If god(s) are just algebraic "X"s standing for I don't know as the above Hippocrates of Cos(460 B.C.), then god(s) were first every natural thing that science didn't touch such as snakes, the wind, the stars and so on(even human consciousness). As mathematics and science progressed, there was a constant moving of these god(s) further and further away from human ability to comprehend. Clearly, those who wanted to beleive in god(s) didn't want to question these god(s) existence. These god(s) were clearly used for social political control.(I need to insert any number of quotes about the inventing of gods and hell for social control here; it's in my "gospel of truth" which starts this blog)
Anyways, these god(s) were moved to places where the then mathematics and science could not get to them; first to the heavens(in the Bible, the god is always from 'on high'), then to infinity, and now to extra dimensions; and of course, the excuse for god(s) existence is always ignorance.(I need to insert the corintians quote here that I always get from christians). The thing is that in the 1800s, George Cantor showed that there's always an infinity larger than a given infinity; so, which size infinity is your god?
Now, the effort to move god to impossible to comprehend heights goes in two directions. One is infinity and that of being everything; the universe is god; but, we all know that this all leads to contradictions. The other way leads to fewer and fewer properties. What does 'no properties' mean? That's right, it means non-existence.
------------------------------------------------the above is a redo of what I wrote below; i think I'll keep the below stuff for now--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And oh yes, 'god' is whatever it needs to be to
not be disproved; first the heavens(see the old testament for all kinds of 'from
above' references), then infinity, and then some higher dimensions.
To avoid the endless contradictions of an infinity all knowing god, more and more properties are taken away . . . till he's this big everything . . . nothing; that's right once this conception of god is wittled away to avoid being able to actually see this guy, he's left with no properties at all; what equals zero properties? That's right, non-existence!
To avoid the endless contradictions of an infinity all knowing god, more and more properties are taken away . . . till he's this big everything . . . nothing; that's right once this conception of god is wittled away to avoid being able to actually see this guy, he's left with no properties at all; what equals zero properties? That's right, non-existence!
I'd like to further note that Kurt Godel published around 1931 his inconsistency/incompleteness theorems. He said a consistent finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinit set of theorems. You can go ahead and put more axioms in to prove ever more theorems, but this process cannot ever finish(today, mathematicians rightfully so do not consider this a problem; more like a reason for joy; mathematical adventure will never end!). On the other hand, an inconsistent set of axioms can prove an infinity of theorems? If you look at the quote about god being put in place of everything considered mysterious, historicaly, it's clear that God is an algebraic X standing for "I don't know" or even "I don't want to know". God is the vague inconsistent concept that proves everything without explaining anything.
- I've found empiracle proof of my logical disproof of the existence of god. Logical proof is like theory. Once you have theory, you'd like to see examples of it. I relate this in terms of what Jacob Bronowski says in his "Science and Human Values" in my Greeek Astronomy write-up. Here, like Shakespears dagger(is this a dagger I hold in my hand? Let's test it!), I've found a most remarkable test for my theory - In Philo no less!
ReplyDeletePhilo I explain in my Gospel of Truth. In Warmington, E.H., translation, "Philo in Ten Volumes, Supplement 1, Questions and Answers on Genesis, Book 4 page 274", Philo criticizes Moses for giving characteristics to God . . . "he(Moses) says that the Deity, in the likeness of a beautiful human form, is believed to have appeared many times; (in this) not diverging from the belief of a polytheist(Homer). His(Homer) verses are as follows: ' the gods in the likeness of strangers from other lands . . . go about unknown, seeing and beholding the many enmities of men, their lawlessness and also their good laws.'
Further, Philo objects to a story in Genesis(chapter 18), where God and two men eat. Philo doesn't accept this because then God would have to defecate. Quoting Philo, "God has no need for food . . . he who consumes food must first of all experience need . . . so we must turn to Allegory"(analogy/poetry, and ultimately midrashing of the old testament; see my Gospel of Truth) - Philo, Noah's work as a Planter, chapters 8-9
There's more, but this is good enough!
