|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted June 17, 2008 10:28 AM |
|
|
@The Death's response to TA's article:
Quote:
Quote:
Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?
I don't know if this is 'attractive'. For most people, being greedy & evil is much more attractive. Trust me on that matter, 'good' people are rare, rare...
You are confusing belief in god with christianity/being a good person 
Nothing to do with the ten commandments or anything like that. In ancient times people believed in a creator long before Jesus was a sparkle in the Virgin Mary's eye
Quote:
Quote:
"Where did the universe come from?" with the equivalent puzzle "Where did God come from?"
I already stated that God created time, and most recent articles emphasize that as well (that I suppose he wrote to do his research), is this guy ignorant or what?
Saying god created time says nothing about where god came from.
Saying god always existed is just an assumption on your behalf and doesn't answer anything, as he put it rather nicely.
You could just as easily answer "the universe has always existed" to the creationist's argument. Neither is a satisfactory answer based on anything.
Quote:
Quote:
Not withstanding creationist propaganda, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, including our DNA, the fossil record, the distribution of life on earth, and our own anatomy and physiology (such as the goose bumps that try to fluff up long-vanished fur).
Evidence doesn't explain anything at all. What you formulate then, based on it, is 'explaining evolution'. Formulations are not reliable, especially in science (see below on "EDIT" or my previous posts).. they can be used in areas that science agrees on, no problem, but extending them to areas that by definition have different views will only make the argument unreliable.
What do you mean?
In other words, nothing is right? Please clarify. Also this doesn't really respond to what he said.
Quote:
E.g: "98% of Monkey DNA is in humans!!! That means we evolved from them, obviously. Say that I am right, that you have the same reason and rational thoughts, and that will make it true!" type of discussions.
this is just immature 
Quote:
Quote:
For many people the human soul feels like a divine spark within us.
Since this guy does not (he talks about for many people) then how is he supposed to know?
...?
Are you saying that the statement "many people believe in the soul" is wrong? This is just common knowledge...
Quote:
Quote:
But neuroscience has shown that our intelligence and emotions consist of intricate patterns of activity in the trillions of connections in our brain.
That's like attributing it to God. You see a lot of neurons, you can't understand EXACTLY what each one is gonna do, but you attribute that to them because 'they seem active'...
A nuclear bomb can cause a chain reaction, but that doesn't mean that the 'reaction' happens by itself 
Not really.
It has been proven that our thoughts come from out brain. I hope you do not refute this.
Quote:
Besides, why do things always need to have an explanation?
This is the basis of science, progress, technology, culture and humanity itself.
Quote:
Not to mention that the monkey then suggests that, even though the definition of your existence implies a far greater wisdom than the monkey would ever have, it thinks that whatever you 'advise' it to do must be explainable to the monkey's own corrupted mind/brain?
So we are supposed to follow gods whim, our questions unanswered, like mindless slaves?
This thought sickens me almost as much as god asking us to "worship him"
Quote:
But even here, relabeling the problem with the word "soul" adds nothing to our understanding.
This guy just speaks out too much for others. 'Our' is a pretty dangerous statement, it implies that all people have the same reasoning. Can a monkey agree with a cat? Especially on what is 'understandable' and what is not?
Quote:
But then, if we are all made of just molecules, how can 'molecules' understand 'molecules'?
You want me to explain this?
How can I explain anything?
With mathematics?
Sure in mathematics you can explain things etc
What is an explanation? Something which people agree on?
You and I will never agree.
Quote:
Experiments can't explain anything.
...
question mark
this is very hypocritical The Death, sitting at your computer typing
Quote:
I think this guy meant: people that call themselves neuroscientists make formulations and draw conclusions on why THEY THINK that our senses evolved (if they did), etc.. Not only that, are those above authorities that demand unquestionable submission? Much like: "Research has shown that..." which is, obviously, demanding that authority the so-called Churches do/did? Obviously since then, whoever disagrees with it is called a paranoid/delusional/fool or whatever.
Research is based on facts.
The church is based on children
Quote:
Monkey #1: Hey I think that... blablah
Monkey #2: Yeah, it sounds pretty 'sound' and is quite logical, it's surely the explanation, it must be, since it's the only one we can find logical, reasonable and rational.. heck it must be THAT WAY!!
Bear: You two must be joking, right?
Human: Oh boy...
I'm not pointing any fingers, why I have substituted those with 'monkeys' is not to be confused with a silly insult (i hope you already know I'm not that type of guy). It was only meant that popularity of agreement does not make one the truth and only rational explanation. But popularity can INDEED grant unquestionable submission to an authority. Which is how science has been twisted to political levels these days...
In pure science people do not go unquestioned unless they have no evidence or reason to contradict a current theory.
If they do, it will be revised. You seem to blank out the fact that science is based on evidence, fact and observation.
Quote:
Quote:
It is true that science in the narrow sense cannot show us what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals to God.
I think this guy does not even know what he is saying. By the definition (from God obviously since he talks about Him) we are not to judge things, God is.. So, if you take God (as this guy did) in a discussion, how can you say that we can judge whether God can be 'appealing' to say what is right and what is wrong. I mean, if you are going to take an idea into a discussion (God in this case, regardless of whether it's true or not) you should at least take it's definitions into account.
Besides, is this guy, or the popularity, supposed to be the 'judges' of what is appealing and what is not? Sure he can go on, pages of endless text telling that what he does not agree with, or what he thinks is not reasonable, must not be for others either.
I can't really decipher your point from that statement, but I will say that you are quoting out of context.
He is saying that you can't determine morals from science, nor from god, which he goes onto explain below. If you quote the first part without the second it does not make sense, but this is quoting out of context.
I don't see any reason to argue over definitions here.
Also, the majority has no effect on science.
Remember a certain Galileo.
Quote:
I also remember he once said that we are incapable of visualizing four dimensional worlds or something. That's a pretty big assumption, obviously he drew it from his own experiences (he can't), I can imagine quaternions (I use them at 3D programming) somewhat, only the first quadrant (actually, it is not called a quadrant, as it has much more dimensions, but I hope you get what I mean about it).
Four dimensional space time is different to the four spacial dimension.
But even if he had replaced "we" with "I" the message would be exactly the same so you are nitpicking something very unimportant which perhaps detracts from the overall message.
Quote:
I suppose this guy did not have much experience with people that disagree with him, or he must have surely ignored them when he took into account the "our understanding" or "our reason" or "our something".. It's people like this guy that demand authority, telling others how they should think, and what is rational.
Well, it's a piece that presents an argument lol.
Persuasive arguments aren't supposed to have a little disclaimer saying "either that or I'm completely wrong because I don't know everything etc"
It doesn't really say anything about his character, rather the style of the piece. I think that you are being very derogative towards his character because you disagree with the opinion he is presenting
When someone writes a newspaper editorial on which football team is the best or whether there should be euthanasia, they aren't demanding authority, they are presenting their opinion. Chill out.
Quote:
Quote:
Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral?
Why does this guy deem some acts moral and others immoral?
