Zombies remind us that death is social

[Marcus]

. . You can choose to believe the Bible etc., but you do not choose to believe that 2+2=4.

How do you know that two is two, that four is four, that two plus two equals four? How do you know that?

Assuming you aren't trying to delve into the murk of language theory, certain types of knowledge are demonstrable, reproducible, and externally verifiable. Others are provable by logic alone. Faith positions are different in that they are based on things that are not verifiable, by definition.

The strange theistic counterargument to atheists that "well, ALL knowledge comes from God, so you only know that 2+2=4 is correct because of God!" is a rather poor argument, logically speaking. It still requires anybody taking this argument seriously to subscribe to the entire belief system in order for it to make any sense, so it's the same problem described above.

Round and round the mulberry bush, Ib, and I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it. The point remains that all assertions of fact ultimately devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority.

How do you know that two is two?

[Taboo]

Round and round the mulberry bush, Ib, and I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it. The point remains that all assertions of fact ultimately devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority.

How do you know that two is two?

Fundamentally, it's a matter of primitives. Because the mind's own hardware has the capacity to distinguish "more" from "less," basically.

[Taboo]

This is my Sunday School 101 on it, in case it helps anybody:

From John 7;

"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself."

So one must actually seek to be more righteous in order to invite the spirit in. It's not usually given to petulants sitting in the peanut gallery. God must be sought.

Sounds like a plan. Surround yourself only with people who believe, isolate yourself from all people who don't. Act every minute of every day as if you had received personal messages from God. Think constantly of God, Salvation and such things. Do Good things in His Name. And then someday, MAYBE, either you will hallucinate it, or the Ghost will come to you for real. Not that it makes any difference, since you would not be able to tell the two apart. And then you will be Sure.

Well, peanuts it is for me, I guess.

[Marcus]

Round and round the mulberry bush, Ib, and I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it. The point remains that all assertions of fact ultimately devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority.

How do you know that two is two?

Fundamentally, it's a matter of primitives. Because the mind's own hardware has the capacity to distinguish "more" from "less," basically.

How do you know "the mind's own hardware" has that capacity? How do you know that two is two?

[Taboo]

Every worldview ultimately resides in a self-authenticating source of authority. Without exception. The problem is that most people are epistemologically unconscious of their source of ultimate authority. It "just is," and that's as far as they get.

So is Voodoo as true as Calvinism? For a wretched unbeliever like me, how should I decide which one to go for? If everything is relative that way, you're denying the very possibility of my making a "correct" decision, are you not?

Yet, according to Xtianity, unless I choose the right sect, I can look forward to an eternity and a half of fire and brimstone.

Shoot.

[Ibrahim]

. . You can choose to believe the Bible etc., but you do not choose to believe that 2+2=4.

How do you know that two is two, that four is four, that two plus two equals four? How do you know that?

Assuming you aren't trying to delve into the murk of language theory, certain types of knowledge are demonstrable, reproducible, and externally verifiable. Others are provable by logic alone. Faith positions are different in that they are based on things that are not verifiable, by definition.

The strange theistic counterargument to atheists that "well, ALL knowledge comes from God, so you only know that 2+2=4 is correct because of God!" is a rather poor argument, logically speaking. It still requires anybody taking this argument seriously to subscribe to the entire belief system in order for it to make any sense, so it's the same problem described above.

Round and round the mulberry bush, Ib, and I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it.

You're not qualified to make that determination.

The point remains that all assertions of fact ultimately devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority.

You're just repeating this statement, which has been repeatedly refuted by several people with different examples, without even attempting to defend it.

[Taboo]

Round and round the mulberry bush, Ib, and I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it. The point remains that all assertions of fact ultimately devolve into a self-authenticating source of authority.

How do you know that two is two?

Fundamentally, it's a matter of primitives. Because the mind's own hardware has the capacity to distinguish "more" from "less," basically.

How do you know "the mind's own hardware" has that capacity? How do you know that two is two?

I don't understand. Can you not tell that two is two? I've heard of hunter-gatherers with no concept of numbers above 5 (one, two, three, four, many, many, many...), but i think they could make out one and two.

[Enki]

^^this.......... without a tradition based on provenance tied to the actual event, you are just making it up.....

Unless you view that God acts immanently through the faithful, in which case one can have an actual dialogue with God in one's daily life. Christians have made lots of effort to make this a marker of insanity. They say have a personal relationship with God, and then if you have one, you're nuts.