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/ancimed.html
ReplyDeleteHippocrates On Ancient Medicine
So that the first inventors, pursuing their investigations properly, and by a suitable train of reasoning, according to the nature of man, made their discoveries, and thought the Art worthy of being ascribed to a god, as is the established belief.
ReplyDelete- kind of a vague statement of why people believe in god.
- Statement of scientific method - "It is difficult, seeing that there is no such accuracy in the Art, to hit always upon what is most expedient, and yet many cases occur in medicine which would require this accuracy, as we shall explain. But on that account, I say, we ought not to reject the ancient Art, as if it were not, and had not been properly founded, because it did not attain accuracy in all things, but rather, since it is capable of reaching to the greatest exactitude by reasoning, to receive it and admire its discoveries, made from a state of great ignorance, and as having been well and properly made, and not from chance."
The above is in part 12, the below is part 11,
ReplyDelete"But let us inquire what are the causes of these things which happened to them."
- Part 9 - "For one must aim at attaining a certain measure, and yet this measure admits neither weight nor calculation of any kind, by which it may be accurately determined, unless it be the sensation of the body; wherefore it is a task to learn this accurately, so as not to commit small blunders either on the one side or the other, and in fact I would give great praise to the physician whose mistakes are small, for perfect accuracy is seldom to be seen, since many physicians seem to me to be in the same plight as bad pilots, who, if they commit mistakes while conducting the ship in a calm do not expose themselves, but when a storm and violent hurricane overtake them, they then, from their ignorance and mistakes, are discovered to be what they are, by all men, namely, in losing their ship. And thus bad and commonplace physicians, when they treat men who have no serious illness, in which case one may commit great mistakes without producing any formidable mischief (and such complaints occur much more frequently to men than dangerous ones): under these circumstances, when they commit mistakes, they do not expose themselves to ordinary men; but when they fall in with a great, a strong, and a dangerous disease, then their mistakes and want of skill are made apparent to all. Their punishment is not far off, but is swift in overtaking both the one and the other."
Hippocrates of Kos - "On the Sacred Disease" - http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html
ReplyDelete- "It is thus with regard to the disease called Sacred: it appears to me to be nowise more divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause from the originates like other affections. Men regard its nature and cause as divine from ignorance and wonder, because it is not at all like to other diseases. And this notion of its divinity is kept up by their inability to comprehend it, . . . But if it is reckoned divine because it is wonderful, instead of one there are many diseases which would be sacred;"
"They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then, using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the disease is sacred, adding suitable reasons for this opinion, they have instituted a mode of treatment which is safe for themselves, namely, by applying purifications and incantations," . . . And they forbid to have a black robe, because black is expressive of death; and to sleep on a goat's skin, or to wear it, and to put one foot upon another, or one hand upon another; for all these things are held to be hindrances to the cure. All these they enjoin with reference to its divinity, as if possessed of more knowledge, and announcing beforehand other causes so that if the person should recover, theirs would be the honor and credit; and if he should die, they would have a certain defense, as if the gods, and not they, were to blame," . . . But I am of opinion that (if this were true) none of the Libyans, who live in the interior, would be free from this disease, since they all sleep on goats' skins, and live upon goats' flesh; neither have they couch, robe, nor shoe that is not made of goat's skin, for they have no other herds but goats and oxen. But if these things, when administered in food, aggravate the disease, and if it be cured by abstinence from them, godhead is not the cause at all; nor will purifications be of any avail, but it is the food which is beneficial and prejudicial, and the influence of the divinity vanishes."
Well, I've never seen a clearer Greek statement of Mankind first perceiving of science away from God(s) than Hippocrates of Kos.
The Hippocrates of Kos quote appears to me a summary of what he says in his "On the Sacred Disease."
ReplyDelete