Does it matter? Again, quote out of context and you again miss the point of the statement which is asking why God should have moral authority over us which is explained below this quote. quotes out of context make no sense. He doesn't pretend to have a moral authority so your question was pointless.
Quote:
Quote:
If he had no reason but divine whim, why should we take his commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
I assume this guy speaks about the God in the Bible, right? Then he should know at least, God is something with far greater wisdom than him (is is a surprise? I mean, how can someone possibly exist with wisdom greater than ours??!? see where pride leads to?). So why can he even think, again assuming the God in the Bible (since that's what he's speaking about I guess) that he can 'reason' and act as the judge much like God?
Of course, I do not know this person and have not even read the whole article, but there is no mention of the Bible anywhere, nor of Christianity or religion in general.
And I'm certain that not once does he ever present his opinion on what is wrong or right or pretend to be a judge or whatever.
Are we reading the same article???
Take for example the Christian God (although he does not speak specifically about him).
What does he think is morally right or wrong?
An example would be one of the 10 commandments, say.
eg. Thou shalt not make false idols.
Doesn't really matter what it is.
But think about when god first created the world. Why did he decide that this was wrong?
Either:
a) he just decided and that's that.
or
b) there is a good reason and god is infinitely wise so of course he knows this, and that's why he said it. I believe this is kind of what you said "God is something with far greater wisdom than him" so there must have been a good reason for this rule, in which case there must be a separate idea of "right and wrong" to which even god adheres.
In which case, the author proposes, why don't we just adhere to these directly instead of going through god?
I don't think you adressed this point at all.
Quote:
Quote:
Those reasons are not to be found in empirical science, but they are to be found in the nature of rationality as it is exercised by any intelligent social species.
WARNING: pride is indeed dangerous and it's possibly why it's called a sin (too much pride will make you ignorant and selfish).
Dude... Intelligence is quantifiable and defined. Social is quantifiable and defined.
We are intelligent. We are social.
Dolphins are intelligent. They are not so social.
He's not patting the human race on the back or anything it's just a statement of fact......................chill out
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Quote:
Yes our thoughts are in our brain, not exactly an outlandish statement
The same as the Universe had no beginning and a 'Big Bang' was a fairy-tale back in 1950s? That's how sure this guy is, right?
The Big Bang wasn't even thought of in the 1950s because there was no evidence found to suggest it. There would be no reason to believe in it.
There is evidence which proves that thoughts are in our brain. I don't feel that I need to show this evidence to you as you are perfectly capable of finding it yourself, but you "don't like evidence" or something
Quote:
The guy in the article obviously used 90% science and not philosophy even though he wanted to delude the reader to think that his arguments are philosophical (which would have been fine). He used biology, for example, or neuroscience. If these things are false (because they change) how can you use them to determine that someone else, especially on critical subjects such as morality, is wrong? If you know they are most certainly false at the moment? How can you call whatever you think disagrees with them a fairy-tale for example?
whoa whoa whoa whoa hold on here.....
where in this article is the existence of god even mentioned????
I knew you'd missed some things but I didn't think you missed the point of the article altogether! 
damn.... 
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 17, 2008 11:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, the majority has no effect on science.
Remember a certain Galileo.
“I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church”
Galileo Galilei, after trial by the inquisition.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 17, 2008 11:55 AM |
|
Edited by Galev at 13:22, 17 Jun 2008.
|
I see you are happily cuding on that article. I only would like to react to a minor crumb:
Quote:
He was talking about the traditional people, time when there were no alternative hypothesis for God. You are speaking of different things... As a sidenote I am amazed at this fantasy world division pf humans where there are evil people and good people. Most people are something in between, and there is a term for it – it is human. Seriously.
I think the world is not black and white. But I believe that gray is made from black and white dots.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:53, 17 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
You are confusing belief in god with christianity/being a good person
Religion has certain morals... and the article said those are/were 'appealing' (in fact, the whole religion).
Quote:
Saying god created time says nothing about where god came from.
Take it like this. Let's assume, for example, that the Bible is true. Then, saying God created time and blabla, is the truth. Actually, isn't that what we are interested in? The truth? I hope you truly are not interested in understanding what was before God or the Big Bang (if you don't believe in God).
Why not? Well it's a simple rule really. Give a monkey a test on relativity, see how it turns out. If the monkey claims that relativity is real, then it speaks the truth, even if it will NEVER be able to understand that.
Now take humans. Give a human a test on imagining/understanding a non-reproducible 9D world WITHOUT time, and see how it turns out. You want to understand what was before the Big Bang (or God)?? Then go ahead and imagine a world without time. Paradoxal? Surely you don't expect us to understand something which we have never ever experienced, but using that argument against it and implying that because of this, it must not exist, is truly foolish. It's again, like claiming the relativity doesn't exist because monkeys can't understand it.
Quote:
You could just as easily answer "the universe has always existed" to the creationist's argument. Neither is a satisfactory answer based on anything.
Well this was sort of my point on the whole article. What does 'satisfactory' mean? To those who feel good by acknowledging the truth or THE POSSIBILITY of such, but also being smart enough to realize that they will not be able to understand, then it's satisfactory. To those that think truth needs to be understandable or else it's false, it may not be.
Besides, "useless" can't apply to truth or knowledge, it can only apply to reproducible practice. Some people feel that acknowledging their limitations and what they consider, a possibility (a world without time, be it with God or not) is enlightening, not on the scale of 'knowledge', but of getting rid of their pride in their abilities to understand the very fabric of the world (beyond the Universe, if we are talking about parallel possible universes!).
Quote:
What do you mean?
In other words, nothing is right? Please clarify. Also this doesn't really respond to what he said.
Quote:
Quote:
E.g: "98% of Monkey DNA is in humans!!! That means we evolved from them, obviously. Say that I am right, that you have the same reason and rational thoughts, and that will make it true!" type of discussions.
this is just immature
I don't know how idealist you are, but I've seen far too many people act like that.
Seriously though, what I wanted to express is that scientists most often use the phrases like "evidence shows that" as implying absolute and certain formulations COMING FROM THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. Of course, you will argue it's just a matter of speech, like Minion did. Note however that my point was that the humans make the formulations, based on those evidences. The more correctly put phrase would be "From the evidence, I formulate that ..." -- and again, the *I* is important, this guy used only *we*.
Quote:
...?
Are you saying that the statement "many people believe in the soul" is wrong? This is just common knowledge...
NOPE.
I am saying: "many people believe in the soul", yes common knowledge.
But then, this guy (which I assume doesn't or else he would've used a more appropiate phrase) gets to 'analyze' that. It's not like he has experienced it, yes it's easy to make assumptions and analyze from a 'safe distance' where you haven't even been.
Quote:
Not really.
It has been proven that our thoughts come from out brain.
I don't know actually what that means, and I think you did not get what I meant.
If you say "the explosion comes from the Uranium atoms" in a nuclear fission subject, for me it would be wrong. Perhaps I refute it in this way. I would say, that the Uranium is only a 'fuel' -- the initial neutron that causes the explosion is the "thought" that matters, not the 'fuel'.