G_d is in all His creation, but we who are just above animals deign to try to live as G_d in this world He has made, and right fail at doing so. We blame the world for evil like the bad carpenter blames his tools - we are barely competent to function in this reality and we have to strive to be better. More as if we were G_d Himself, or of His spirit. This makes sense of original sin to me........

Well, superior tools can make a bad carpenter better.

[Marcus]

. . you're denying the very possibility of my making a "correct" decision, are you not? . .

No, not at all. I'm saying that whatever decision you make will ultimately devolve into a single, self-authenticating source of authority.

. . Can you not tell that two is two? . .

Of course I can. But that's not the point. The point is how do I know two is two?

[Marcus]

. . Ib, . . I'm disappointed . . thought you actually got it.

You're not qualified to make that determination. .

Sure I am . .

[Taboo]

Of course I can. But that's not the point. The point is how do I know two is two?

How do you tell two from one? Birds can do it, cats can do it, dogs can do it, newborn babies can do it. But I suppose you'll say it has something to do with pressupositions?

No, not at all. I'm saying that whatever decision you make will ultimately devolve into a single, self-authenticating source of authority.

But HOW to make the decision, when lacking single, divine, self-authenticating tailchasing, oil-producing snakes of this kind?

[Marcus]

Of course I can. But that's not the point. The point is how do I know two is two?

How do you tell two from one? Birds can do it, cats can do it, dogs can do it, newborn babies can do it. But I suppose you'll say it has something to do with pressupositions?

Again, no, not at all. In this case I happen to agree with you that such abilities are preprogrammed. But that's a whole 'nother question—how do humans, birds, cats, dogs, and newborn babies tell one from two? There is, undoubtedly, more than one answer to that question, each of which will beg the further question—how do you know?

The initial question remains—how do I know that two is two?

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like a plan. Surround yourself only with people who believe, isolate yourself from all people who don't. Act every minute of every day as if you had received personal messages from God. Think constantly of God, Salvation and such things. Do Good things in His Name. And then someday, MAYBE, either you will hallucinate it, or the Ghost will come to you for real. Not that it makes any difference, since you would not be able to tell the two apart. And then you will be Sure.

Well, peanuts it is for me, I guess.

[Mr. Perfect]

You are mixing two separate things, which is usually about what I got for an explanation. Convinced me that others didn't know, either.

Christ was there ( actually, this is from John ch 7) talking about who sent him in terms of authority of the law. The idea was ( for the alleged Pharisees in the audience, yet another Johnine diatribe against the Jews that came from the split with the synagogue around AD 80) that Christ might have been somebody pulling miracles in Gods name, but was in fact working for Satan. Taking that quote and grafting it on to a mechanic of the HS doesn't make sense. To do that turns the HS and faith in general into unverifiable ( even for the believer) solipsism. It's worse than worthless. It's confusing.

At least one person in the peanut gallery got there because no matter how much he tried to play with Howdy Doody, it all just turned into a guy with a puppet, making funny dances for the kids. I'm open to the idea of there being a Howdy Doody that actually exists and functions, but so far ( and no offense) , this is the level of coherence I get. If there is a 'there' there, people seeking it ought to be able to find it. " You ain't trying hard enough" , when it was job one for decades, doesn't cut it.

The problem is that the HS as perceived in Charismatic circles is flat out a fabrication. If a tenth of the crap I've seen attributed to the HS had been real, heaven would have already fallen on all our faces.

I may not be following you here.

Normally I have stayed away from sectarian issues, other than letting it be known that I'm not Catholic, but I would have to say in the most diplomatic way possible that with my somewhat limited interaction with the charismatic community, complete skepticism doesn't hurt. A good topical search in the Bible would be on discernment.

I don't think having to wait for decades is necessarily the worst thing, because that is pretty much what happened to me. I remember a conversation with Collingwood, he said everybody knows there is a god from birth, some just deny for some reason. He is sure of it. I said no, I really didn't feel that for a very long time. I promise.

But after thinking on it really hard it seemed that when I was a child in Sunday School, I would listen to the stories and the presence was with me. As I got to be 6 or 7 my mind told me it wasn't enough, the presence, the impression. And so I became agnostic, perhaps atheist. I respected my parents' wishes and continued going to church until my teens sometime, but the changing event didn't happen until later.

