[QUOTE=only_human;389301]I add the postulate that belief in God [I]is[/I] God. In this slightly larger system I then attempt to evaluate the existence function or look for contradictions.[/QUOTE]

Belief in an undefined God? Without any characteristics? Then that's a belief in nothing, so God is nothing, i.e. no God exists.

[QUOTE=davar55;389312]Belief in an undefined God? Without any characteristics? Then that's a belief in nothing, so God is nothing, i.e. no God exists.[/QUOTE]My high priests begin compiling lists of characteristics and definitions of God. They contemplate a total list that contains the entirety of these traits but are dissuaded by the futility of compiling this infinite list.

They become mathematically inclined. They conceive of a process to convert sentences into numbers. Then they contemplate an infinite list of numbers. They invert the conversion function and apply a test function that determines if any number is {meaningless, meaningful, lucky, sacred}.

They calculate the distribution of sacred attributes, determine it is infinite but despair when they realize that even this infinite distribution of sacred attributes in this infinite list is not enough to define God. They then develop a method of constructing numbers that are different in some aspect from every number in the list.

They despair again at computational and theoretical limits of even reaching a conclusion about the attributes of some of these unlistable numbers. They turn to statistics. Now they talk of probabilities, distributions and significance.

They invert the demonic symbol six and talk about confidence and how many of this holy symbol nine can be gathered. They decided that since they are not omniscient themselves, that they will accept a pretty good collection of nines as pretty good proof that they can define God.

[QUOTE=only_human;389330]My high priests begin compiling lists of characteristics and definitions of God. They contemplate a total list that contains the entirety of these traits but are dissuaded by the futility of compiling this infinite list.

They become mathematically inclined. They conceive of a process to convert sentences into numbers. Then they contemplate an infinite list of numbers. They invert the conversion function and apply a test function that determines if any number is {meaningless, meaningful, lucky, sacred}.

They calculate the distribution of sacred attributes, determine it is infinite but despair when they realize that even this infinite distribution of sacred attributes in this infinite list is not enough to define God. They then develop a method of constructing numbers that are different in some aspect from every number in the list.

They despair again at computational and theoretical limits of even reaching a conclusion about the attributes of some of these unlistable numbers. They turn to statistics. Now they talk of probabilities, distributions and significance.

They invert the demonic symbol six and talk about confidence and how many of this holy symbol nine can be gathered. They decided that since they are not omniscient themselves, that they will accept a pretty good collection of nines as pretty good proof that they can define God.[/QUOTE]

Cute. You must therefore be an atheist. Nice to meet you.

[QUOTE=davar55;389183]Yes, an agnostic who is right that he doesn't know, may not know that the non-existence
of God has been [STRIKE]utterly[/STRIKE] [I]udderly[/I] proven. Many times.[/QUOTE]
Fixed That For You
[QUOTE=davar55;389339]Cute. You must therefore be an atheist. Nice to meet you.[/QUOTE]I am an atheist but I take religion much more respectfully than may appear from some of my remarks or whimsy.

In keeping with the thread topic and to accredit some of the mathematics that I cribbed from in a recent post, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del"]Kurt Gödel[/URL] said:
[QUOTE]"My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza." Describing religion(s) in general, Gödel said: "Religions are, for the most part, bad—but religion is not".[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;389344]Fixed That For You
I am an atheist but I take religion much more respectfully than may appear from some of my remarks or whimsy.
In keeping with the thread topic and to accredit some of the mathematics that I cribbed from in a recent post,
...
[/QUOTE]

I respect people, but not their religions nor their religious sides.

I guess that makes me udderly wrong in some of their eyes, but being right,
and proving that so, was more important to me than being "popular".

And when I found out there are MANY who agreed with atheism,
in fact most everyone who thinks about their religion,
I knew I had taken a right life path.

[QUOTE=davar55;389352]I respect people, but not their religions nor their religious sides.

I guess that makes me udderly wrong in some of their eyes, but being right,
and proving that so, was more important to me than being "popular".[/quote]
In the Holy Cow model, so named from the outbursts of younger acolytes, the high priests are virtual except within that model. Within that model, these high priests are prone to yodeling hosannas from high mountaintops, hence the term high priests. These God yodeling priests, more briefly called Gödel priests, are prone to bouts of asceticism, debilitating fasting and precarious sanity. Unfortunately their smug assertions of the existence and nonexistence of God (both camps exist), fail udderly outside of the Holy Cow model.
[Quote]And when I found out there are MANY who agreed with atheism,
in fact most everyone who thinks about their religion,
I knew I had taken a right life path.[/QUOTE]I do not question your path but your certitude rankles.

[QUOTE=only_human;389359]In the Holy Cow model, so named from the outbursts of younger acolytes, the high priests are virtual except within that model. Within that model, these high priests are prone to yodeling hosannas from high mountaintops, hence the term high priests. These God yodeling priests, more briefly called Gödel priests, are prone to bouts of asceticism, debilitating fasting and precarious sanity. Unfortunately their smug assertions of the existence and nonexistence of God (both camps exist), fail udderly outside of the Holy Cow model.
I do not question your path but your certitude rankles.[/QUOTE]

Because you are an agnostic, not an atheist. And inclined to emotionally charged humor.

:smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;389361]Because you are an agnostic, not an atheist. And inclined to emotionally charged humor.

:smile:[/QUOTE]I personally consider myself an atheist but at the moment will settle for an analgesic.

.:goodposting:

I do believe taking two might help with a Big Belly-ache.

(His was a good posting, a pause was necessary here too.)

[QUOTE=only_human;389359]In the Holy Cow model, so named from the outbursts of younger acolytes, the high priests are virtual except within that model. Within that model, these high priests are prone to yodeling hosannas from high mountaintops, hence the term high priests. These God yodeling priests, more briefly called Gödel priests, are prone to bouts of asceticism, debilitating fasting and precarious sanity. Unfortunately their smug assertions of the existence and nonexistence of God (both camps exist), fail udderly outside of the Holy Cow model.
I do not question your path but your certitude rankles.[/QUOTE]

Certitude based on certainty.
Certainty based on experience, definition, knowledge, and proof.
Knowledge amplified by the demonstration (which I addressed earlier
in this thread) that agnosticism is untenable.
Untenability of agnosticism demonstrated by its own definition.
Proof ... well, so far, all semi-atheists haven't bothered to ask
the right question(s).