So actually, if you take it that way, yes I don't think that the explosion comes from the fuel, that is only a 'translation layer' so to speak.
Quote:
This is the basis of science, progress, technology, culture and humanity itself.
Interesting. I think someone already said that science is not the appropiate tool to discuss things on the 'larger scale'. I could be wrong, but what makes this basis so 'divine' that you take for granted IN ABSOLUTELY ALL AREAS OF EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION? Even for those that discuss things like 'a world without time' (which is not testable) or other formulations based on our knowledge about mathematics (pure logic), for example, not our five gods (senses) that 'detect' evidence.
Quote:
So we are supposed to follow gods whim, our questions unanswered, like mindless slaves?
As a child, do you follow what your mom says like a mindless slave, or do you put your hand in fire and die, or put your mouth in the exhaust of a car, or anything else?
Quote:
This thought sickens me almost as much as god asking us to "worship him"
Actually, it may sicken some of us (but remember one thing: God is not a tyrant, at least if you worship that god and not your own God, I don't say that'll be wrong!).
Then again, what sickens me is humans thinking that they can understand everything. This is the pride I was talking about because you see, people that have it think that "whatever we can't comprehend, is paradoxal and is foolish, it does not exist". If you start a discussion about the God in the Bible or whatever, you need to also follow what definitions it has. Otherwise I could as well start with things that are completely outside the definition of the scientific method and then call those science, that will only lead to confusion (again I apologize if in the past i have made errors about the scientific method).
The definition implies that we need help from God, because our minds are fragile. It's not a "bow to your master" thing, it's more like admitting your own limitations -- and not dismissing anything outside your understanding is the first step to trust/faith. Just like a child trusts his/her mother on things he/she does not understand, or at least how a child should trust the mother (just as some children are problematic, if you know what I mean). How would a mother feel if you didn't trust her and needed 'proof' that fire is bad for you? How would that mother feel if every one of his children (suppose she has a lot of them) asked the same thing, after countless years? (not to mention, Jesus is an example). She has no duty to forgive, but she does out of love, even if the child is foolish and she knows it too well (unfortunately in the child's fragile mind, he thinks he knows everything there is to know, and everything he can't grasp is simply a stupid 'mother's' precaution if you know what I mean).
Quote:
You want me to explain this?
How can I explain anything?
With mathematics?
Sure in mathematics you can explain things etc
What is an explanation? Something which people agree on?
You and I will never agree.
I never asked you to explain anything, for the record.
But you know, acknowledging certain possibilities (even if you do not have faith/trust) is much better than calling something impossible just because you can't grasp the idea of it, even if our language called mathematics or philosophical arguments can think about it (I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about a world without time, that it does exist and it will 'always' (since there's no time) regardless of our ability to understand it).
Quote:
Quote:
Experiments can't explain anything.
...
question mark
this is very hypocritical The Death, sitting at your computer typing
Ok, see below on 'facts':
Quote:
Research is based on facts.
The church is based on children
Did you listen to what I said? There's no need for you to repeat this again. What I said was that the 'facts' tell us no explanation; we formulate what we see on the facts and take what we think is "the best shot" at the explanation (that will so-called 'explain' the facts). Then again, saying "God did it" is also an explanation, if you take it as such. Explanation is not a theory. A theory is based on a reproducible belief -- it makes predictions, like Corribus said. An explanation can be used outside this area. Explanations exist for things outside our testable labs. You may not take them as true, but then who does take science as true, when tomorrow it can change it's views? By that logic, science is never true
Quote:
In pure science people do not go unquestioned unless they have no evidence or reason to contradict a current theory.
If they do, it will be revised. You seem to blank out the fact that science is based on evidence, fact and observation.
Science? When did I say science facts? I said formulations.
It's one thing to be 'based on evidence', and another to be 'completely 100% evidence'. I'm talking about the formulations made around the evidence. What does evidence tell us? Even illusion is a possible explanation (even if you call it unlikely). See? Formulations can get any shape. The evidence is still there, but what we conclude from it is 'subjective' so to speak (in the sense that scientists take "their best shot" at it, i.e what they think is the most probable explanation).
Quote:
I can't really decipher your point from that statement, but I will say that you are quoting out of context.
He is saying that you can't determine morals from science, nor from god, which he goes onto explain below.
When did I say that he used science to determine morals?
I was talking about the thing when he uses words like 'satisfactory', 'logic', 'rational' or whatever else. Also you can determine morals from God, if you follow the Bible -- sure you can say they are not satisfactory, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T do it, only that you DON'T want to
Quote:
Also, the majority has no effect on science.
Remember a certain Galileo.
Actually, it does, not on science itself, but on it's "political" version. And besides I was not talking about science, but about what one considers 'logic' or 'satisfactory' as if we all have the same goals. THAT is the thing I was referring to.
Quote:
But even if he had replaced "we" with "I" the message would be exactly the same so you are nitpicking something very unimportant which perhaps detracts from the overall message.
I don't know, maybe for you and me, it makes no difference. For others however, it does. When the guy says "we don't find such a thing satisfactory" or at least implies it (I know he didn't say that), then he speaks on behalf of everyone, as if every single human has the same goals as him. It's like saying "we find sleep satisfactory", but not all humans sleep (yeah, can you believe it?).. or born blind people that DON'T EVEN SEE the black color (or so they claim). Difficult to imagine, huh?
Quote:
Well, it's a piece that presents an argument lol.
Persuasive arguments aren't supposed to have a little disclaimer saying "either that or I'm completely wrong because I don't know everything etc"
Nonono, I did not say the guy is WRONG because he has certain assumptions. I said the guy takes his assumptions upon everybody, THAT is the 'wrong argument' he uses to explain why the belief is obsolete. If we would all think like him, it would STILL however not necessarily imply truth -- for truth, again, is not measured by popularity.
Heck, we might as well be in a Matrix. Seriously, it doesn't matter whether you think this information is completely useless, and has no satisfactory lead -- some people think otherwise, and since this, although useless from your point of view, is truth (no matter if it's useless) some people feel this satisfactory. It's not like all agree on what is useful and what is not needed, some people like to think about things and acknowledge the truth (or POSSIBLE TRUTH, I'm not saying that it's necessarily the truth), even if others keep claiming it's completely useless from their point of view.
This is why I picked up on this guy. Trust me, there is no personal attack, and I hope you already know I am not that kind of guy
Quote:
It doesn't really say anything about his character, rather the style of the piece. I think that you are being very derogative towards his character because you disagree with the opinion he is presenting
Again I think I repeat myself again. I was commenting on his article. Yes I have used 'this guy' and what not.. how was I supposed to address him every time? In this article, this guy says that... would be far too long and I am not writing this with my mind instantly, you know, I have to type too
Quote:
When someone writes a newspaper editorial on which football team is the best or whether there should be euthanasia, they aren't demanding authority, they are presenting their opinion.
What concerns me however, is when this guy that wrote the editorial then says "we think team XX does not prove worthy, it is illogical to assume otherwise" when he knows too well that people disagree with him, yet he still ignores that.