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Our thoughts are not his thoughts.

[Demon of Undoing]

You are mixing two separate things, which is usually about what I got for an explanation. Convinced me that others didn't know, either.

Christ was there ( actually, this is from John ch 7) talking about who sent him in terms of authority of the law. The idea was ( for the alleged Pharisees in the audience, yet another Johnine diatribe against the Jews that came from the split with the synagogue around AD 80) that Christ might have been somebody pulling miracles in Gods name, but was in fact working for Satan. Taking that quote and grafting it on to a mechanic of the HS doesn't make sense. To do that turns the HS and faith in general into unverifiable ( even for the believer) solipsism. It's worse than worthless. It's confusing.

At least one person in the peanut gallery got there because no matter how much he tried to play with Howdy Doody, it all just turned into a guy with a puppet, making funny dances for the kids. I'm open to the idea of there being a Howdy Doody that actually exists and functions, but so far ( and no offense) , this is the level of coherence I get. If there is a 'there' there, people seeking it ought to be able to find it. " You ain't trying hard enough" , when it was job one for decades, doesn't cut it.

The problem is that the HS as perceived in Charismatic circles is flat out a fabrication. If a tenth of the crap I've seen attributed to the HS had been real, heaven would have already fallen on all our faces.

I may not be following you here.

Normally I have stayed away from sectarian issues, other than letting it be known that I'm not Catholic, but I would have to say in the most diplomatic way possible that with my somewhat limited interaction with the charismatic community, complete skepticism doesn't hurt. A good topical search in the Bible would be on discernment.

I don't think having to wait for decades is necessarily the worst thing, because that is pretty much what happened to me. I remember a conversation with Collingwood, he said everybody knows there is a god from birth, some just deny for some reason. He is sure of it. I said no, I really didn't feel that for a very long time. I promise.

But after thinking on it really hard it seemed that when I was a child in Sunday School, I would listen to the stories and the presence was with me. As I got to be 6 or 7 my mind told me it wasn't enough, the presence, the impression. And so I became agnostic, perhaps atheist. I respected my parents' wishes and continued going to church until my teens sometime, but the changing event didn't happen until later.

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Our thoughts are not his thoughts.

And if the Lord doesn't do that which he seemingly promised? Is he a liar, or is there perhaps an entire " church" that really has no idea what was even meant by the term " Holy Spirit"? We only wish that applied just to Charismatics.

The problem with having to wait at all is that it is contrary to what scripture teaches. There is no record of anybody receiving the HS ( in whatever way that is defined) as anything other than a slam-bang moment of holy fire on the mountain. Beyond that, having some charismatic ( and this is the linguistic root for all the gifts of the spirit) dispensation that " confirms" faith is one of those things you can have even when you really don't- but you can convince yourself that you do, simply by staying ignorant.


Collingwood is a rare bird, IME, in feeling that assurance. All I ever felt was alone in my own skull. Pure intuition is a poor way of running a faith, anyway. It winds up being all Joel Osteen, all the time. If you're lucky.

[Mr. Perfect]

And if the Lord doesn't do that which he seemingly promised? Is he a liar, or is there perhaps an entire " church" that really has no idea what was even meant by the term " Holy Spirit"? We only wish that applied just to Charismatics.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility.

One thing is here we aren't trying to save churches, Salvation is a selfish and individual act. Where I part ways with a large portion of the human population is that if Islam was revealed to me, or the Hindu, or the Ooga booga tribe as God's dispensation I would change teams in a heartbeat. I don't really have a dog in the fight. And I will admit that it was later in life that I came to that conclusion, an idea I wasn't seeking. Who cares what my family thinks.

The problem with having to wait at all is that it is contrary to what scripture teaches. There is no record of anybody receiving the HS ( in whatever way that is defined) as anything other than a slam-bang moment of holy fire on the mountain.

Still small voice.

Beyond that, having some charismatic ( and this is the linguistic root for all the gifts of the spirit) dispensation that " confirms" faith is one of those things you can have even when you really don't- but you can convince yourself that you do, simply by staying ignorant.


Collingwood is a rare bird, IME, in feeling that assurance. All I ever felt was alone in my own skull. Pure intuition is a poor way of running a faith, anyway. It winds up being all Joel Osteen, all the time. If you're lucky.

