Jesus Christ cried out about to the Father when he hung on the cross in that chapter. So yes, if I have the Son, I have eternal life. Knowing him, which is more than mere intellectual assent, is the way to salvation.

What has that got to do with whether God's existence can be known for certain by reason?

I agree with you on the first part. The connection is that you cannot have the Son minus knowing Him (as you allude to) - but how you 'know' Him is experienced by the individual. There are some Christians who's knowledge of Christ is intellectual/rational rather than experiential. Their commitment is evidence of their certitude so Bible does have a round about point.

He skips about ten steps as usual...

[Leonhard]

I agree with you on the first part. The connection is that you cannot have the Son minus knowing Him (as you allude to) - but how you 'know' Him is experienced by the individual.

Definitely, hence I kept it to the existence of God, rather than God as revealed uniquely in the Bible. I think we can establish some things about God, his classical attributes for sure: timelessness, changelessness, immortality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc... but those qualities don't give of Christ which is a much deeper revelation. In fact St. Chrysostrom one of the great mystics of theologians went so far to say that after having given us Christ, God has nothing more to say, because with His Son He said everything he had to say.

The Catholic Church (you'll hear my preface many things with that since I'm a Catholic ) distinguishes between knowledge of God that is revealed, and knowledge of God which is natural. Things like God's existence and the moral law? Natural knowledge, anyone can in principle come to know these things by reason. Stuff like Christ's Ressurection and the Mystery of Reconciliation? That falls under Revelation and requires Faith, since you can't really completely arrive at that by reason, though reason is an almost invaluable tool in exploring it.

And even for natural knowledge of God, I think God hands out mystical experiences generously. You don't have to isolate yourself in a cave and fast on bread and water to have one (though some might choose just that path). An elderly lady shyly entering a church quietly, sitting down and looks up at a carved statue of Christ on the Cross, could very easily then and there experience everything she needs to come to Faith. Its shocked many new believers just how quickly they're given an understanding of many things.

Personally I can attest that I had an intellectual knowledge of God before I really committed myself to Him. It was more of a 'Huh, this and this argument really is tight, guess a god exists after all." filled with a lot of introverted intellectual speculation and counterexample probing. It was only later I felt a finger on my heart and it became a "...God exists! I need to do something now... I'll pray, that's a start." The kind of certainty that leads to action, I think that's supernaturally given by God.

Still, its possible to know about God's existence from natural knowledge alone, just not all the really important mysteries.

[Teallaura]

That reminds me - did you ever finish that testimonial?

[Leonhard]

That reminds me - did you ever finish that testimonial?

*checks Google Doc's*

Well, its up to nine pages, I figure eleven more, but I really should finish it. A lot of people want to read it it seems. The plans is to make the long version, post a shorter version on tweb with a link to the long version.

[Leonhard]

Unfortunately it won't be finished furing Lent which starts tomorrow, as one of the things I've chosen to fast from (aside from meat and fizzy drinks), is the computer. I've allotted myself an hour daily of free time, and I'm not sure I'll spend that writing my testimonial.