Quote:
b) there is a good reason and god is infinitely wise so of course he knows this, and that's why he said it. I believe this is kind of what you said "God is something with far greater wisdom than him" so there must have been a good reason for this rule, in which case there must be a separate idea of "right and wrong" to which even god adheres.
Of course, if you are to take down a "suppose X exists" or "suppose X is true", then you are implicitly also supposing that whatever it's definitions are, you take them as true. If we are to doubt God's morals, but still supposing He exists, we are contradicting the definition. If you don't think He is true, it's no problem, but using part of definitions as arguments against the entire system leads nowhere and can't really stand up a "why is that obsolete" question's answer.
Quote:
In which case, the author proposes, why don't we just adhere to these directly instead of going through god?
Because, if you assume God exists (as this guy is) you must follow the definitions.
Quote:
Dude... Intelligence is quantifiable and defined. Social is quantifiable and defined.
I don't know whether intelligence is quantifiable the way you think it is. I don't know whether it is defined the way you think it is. We are intelligent and social because we 'maximize our profits'.. is that what intelligence is about?
I think most serial criminals are intelligent, and quite social (they know how to hide). But some even acknowledge that they do not do it to satisfy themselves, to maximize their profits, but for whatever reasons...
What makes us intelligent? The fact that we acknowledge it? Or the fact that we turn the world in our physical favor? I see some people are not happy with that, and I wouldn't call them unintelligent, if you know what I mean
Quote:
The Big Bang wasn't even thought of in the 1950s because there was no evidence found to suggest it. There would be no reason to believe in it.
No, but there were plenty of ideas about a beginning of the Universe (which the "sophisticates" of that era treated as fairy tales).
so it seems fairy tales come true after all... are we going to learn from history mistakes or are we not? 
Quote:
whoa whoa whoa whoa hold on here.....
where in this article is the existence of god even mentioned????
Dude, I have been misunderstood totally...
Did I even say the existence of God? I only took the 'assumption' that he talks about the God in the Bible. He doesn't say anything about the existence, but about the belief and why is it obsolete? Because this guy uses his definitions of what is satisfactory, what is logical, what is useful, what is not needed, and what is intelligent/rational -- not to mention, rationality is not dependent on logic; some illogical things can be rational.
I don't truly know how this guy has so much faith in his own capacity to understand, so much that he imposes this assumption on others. But that is beside the point. I do know however, that imagination is more important than knowledge
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 17, 2008 04:38 PM |
|
|
@TA
Quote:
The Big Bang wasn't even thought of in the 1950s because there was no evidence found to suggest it. There would be no reason to believe in it.
Actually, Universal expansion was observed in 1929 by Edwin Hubble. (Well, this was when the redshift was first correlated to galaxy distance from Earth - there were hypotheses about an expanding universe before 1929, although the actual phrase "Big Bang" didn't come about until later).
E.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 01:38 PM |
|
|
*breathes in*
@ The Death
Quote:
Religion has certain morals... and the article said those are/were 'appealing' (in fact, the whole religion).
1. He is talking about belief in god, not religion. Related, but separate.
2. Different use of the word "appealing". He uses it as a verb not as the adjective.
6. to ask for aid, support, mercy, sympathy, or the like; make an earnest entreaty: The college appealed to its alumni for funds.
Quote:
Take it like this. Let's assume, for example, that the Bible is true. Then, saying God created time and blabla, is the truth. Actually, isn't that what we are interested in? The truth? I hope you truly are not interested in understanding what was before God or the Big Bang (if you don't believe in God).
I disagree. If every action must have a prior mover, then so must god.
Who said god created time anyway? Is it in the bible? Or does it just fit nicely? (genuine question there aren't many in this thread)
Quote:
Seriously though, what I wanted to express is that scientists most often use the phrases like "evidence shows that" as implying absolute and certain formulations COMING FROM THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. Of course, you will argue it's just a matter of speech, like Minion did. Note however that my point was that the humans make the formulations, based on those evidences. The more correctly put phrase would be "From the evidence, I formulate that ..." -- and again, the *I* is important, this guy used only *we*.
The actions of some do not reflect the actions of everyone, just has been stated many times in this thread in defence of fellow religious people.
Quote:
Quote:
...?
Are you saying that the statement "many people believe in the soul" is wrong? This is just common knowledge...
NOPE.
I am saying: "many people believe in the soul", yes common knowledge.
But then, this guy (which I assume doesn't or else he would've used a more appropiate phrase) gets to 'analyze' that. It's not like he has experienced it, yes it's easy to make assumptions and analyze from a 'safe distance' where you haven't even been.
I still don't understand your criticism.
Hasn't experienced what?
Quote:
Quote:
So we are supposed to follow gods whim, our questions unanswered, like mindless slaves?
As a child, do you follow what your mom says like a mindless slave, or do you put your hand in fire and die, or put your mouth in the exhaust of a car, or anything else?
We follow like mindless slaves (usually, sometimes we learn from out mistakes but I think that might be drawing the analogy out further than you intended )
but that doesn't necessarily mean that I want this.
Quote:
Then again, what sickens me is humans thinking that they can understand everything. This is the pride I was talking about because you see, people that have it think that "whatever we can't comprehend, is paradoxal and is foolish, it does not exist". If you start a discussion about the God in the Bible or whatever, you need to also follow what definitions it has. Otherwise I could as well start with things that are completely outside the definition of the scientific method and then call those science, that will only lead to confusion (again I apologize if in the past i have made errors about the scientific method).
Again you talk about existence. We are discussing belief and it's reasons/motives/uses.
This guy does not even take a stance on whether God exists, only on the belief in god (I know you were not referring specifically to him I was using him as an example and a reference to the original topic of this discussion)
Quote:
The definition implies that we need help from God, because our minds are fragile. It's not a "bow to your master" thing, it's more like admitting your own limitations -- and not dismissing anything outside your understanding is the first step to trust/faith.
In what aspect do we need help?
The only answer I would really be inclined to agree with to this question is, morally. Which is a topic already under discussion, and god's role in this is already under question below.
Quote:
I never asked you to explain anything, for the record.
You asked how molecules can understand other molecules and my answer to that would be both very long winded, and involve an explanation.
Quote:
But you know, acknowledging certain possibilities (even if you do not have faith/trust) is much better than calling something impossible just because you can't grasp the idea of it
Again. Existence and belief are very different things.
Neither this person, nor I, call god impossible. By definition he is not (as the definition is very well... refined )
Quote:
Did you listen to what I said? There's no need for you to repeat this again. What I said was that the 'facts' tell us no explanation; we formulate what we see on the facts and take what we think is "the best shot" at the explanation (that will so-called 'explain' the facts). Then again, saying "God did it" is also an explanation, if you take it as such. Explanation is not a theory. A theory is based on a reproducible belief -- it makes predictions, like Corribus said. An explanation can be used outside this area. Explanations exist for things outside our testable labs. You may not take them as true, but then who does take science as true, when tomorrow it can change it's views? By that logic, science is never true
If facts can't explain anything then how do we have technology?
