Hence the infinity analogy. You need not count to infinity to know that whatever number you come up with, you can simply add 1 to it, indefinitely.
The same reasoning is employed in every facet of life. People can discern these principles simply because the mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.
I don't see what this has to do with wether or not duality exists. Well done, you know the ontological argument. Maximal greatness can only be given to God. Anything else can always become more great.
My original point was that organized religions are man made and are all relativley similair because as man has made the religions, he has common themes which mankind likes to see in their belief about the afterlife.
However, we seem to have diverged to proving duality in order to prove this, so let us continue.
Thinking up to infinity may prove the mind has the ability to think abstractly, but it doesn't mean that we have duality, and it certainly doesnt mean that a God created us and that the soul side of the duality goes to heaven.
There is the physical world and there is the ideal world - both existing as indispensable parts of the same reality.
And if one can observe this duality in nature, then there is no reason for it not to exist within one's self.
Do you now get it?
Platos theory of forms then?
Do I observe this in nature? When I see a beautiful sunset, do I think to myself, oh, it could be more beautiful in the ideal world. Maybe. But that doesn't guarantee the other world really exists, just because I can imagine it.
I find Kant far more appealing than Anslem and Descartes, who you obviously seem to follow.
I will believe in God when we find some proof. I believe that the mind can think abstractly because the human mind has come up with abstract thoughts all the time, which is proof enough to me.
Duality, as in a body and mind division, cannot be proved, but you can see an metaphysical divison between them which is obvious through the fact that we can think abstractly, and above our basic instincts.
But believing that this duality came from God is irrational.
Believing in God is a priori, and any argument for his existence is based on the unquestioned truth that he exists (or his existence in neccessary for duality). If you do not take it as a given truth that he exists, then you find that logic goes out of the window.
Pure maths has a posteriori, because it has logic to it, and it is clear how the mathmatician got from each step to the next, even if the maths itself is impossible. The fundamental belief in God doesn't have any proof, and the posteriori arguments for his existence can only be based on the priori that he exists in the first place.
So, it is either all true or all fabrication. You do not give any room for the possibility of it being somewhere in the middle? You do not give any room for the possibility of truth existing in allegorical form - through the subjective eyes of the observer? You do not give room for the possibility of some fundamental knowledge wrapped in a tale that is meant to entertain as well as teach?
So you are admitting that religion is simply a lie, wrapped around the truth? Well wont this truth be universal, and so all religions are similiar, but with an outer coating of bollocks?
Only sometime ago, people thought that the trojan war, or king arthur's camelot was all myth. Now, there are archeaological evidence to support the notion that these tales were based on some factual person, place or event - minus the obvious garnishing that is inevitable in any oral tradition.
Yes, but this doesnt prove that religions are all similiar because man likes to make up something which is attractive to him, and round the world, similair themes such as eternal life after death, and a loving creator, are universally attractive.
Likely and unlikely would depend on the logic to be found in its proof.
Yes, and I have yet to be convinced of a logical argument by any of the great philiosophers as to Gods existence.
Cabbage is good for you.
Indeed it is.
E=mc^2 is a scientific statement of universal duality.
So is the wave-particle theory of light.
So is the interaction between the cosmological tendencies of gravity and lambda.
So is the theoretical concept of a space-time singularity.
So is the matter-anti matter creation-annihilation.
So is the relationship of determinism and chaos.
So is the conservation of matter, energy and momentum.
And so on, and on, and on.....
I don't have a further education in maths or physics, but I do have a small amount of further education in philiosophy. As a result, you've lost me. Humour me, and tell me how science, with all its logic and proof, can prove the priori that Gods existence is a given.