Well seeing that I'm between the two of you I can actually relate. I had that period of emptiness and I've had the other, so what should I tell you? Words didn't do much for me at the time either. Maybe consider the teachings of Paul, that the gifts of the spirit, or how the spirit shows up, are rather diverse.

Everybody wants to be a prophet I guess but it happens so rarely. In my time of humbling myself ( or rather, was humbled) to a sufficient point I had to realize that more important than being able to call down hellfire or angels was being grateful for the simple knowledge and the path back home.

The only suggestion if you will I have is to look at your preoccupation with it all to begin with. You're hanging around for some reason. Being born in it is not sufficient reason, kids leave the church and don't give it a second thought all the time. The root may be there.

[Dioscuri]

... Voodoo. Where an incomplete hermeneutic system is pruned to the point that the only thing left is what represented the danger in them. ... it became a system of only magic that creates it's own irrational second world to live along side it.

Doesn't quite cover everything, but an accurate description of "reality" as it is lived by "the man on the street."

[Demon of Undoing]

You ( and others) mistake my intent. Not looking for proof, reasons, or evidence to convince me to believe. I have my reasons, and the only reason what I'm doing looks like an attempt to justify or avoid atheism is simple. The only Christ that is believable is one that would be thrown out of church. When put in historic context, there is no tradition that has a clue. The more words they put out, the farther they get. The making of the Jewish concept of the Shekinah ( and other words) into some third part of God is " Life of Brian" stuff. Most of what people think is essential to Christianity is.

I was preoccupied with things that were allegedly having to do with the HS because that's how Trinitarian thought is constructed. Every church will have a focus on one of those facets over the other two. Problem is, it's all gobbledygook, it doesn't even resemble what Jesus or any other contemporary Jew would have ever put out. You have to have him be some completely extrachronological alien, utterly inhuman, to think of it that way, and then what's the point in having Christ at all ?

So what does that tell me, in relation to what we are talking about? It tells me that any concept of having the HS as some sort of preternatural assurance is outside of anything Christ was talking about. It's only when you get into the epistles, which were little more than op-Ed pieces about what happened decades before, that the idea of frequently- distributed " gifts" shows up, a classic " one bullshit too far". You know it is because those high end gifts, which by how they are defined ought to be very obvious, are sources for church psychodrama and nothing else. They aren't there. Show me anything like evidence for supernatural discernment, the gift of healing, or of knowing unknown tongues. It's ok. I'll wait. But to save time, if you're going to make a how to manual for believers, don't put any magic tricks that can be verified against reality.

Even then, nothing in what is there is ever portrayed as any sort of license for epistemological certainty. They simply weren't looking at it like that. They weren't questioning at all. It wasn't an issue.

So lets not pretend they were.

[Typhoon]

Of course I can. But that's not the point. The point is how do I know two is two?

How do you tell two from one? Birds can do it, cats can do it, dogs can do it, newborn babies can do it. But I suppose you'll say it has something to do with pressupositions?

Again, no, not at all. In this case I happen to agree with you that such abilities are preprogrammed. But that's a whole 'nother question—how do humans, birds, cats, dogs, and newborn babies tell one from two? There is, undoubtedly, more than one answer to that question, each of which will beg the further question—how do you know?

The initial question remains—how do I know that two is two?

Two methods:

1/ Formal Proof via Set Theory:

Definition by Induction of Natural Number Addition

see also Theory of Sets, N. Bourbaki.

2/ Empirical Proof:

Try defining 2 + 2 = other than 4 etc., and designing and building anything using your new system of addition. It won't work.

2 + 2 = 4 represents a fundamental reproducible empirical observation regarding the physical reality of our universe.

Now that I think about it I don't think that one could construct a logically self-consistent system of counting that violated 2 + 2 = 4

[Demon of Undoing]

Zen roshi say two is not two. Two is not not two. Two is a word.

[noddy]

from my weenie understanding its probably more appropriate to say this isnt about the existence of maths but more the reducability of reality via maths and science.

its a presupposition, an act of faith to marcus, for atheists to say that mathematical/scientific models are capable of explaining the universe and all that it contains.

personally, i suspect it all is mechanical and the non mechanical things are side effects of the complexity but thats more of a muse than a statement of faith because all this propoganda about NEEDING to believe something about things you have never seen nor can ever see leaves me a tad cold.

when it comes down to an individual, then the religious view is sorta correct in a metaphorical sense because we are so limited, that this vast complexity of "stuff to learn" is almost infinitely beyond our meager capabilities.