Obviously it works, regardless of objective truth.
Quote:
Quote:
I can't really decipher your point from that statement, but I will say that you are quoting out of context.
He is saying that you can't determine morals from science, nor from god, which he goes onto explain below.
When did I say that he used science to determine morals?
hehe... I didn't say you did. I was simply repeating a statement of his:
You cannot use science to determine morals. This is his statement. I repeated it. Didn't have anything to do with you.
Quote:
I was talking about the thing when he uses words like 'satisfactory', 'logic', 'rational' or whatever else. Also you can determine morals from God, if you follow the Bible -- sure you can say they are not satisfactory, but that doesn't mean you CAN'T do it, only that you DON'T want to
You can also determine morals from a circus: never sniff a clowns flower. It is a sin.
Quote:
Quote:
When someone writes a newspaper editorial on which football team is the best or whether there should be euthanasia, they aren't demanding authority, they are presenting their opinion.
What concerns me however, is when this guy that wrote the editorial then says "we think team XX does not prove worthy, it is illogical to assume otherwise" when he knows too well that people disagree with him, yet he still ignores that.
Why does this concern you? It is called a persuasive piece. Statements like that are prolific.
I think it is illogical to support the Melbourne Demons football team
Quote:
Quote:
b) there is a good reason and god is infinitely wise so of course he knows this, and that's why he said it. I believe this is kind of what you said "God is something with far greater wisdom than him" so there must have been a good reason for this rule, in which case there must be a separate idea of "right and wrong" to which even god adheres.
Of course, if you are to take down a "suppose X exists" or "suppose X is true", then you are implicitly also supposing that whatever it's definitions are, you take them as true. If we are to doubt God's morals, but still supposing He exists, we are contradicting the definition. If you don't think He is true, it's no problem, but using part of definitions as arguments against the entire system leads nowhere and can't really stand up a "why is that obsolete" question's answer.
What partial definition am I using?
Even if god is all perfect and all knowing it makes no difference.
I was posing the question:
Is something (a) wrong because god says it is, or (b) does he say it is because it is wrong?
If it is a, then why does he say those things are wrong/right? He could just as easily in theory, say that murding children is right, which would be absurd.
If it is b, then god is morally redundant as we obviously do not need to know god to know right/wrong.
This is what he was saying, I believe.
Quote:
Quote:
In which case, the author proposes, why don't we just adhere to these directly instead of going through god?
Because, if you assume God exists (as this guy is) you must follow the definitions.
I might sound stupid but I don't know what you mean by that.
Quote:
Quote:
Intelligence is quantifiable and defined. Social is quantifiable and defined.
I don't know whether intelligence is quantifiable the way you think it is. I don't know whether it is defined the way you think it is. We are intelligent and social because we 'maximize our profits'.. is that what intelligence is about?
No, intelligence is a relative, descriptive, scientific term that does not so much offer a compliment but rather describes actions.
You confuse the intelligence of the human race/dolphins etc with the compliment of intelligence (relative to other humans) as in "man your son is really intelligent he does specialist mathematics " or whatever.
By definition, (fully functioning) humans are intelligent.
Quote:
Quote:
The Big Bang wasn't even thought of in the 1950s because there was no evidence found to suggest it. There would be no reason to believe in it.
No, but there were plenty of ideas about a beginning of the Universe (which the "sophisticates" of that era treated as fairy tales).
so it seems fairy tales come true after all... are we going to learn from history mistakes or are we not?
Yes but again there was no reason to believe in them until the evidence was observed.
Perhaps I will write more on my opinions on this below. Most likely not though because I'm so lazy.
Something to do with belief. It's all been said within this thread already though.
Quote:
Quote:
whoa whoa whoa whoa hold on here.....
where in this article is the existence of god even mentioned????
Dude, I have been misunderstood totally...
Did I even say the existence of God? I only took the 'assumption' that he talks about the God in the Bible. He doesn't say anything about the existence, but about the belief and why is it obsolete? Because this guy uses his definitions of what is satisfactory, what is logical, what is useful, what is not needed, and what is intelligent/rational -- not to mention, rationality is not dependent on logic; some illogical things can be rational.
I don't truly know how this guy has so much faith in his own capacity to understand, so much that he imposes this assumption on others. But that is beside the point. I do know however, that imagination is more important than knowledge
He is discussing why people believe in the first place, and why those reasons are now obselete.
If person a believes in god based on no evidence, I believe personally IMHO that this is just as logical as believing in pink prancing pony fairies.
There might be pink prancing pony fairies. It might be the objective truth. But I don't believe it because I think that I am better off believing in what follows the observable evidence because that's the best option I have, and it has worked well in the past (I say, typing in my computer)
*breathes out*
that's as much as I could get through for now.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, Universal expansion was observed in 1929 by Edwin Hubble. (Well, this was when the redshift was first correlated to galaxy distance from Earth - there were hypotheses about an expanding universe before 1929, although the actual phrase "Big Bang" didn't come about until later).
Oops. That's embarassing.
I just meant it as a generic phrase as before this observation. I've actually read that article I just mustn't pay very good attention to dates I never liked history lol.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 18, 2008 02:00 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:03, 18 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Who said god created time anyway? Is it in the bible?
Well in the article about the time of the Universe (with the Six day creation stuff), it underlines the important difference between "Day One" and "The first Day" -- Day one is absolute, it means it is where the absolute time begins (i.e =0).
Not only that, but even if you accept the Big Bang theory, all dimensions were created during the Big Bang (because matter & energy were tight infinitely into a 'point' which did not occupy space, and since time is associated with it, time as well (space-time)). All dimensions appeared thereafter, or at least, the FOUR dimensions that we know.
Quote:
I still don't understand your criticism.
Hasn't experienced what?
I criticize people that think war is easy or soldiers deserve to die, and those have never been to war. I criticize people that say colors suck when they have never experienced them (color-blind or blind people). It's easy to make the analogy
Quote:
We follow like mindless slaves (usually, sometimes we learn from out mistakes but I think that might be drawing the analogy out further than you intended )
Not at all, actually God wants us to learn from our mistakes, to 'mature' so to speak, otherwise He would've made us mindless robots (if you use that kind of logic) that always obey, etc. It's VERY similar to how a mother-child relationship works.
Quote:
but that doesn't necessarily mean that I want this.
No child wants to be treated like a child, and of course the mother tries her best to make the child learn. If she would protect the child ALWAYS and do all his homeworks, he will never learn. Maybe it's the reason God doesn't "do our homework" if you know what I mean.
Quote:
In what aspect do we need help?
In things we don't understand -- much as a child needs help from his mother. Sure, the child has to 'learn' himself, not be protected by his mother all the time, otherwise he'll become a vegetable, but he still nonetheless needs his mom.
Quote:
You asked how molecules can understand other molecules and my answer to that would be both very long winded, and involve an explanation.
