|
Original Message
|
EDIT: Let me preface this by saying that I'm a man of science, and in the end I still choose theism in the end. This may demonstrate why.
I'd like everyone to know that not all Christians, or whatever, are irrational and believe that "science is the devil".
The point of this exercise was to demonstrate the positive use of science, and actually math as the foremost, in proving the logical and rational reason in picking theism. I can't make you change your views, but it's nice to debate and share.
One thing I'll get into later is Quantum Physics/Mechanics. Now, remember most of the quantum nature is theory - very little has been proven. You can research to see what actually was experimented with and returned actual results. I know the entanglement and double-slit experiment did.
Anyway, onto the thought exercise...
==========================================================
Recently, I've come to terms that selecting atheism for your belief (<---lulz) of life after death seems contradictory to scientific facts and mathematical probability. I find this pretty reasonable, but I want to know what everyone here thinks.
First, before we begin this thought exercise, we need to understand the mathematical values of atheism and theism (we'll exclude agnosticism since the variable can only be "n", because one assumes that they cannot know but does not exclude the possibility, thus, variable).
First, let us define atheism. We're going to take a quick look at Google's definition from another source, Princeton University dictionary...
# the doctrine or belief that there is no God
# a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
For simplicity's sake, and the avoid redundancy, we shall examine the first definition and only that from this analysis here on out. So, let us pick apart the definition. Do we see any mathematical descriptives?
Before we do this, let us assume (once again for simplicity's sake) that nothing, on all mathematical values, would indeed be the number of none, or zero [0]. Can we agree that nothing is synonymous with zero? I believe so.
"The doctrine..." (this subject, on either sides, lacks a sort of mathematical definitive)
"...or belief" (if I had to assign this a value, it would be "n" as all beliefs are different, therefore, a variable)
"...that there is..." (a culmination of linking verbs and such cannot have a mathematical value, certainly, but you're free to correct me if I'm wrong!)
"...no God". (Ah ha! I think we've found what we're looking for. No, obviously, is a negative conjecture. Therefore, in contrast, using the word "no" can only be applied against something, so we must assume that "God" is more than zero, otherwise there would be no validity (<--- I just did it there!) in the definition. Because if "no" didn't stand against its subject, then wouldn't it be "yes"?)
So far, we've determined that no = negative and nothing = zero. So, let us apply "no" to "God". First, we must examine the nature of God(s). No matter what perspective taken, the God(s) will have a value of any number greater than 0, because there is either one [1] or more [1 + n], which is obviously not zero. ([1 + n] in terms with Gods cannot be a negative number, because if so, the equation becomes redundant - if 1 - n = 0, let us see that we're not defining God(s) by mathematical nature.)
So we have determined that God(s) have a value greater than zero (we're not apply ethics or morals, so we can't assume the negatives! that's another debate in its own!).
Ah, so we can agree that atheism is the belief that there are zero Gods, or, in terms of creators, nothing.
So, in order for theism to work, one would have to assume (and by definition this is indicated) that it's the opposite of atheism, thus the belief in [1 and/or 1 + n.] If this were not true, the words would be synonymous. But obviously they're not at all.
So, one more time:
Atheism = 0
Agnosticism = n (variable)
Theism = 1 or (1 + n)
If you're not already seeing this, let us suppose you play a game of odds. This is where things get a bit more complicated, but it's still very clear if one pays close attention - it is not open to interpretation, it is mere math (assuming we're follow the rules of this analysis and game).
You're playing a game of odds. There are two options: one will do this, one will do that. To apply to religion, we must assume that the goal is validity of one's perspective on the afterlife. So, let us assume that one picks option A, which we'll just say is atheism. The odds in this game are simple: if you're right, there is nothing, thus zero [0]. If you're wrong (most religions conclude that unless you choose them, you'll retain zero [0] of the benefits - granted there could be one religion where this is untrue, the mathematical fact is that this is against you either way. Remember more times than not, therefore, the odds are true (49% always) and false (51% and up). So, still against you...) So, let's examine again: if you're right, there is zero (no value gained) and if you're wrong it cannot be gained by the rules of the game, thus, still zero [0].
To me, this doesn't seem mathematically sound to pick the option where you'll lose either way, unless it's what you want (so why are you still reading?!!?).
So, we pick a different hand - theism. Ah, now this is much different. Here, if we're wrong, we also receive a value of zero [0]. But, if we're right... the value ceases to be zero and retains a definition of a value that is not negative or zero!
I don't think I need to explain this any further:
Atheism = 0% value, mathematically. Therefore always zero (<--- I don't like this option, personally).
Theism = 1:2, or, 50%. (So, I could still be wrong and receive zero, but at least now, I could be right and receive something *more! I like this game!)
I'm not going to go into what religion to pick, and overall, I'd suggest agnosticism before one moves into any religion. But I highly suggest avoiding atheism as it's not mathematically sound; IE, you're not gaining anything. The risk of being nothing or experiencing nothing will always be full, 1:1 or simply 100%.
Finally, I'd also like to add this: The Law of Conservation of Energy. Did you know your brain produces electrical charges? Did you also know that your intestines and digestive tract produce chemical reactions? At any time, did you know you're in a state of potential or kinetic energy?
I hope everyone has a good day! Keep an open mind, for both sides! And for the love of (insert non-belief/belief here), tell me what you think!
Apologies for all spelling errors and typos.
|