[Mr. Perfect]

You ( and others) mistake my intent. Not looking for proof, reasons, or evidence to convince me to believe. I have my reasons, and the only reason what I'm doing looks like an attempt to justify or avoid atheism is simple. The only Christ that is believable is one that would be thrown out of church. When put in historic context, there is no tradition that has a clue. The more words they put out, the farther they get. The making of the Jewish concept of the Shekinah ( and other words) into some third part of God is " Life of Brian" stuff. Most of what people think is essential to Christianity is.

Well I said from the outset that I may not follow and I still may not.

I can't follow you on the the thrown out Jesus, from what I can tell he was doing everything he could to start a church.

I was preoccupied with things that were allegedly having to do with the HS because that's how Trinitarian thought is constructed. Every church will have a focus on one of those facets over the other two. Problem is, it's all gobbledygook, it doesn't even resemble what Jesus or any other contemporary Jew would have ever put out. You have to have him be some completely extrachronological alien, utterly inhuman, to think of it that way, and then what's the point in having Christ at all ?

I don't follow this part.

So what does that tell me, in relation to what we are talking about? It tells me that any concept of having the HS as some sort of preternatural assurance is outside of anything Christ was talking about. It's only when you get into the epistles, which were little more than op-Ed pieces about what happened decades before, that the idea of frequently- distributed " gifts" shows up, a classic " one bullshit too far". You know it is because those high end gifts, which by how they are defined ought to be very obvious, are sources for church psychodrama and nothing else. They aren't there. Show me anything like evidence for supernatural discernment, the gift of healing, or of knowing unknown tongues. It's ok. I'll wait. But to save time, if you're going to make a how to manual for believers, don't put any magic tricks that can be verified against reality.

Even then, nothing in what is there is ever portrayed as any sort of license for epistemological certainty. They simply weren't looking at it like that. They weren't questioning at all. It wasn't an issue.

So lets not pretend they were.

I can't go with you here. The Holy Ghost is a part of what's called the Trinity, making him "equal" with the Father and Son, not really something you overlook.

I look at Jesus, here, saying;

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

and it seems pretty important.

[noddy]

in my ignorance i always assumed the holy spirit was how "will" orientated pagans got to keep their worldview.

[Enki]

from my weenie understanding its probably more appropriate to say this isnt about the existence of maths but more the reducability of reality via maths and science.

its a presupposition, an act of faith to marcus, for atheists to say that mathematical/scientific models are capable of explaining the universe and all that it contains.

personally, i suspect it all is mechanical and the non mechanical things are side effects of the complexity but thats more of a muse than a statement of faith because all this propoganda about NEEDING to believe something about things you have never seen nor can ever see leaves me a tad cold.

when it comes down to an individual, then the religious view is sorta correct in a metaphorical sense because we are so limited, that this vast complexity of "stuff to learn" is almost infinitely beyond our meager capabilities.

I would say that the importance of faith for everyone comes down to your last sentence. Our meager capacity to learn what there is to know combined with our ability to operate successfully in the world, shows just how much we can rely on the tiny bit we know to allow us to manipulate the universe.

Though, I think it is possible for a human being to comprehend a swath of basics that give them a broad based understanding of the universe. If you understand the basics of science, Chem, Physics, Bio with some Earth Science and a little Astronomy, then you pretty much know the foundations of the secrets of the universe. A bit of psychology and personal experience combined with some history and you can reasonably predict how certain people will act, and the outcomes of certain events.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

“We know truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart, and it is in this last way that we know first principles; and reason, which has no part in it, tries in vain to impugn them. The skeptics, who have only this for their object, labor to no purpose. We know that we are not dreaming, and, however impossible it is for us to prove it by reason, this inability demonstrates only the weakness of our reason, but not, as they [the skeptics] affirm, the uncertainty of all our knowledge. For the knowledge of first principles, as space, time, motion, number, is as sure as any of those we get from reasoning. And reason must trust this knowledge of the heart and of instinct, and must base every argument on them. The heart senses that there are three dimensions in space and that the numbers are infinite, and reason then shows that there are no two square numbers one of which is double of the other. Principles are intuited, propositions are inferred, all with certainty, though in different ways.

-Blaise Pascal