Sorry, I thought it was a paradox and did not know that an explanation (a reliable one) is possible for that (much like other paradoxes). Sure explanations exist but they are usually "not-so-reliable" in the sense that we don't really 'get them' if you know what I mean (I'm talking in general about paradoxes).
Quote:
If facts can't explain anything then how do we have technology?
Obviously it works, regardless of objective truth.
But does that mean that facts explained anything? Does your computer "seem" to be working or are you sure it does? Again, maybe we're in a Matrix -- then all our explanations are FALSE, even if they are USEFUL for this world.
There is a difference between a theory and an explanation -- the latter implies some kind of truth, not just a 'model'.
Quote:
You can also determine morals from a circus: never sniff a clowns flower. It is a sin.
Hehe
Quote:
Why does this concern you? It is called a persuasive piece. Statements like that are prolific.
They also have a political 'power' so to speak
Quote:
What partial definition am I using?
Not you, the guy, and I was talking about e.g: the fact that he said God did not create time (which is quite wrong if you think he created the other dimensions: space-time is continuous) since he asked the question what was before/etc.
Quote:
Even if god is all perfect and all knowing it makes no difference.
I was posing the question:
Is something (a) wrong because god says it is, or (b) does he say it is because it is wrong?
If it is a, then why does he say those things are wrong/right? He could just as easily in theory, say that murding children is right, which would be absurd.
If it is b, then god is morally redundant as we obviously do not need to know god to know right/wrong.
I am inclined for (b) but the fact with 'wrong' and 'ok' is maybe because we do not understand everything yet -- sure, again, we are not slaves, not robots for God, we are to think and determine some morals (even important ones like killing/death and life) but we should also seek help from our mom from time to time. We can't go on our own, but we nevertheless are not 'vegetables', we are learning
Quote:
I might sound stupid but I don't know what you mean by that.
Don't worry, we already talked about that
Quote:
No, intelligence is a relative, descriptive, scientific term that does not so much offer a compliment but rather describes actions.
You confuse the intelligence of the human race/dolphins etc with the compliment of intelligence (relative to other humans) as in "man your son is really intelligent he does specialist mathematics " or whatever.
What I meant, was not the 'insult' type of intelligence, but rather one that lets you: "Look how intelligent he is, he gets his plans to work" -- this can be applied even to serial killers for example: "This killer is pretty intelligent, he knows how to avoid us and fulfill his plans" for example.
Quote:
Yes but again there was no reason to believe in them until the evidence was observed.
Yes, but if we take a 'statistical' analysis we observed from the past, we can learn from the mistakes (if we extrapolate what we should believe in, based on previous "mistakes").
Quote:
He is discussing why people believe in the first place, and why those reasons are now obselete.
Quote:
If person a believes in god based on no evidence, I believe personally IMHO that this is just as logical as believing in pink prancing pony fairies.
Except that we have the Bible, or Jesus, or 'miracles' (that we don't want to acknowledge) or simply put, we have a connection with God, for those that think like that though. If you believe in God, for example, some feel a connection (because that's what the belief tells, I don't know whether it's an illusion but that is beside the point, as illusions with flying pink unicorns are less). And it is also philosophical in a way, not something a child comes up with (because it even involves space-time and wisdom (i.e God is all-knowing, infinitely wise for example)), not that religious people have more wisdom btw, I didn't necessarily mean that!
Sorry if I could not reply to all the quotes, but I think reducing the quote wars would be better for the discussion
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 09:35 AM |
|
|
Probably it's not the most "fair" thing, but I only would like to hrow in some things linking to "do we need help; why" "what's Good Bad; Why" etc. matter; without actually entering the argument.
I would like to note that I like the thoughts TheDeath has given about how we are not vegetables but still need Mum.
So I would like to add the so called "hymn of charity" the 13th chapter of the 1st Corinthian letter. Especially from verse 9. It talks about partly knowledge, and like TheDeath, uses an analoge with childhood.
I advise any, (who is not scared of being mind-washed) to read it in their own language's translation to avoid misunderstanding. If you can not access a Bible anywhere -which would suprise me) here it is in English/German/Hungarian.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 10:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well in the article about the time of the Universe (with the Six day creation stuff), it underlines the important difference between "Day One" and "The first Day" -- Day one is absolute, it means it is where the absolute time begins (i.e =0).
My main problem with that article is it basically finds a creative way to translate "six days" to fit in with the current scientific theories without actually admitting to them trumping the bible
So he's basically saying that the science is right. Why bother with twisting the words of the bible?
Quote:
Quote:
I still don't understand your criticism.
Hasn't experienced what?
I criticize people that think war is easy or soldiers deserve to die, and those have never been to war. I criticize people that say colors suck when they have never experienced them (color-blind or blind people). It's easy to make the analogy
yes but we are talking about other people believing in the soul.
Of course other people believe in the soul. I would be a bit pretentious to guess a number but I'm pretty sure you'd be dealing with these people every day.
So he has experienced it. If that's what you meant by "it", which you didn't really clarify.
Quote:
Quote:
We follow like mindless slaves (usually, sometimes we learn from out mistakes but I think that might be drawing the analogy out further than you intended )
Not at all, actually God wants us to learn from our mistakes, to 'mature' so to speak, otherwise He would've made us mindless robots (if you use that kind of logic) that always obey, etc. It's VERY similar to how a mother-child relationship works.
Yes but you just finished saying that we cannot understand god's motives or actions.
How can we learn from our mistakes if we don't understand why they are mistakes?
Quote:
Quote:
If facts can't explain anything then how do we have technology?
Obviously it works, regardless of objective truth.
But does that mean that facts explained anything? Does your computer "seem" to be working or are you sure it does? Again, maybe we're in a Matrix -- then all our explanations are FALSE, even if they are USEFUL for this world.
It works in all practical applications of the word. That's good enough for me.
Maybe we are in a matrix but right now that possibility has no effect on me whatsoever.
Quote:
Not you, the guy, and I was talking about e.g: the fact that he said God did not create time (which is quite wrong if you think he created the other dimensions: space-time is continuous) since he asked the question what was before/etc.
Not really.
If god created time he must have existed at that moment in order to create it. Why was he there? Why is there such thing as god?
It doesn't necessarily imply anything to do with time.
Quote:
Quote:
No, intelligence is a relative, descriptive, scientific term that does not so much offer a compliment but rather describes actions.
You confuse the intelligence of the human race/dolphins etc with the compliment of intelligence (relative to other humans) as in "man your son is really intelligent he does specialist mathematics " or whatever.
What I meant, was not the 'insult' type of intelligence, but rather one that lets you: "Look how intelligent he is, he gets his plans to work" -- this can be applied even to serial killers for example: "This killer is pretty intelligent, he knows how to avoid us and fulfill his plans" for example.
Yes but I suppose it doesn't really matter what you meant because you were replying to him, and he meant something different.
Serial killers are intelligent, following his definition. Humans are intelligent.
Quote:
Quote:
If person a believes in god based on no evidence, I believe personally IMHO that this is just as logical as believing in pink prancing pony fairies.
Except that we have the Bible, or Jesus, or 'miracles' (that we don't want to acknowledge) or simply put, we have a connection with God, for those that think like that though. If you believe in God, for example, some feel a connection (because that's what the belief tells, I don't know whether it's an illusion but that is beside the point, as illusions with flying pink unicorns are less). And it is also philosophical in a way, not something a child comes up with (because it even involves space-time and wisdom (i.e God is all-knowing, infinitely wise for example)), not that religious people have more wisdom btw, I didn't necessarily mean that!
I could write a book about pink fairies I could have written it 2000 years ago and gotten myself killed. It could have included many accounts of my "miracles".
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 10:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My main problem with that article is it basically finds a creative way to translate "six days" to fit in with the current scientific theories without actually admitting to them trumping the bible
He used non-corrupted versions of the Bible though
Picture it likes this. The guy implemented a theory -- that the Bible is true. Next he started to make predictions out of it. So I don't know what's wrong about that.
Besides, the guy was clearly not using 100% scientific arguments -- relativity and such are hard to 'observe' (and we weren't at the origin of the Big Bang to see if the extrapolation works). He used more philosophical/logical arguments, that are often ignored (e.g: people forget time and space are one together, and that they are dependent: if the Universe is expanding, time flows different too from different frames of reference (a standing point versus an expanding point); thus they forget about relativity).
He doesn't twist the Bible to fit in current theories -- that's why he does not use 'modern' versions of the Bible influenced by science. It's really like analyzing historical facts: when you analyze them, you put yourself up in that era, to better 'conclude' what happened. The facts in themselves don't explain anything -- it is what we formulate that does (aliens could as well put them there, for example).
Quote:
Yes but you just finished saying that we cannot understand god's motives or actions.
How can we learn from our mistakes if we don't understand why they are mistakes?
Babies can't understand fire is bad for them -- children can't understand most things. In time, they do. That is why they mature.
Also it requires a high level of maturity to admit your own mistakes, it usually comes late in life
Quote:
It works in all practical applications of the word. That's good enough for me.
Maybe we are in a matrix but right now that possibility has no effect on me whatsoever.
Yes, but an explanation is not dependent on USEFULNESS. A theory is a model that predicts what we call 'practical situations'. A theory is never perfect, but it is good enough. An explanation, on the other hand, goes deeper -- it can be even influenced by philosophy. A theory is based on reproducibility -- things that we consider practical. An explanation is not.
Picture this example: One day you encountered aliens. They told you lots of stuff about them and disappeared. A possible theory would be almost useless (i.e practically useless), since it won't be able to predict anything (aliens are not reproducible, or at least we lack 99% of data for that). But remember that knowledge (to which explanations are concerned) is not tied to practice or 'usefulness'. Knowledge can be useless, but it is still knowledge. You can draw an explanation for the aliens, even if most would not believe you (you can't reproduce it for them), but nevertheless you still have an explanation.
Knowledge can be useless in a 'practical' way, but some people find it interesting on the 'mental' way. If you are on the electric chair, knowledge that aliens will come and destroy the Earth is pretty useless, but it is STILL knowledge. Some people find it useful, some not. Some find it satisfying, some not. That's why I criticized the article
Quote:
Not really.
If god created time he must have existed at that moment in order to create it.
Obviously, he existed, in a different dimension(s), because these 4 we know are created 'after' (actually after is improperly used as it's dependent on time).
Quote:
Why was he there? Why is there such thing as god?
For that you would need to put yourself in a (n+1)-dimensional space. If you would like to have an overall view on an n-dimensional object, you must first place yourself in an (n+1)-dimensional space.
Frankly, even for philosophical atheists, questions like what was before Big Bang (even if time didn't exist, you could say in different dimensions or an instant) are puzzling -- it's simply incomprehensible, because we have yet to put ourselves in a (n+1)-dimensional space
Quote:
I could write a book about pink fairies I could have written it 2000 years ago and gotten myself killed. It could have included many accounts of my "miracles".
Obviously it could but it doesn't -- the fact that you could and become popular if so is just an assumption on your behalf (not necessarily wrong!).
Anyway I don't think we have good arguments here 
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 11:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why was he there? Why is there such thing as god?
Nice question. Many people have asked/are asking this. Authors, philosophers, scientists, "common" men, artists. None of them yet seemed to find a "reliable" answer. Might we shall comfort ourself with the idea "We simply will never know it" (or if not "comfort" just try to get used to it -because if there is a God, he does not seem to be in the mood to tell such "reasons" for a while; if there is no God then what are we talking about?)
____________
Incidence? I think it's cummulative!
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 11:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Babies can't understand fire is bad for them -- children can't understand most things. In time, they do. That is why they mature.
Also it requires a high level of maturity to admit your own mistakes, it usually comes late in life
Well it's not like we have some revelation at an old age which makes us understand all the trippy stuff that god does...
Quote:
Obviously, he existed, in a different dimension(s), because these 4 we know are created 'after' (actually after is improperly used as it's dependent on time).
Ok, where did he come from?
Quote:
For that you would need to put yourself in a (n+1)-dimensional space. If you would like to have an overall view on an n-dimensional object, you must first place yourself in an (n+1)-dimensional space.
Frankly, even for philosophical atheists, questions like what was before Big Bang (even if time didn't exist, you could say in different dimensions or an instant) are puzzling -- it's simply incomprehensible, because we have yet to put ourselves in a (n+1)-dimensional space
Yes, that is exactly his point.
Believers ask, where did the universe come from? We cannot know, as you said, therefore god must exist. Prof. Pinker, and myself, feel that this just postpones the question. Where did god come from?
They are both unanswerable, therefore in this instance a belief in god does not help answer that question.
Quote:
Obviously it could but it doesn't -- the fact that you could and become popular if so is just an assumption on your behalf (not necessarily wrong!).
Anyway I don't think we have good arguments here
It possible and it would have the exact amount of credibility as the bible, even though I would know that it is entirely wrong and fictional. Therefore you can't really take Jesus, miracles or the bible in as reputable evidence.
Oh, and evidence denies faith
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 19, 2008 11:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well it's not like we have some revelation at an old age which makes us understand all the trippy stuff that god does...
I was not talking about the normal 'maturity' stuff, I was drawing an analogy. When I say 'children', I don't mean kids below 18 years for example -- I mean ALL HUMANS, including you and me (even 200 years old like you ).
Quote:
Ok, where did he come from?
Uhm, since time was no available, and other dimension(s) were involved, I don't know, I've never been there, and there's nothing written in the Bible or anywhere else about it
Quote:
Yes, that is exactly his point.
Believers ask, where did the universe come from? We cannot know, as you said, therefore god must exist.
Actually I have already stated that this is not a reason to think God exists (even if He does).
What I meant is that questions like that are unanswerable, at least to my mind -- I don't know how you think and I wouldn't like to take control over your thoughts either
Quote:
They are both unanswerable, therefore in this instance a belief in god does not help answer that question.
It only makes the questions look silly, which was my intent.
Quote:
It possible and it would have the exact amount of credibility as the bible, even though I would know that it is entirely wrong and fictional. Therefore you can't really take Jesus, miracles or the bible in as reputable evidence.
It is possible, but it's just an assumption & extrapolation (that is, we didn't 'test' it live)
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted June 24, 2008 05:18 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 05:35, 24 Jun 2008.
|
I can't help it. I have to post something.
First:
1 (a.k.a. as "one") is not only our middle finger like the teachers in kindergarden or in primary school teach us. (I don't blame them here; they just don't know and the kids *might* not be mature enough for what follows.) Every series that converges to 1 is a good representative of "one". And obviously this also holds not only for the magical "one" (or 1) but also for 0 (a.k.a. as "zero").
Second:
Quote:
Whether or not science believes something now does not mean it will ever believe it in the future. How can science possibly be trusted?
It is not science in the first place; it is Science or fahking Physics.
Third:
Induction is not used to predict things and might need to be bended like some theories for large N. Of course this assumes that you know how to perform induction, but that's another (3-step at most) story ...
Fourth:
I greet aliens every day on the streets.
Fifth:
Quote:
The problem with ALL scientific theories is that they are all based on a certain belief: mechanistic predictions (belief in induction).
I am not sure if I can judge completely what you write before the parentheses, but, do you question induction?
Sixth:
Those who question so much science (including Science) can very well abandon their computers and homes, and find a shelter in a cave up in the nearest mountain alone - for a year at least. You guessed correctly; no technological achievement is allowed - that includes sharp stones as well.
Seventh:
Quote:
Science is always false, but is often useful.
LOL This would make a great t-shirt for a theist and I would buy him/her a beer!
Eighth:
Quote:
If an electron has a certain probability to be in a certain location (instead of moving to the right for example it moves to the left), then the probability is not 100% if it HAPPENED, it's still 50%. Does not matter whether it happened or not.
LMAO Probabilities are about the future. If something happened (in the past that is - just like your capital letters indicate ...) it happened with probability 1. If it didn't happen, it happened with probability 0. There are 100 tickets in a lottery and you buy one. All of them have the same probability that they can win the single prize (1/100). You picked ticket #01. After the draw, ticket #01 wins. What is the probability that your ticket numbered #01 wins, now that ticket #01 wins? I know ... there is 1 out of 100 chance that you can cash your ticket ...
Nineth:
I wrote the above before I read your example with lottery!!!!! Realy!!!!
Tenth:
Learn induction.
wow. And I only read a page. Well ... the above are my 10 commandments for page 113.
For later pages wait for another post.
____________
The empty set
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 02:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Every series that converges to 1 is a good representative of "one". And obviously this also holds not only for the magical "one" (or 1) but also for 0 (a.k.a. as "zero").
Enlighten me, what I said wrong above? Just because it is a good representative does not mean that it is exactly the thing.
Quote:
It is not science in the first place; it is Science or fahking Physics.
I don't know what you mean by 'science' but I thought it was supposed to be based on the Scientific Method (i.e math does not qualify as Science in that respect, because there are no experiments)? 
Quote:
Induction is not used to predict things and might need to be bended like some theories for large N. Of course this assumes that you know how to perform induction, but that's another (3-step at most) story ...
You did not get what I meant in my previous posts. You see it goes like this.
Joe: "Hey Bob, I'm sure I can find a formula, and 'demonstrate' it with induction, for *insert random thing about the world*"
Bob: "Are you so sure that the respective *random thing abut the world* is mathematically predictable in the first place?"
Joe: "I dunno, I just assume that is. That's my core belief man!"
Quote:
I am not sure if I can judge completely what you write before the parentheses, but, do you question induction?
As long as it is assumed to work for whatever things (i.e everything can be written down as a comprehensible formula (for us), then I don't question it, I question the fact that people "assume" it works for everything in this world).
It works in math, where you 'invent' the language, you express your ideas, etc.. How do you know it applies to the world in the first place, isn't it just an assumption?
(that was my whole point)
Quote:
Those who question so much science (including Science) can very well abandon their computers and homes, and find a shelter in a cave up in the nearest mountain alone - for a year at least. You guessed correctly; no technological achievement is allowed - that includes sharp stones as well.
This kind of argument is kinda pointless -- I mean, it's not all black and white. If you think I hate science, you are wrong. I'm only saying, extending it to ALL areas is not good, and doing so is most definitely based on a belief.
Not but if we keep silly arguments like that we'd end up with silly stuff like: "Hey, man, if you question God, then you kill yourself, He gave you life" which is absurd -- you may say that there is no proof, but who said that there is proof that the computers work exactly as science put it? Maybe they are only what we expect from our minds, if indeed our minds influence reality -- but that is another topic. Or maybe some flying pink elephant controls them and 'gives us' what we expect (i.e data, etc) because he wants to make us happy??
Silly? It's what I said
Quote:
LOL This would make a great t-shirt for a theist and I would buy him/her a beer!
Ehm, even some atheists admitted that, I'm not sure where you're getting at. But for sure you are not expecting something that changes is views to be called 'true' at any one time? A changing variable that represents 'the current truth' is NEVER true in the absolute sense.
Are we in a Matrix? Maybe we're in a Virtual World??? Will science be true then? Absolutely everything we know about the world would be false.
You may say that it does not affect us, etc... but I still got my point, it is still false nonetheless. Maybe you think that there's no reason at all to contemplate something like that. But what's your point again? What has that got to do with it being false or not?.
For something to be false, it doesn't need to be 'useful', it simply is... false.
So again, what did I precisely said wrong?
Quote:
LMAO Probabilities are about the future. If something happened (in the past that is - just like your capital letters indicate ...) it happened with probability 1. If it didn't happen, it happened with probability 0. There are 100 tickets in a lottery and you buy one. All of them have the same probability that they can win the single prize (1/100). You picked ticket #01. After the draw, ticket #01 wins. What is the probability that your ticket numbered #01 wins, now that ticket #01 wins? I know ... there is 1 out of 100 chance that you can cash your ticket ...
Bob comes to you, and asks you: "What was the probability that I could win the lottery?"
Joe: "1%"
Bob: "See? I'm the man!!!"
Or was Joe supposed to answer "100%" because it happened?
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 21:43, 24 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Just because it is a good representative does not mean that it is exactly the thing.
No. That's exactly what I meant. 0.99999999... (0.9 periodic is exactly the same as 1.0)
0.9 periodic =defined= 9*SUM_{i=1}^{infinity} 1/10^i = 9*(1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ...)
Quote:
Quote:
It is not science in the first place; it is Science or fahking Physics.
I don't know what you mean by 'science' but I thought it was supposed to be based on the Scientific Method (i.e math does not qualify as Science in that respect, because there are no experiments)?
science is NOT ONLY Physics (which is what is constantly used in this thread). science involves many sciences; e.g. biology, chemistry, and so on. So Math is not a science? What is math? Or is it a category on its own; i.e. math?
Quote:
Quote:
Induction is not used to predict things and might need to be bended like some theories for large N. Of course this assumes that you know how to perform induction, but that's another (3-step at most) story ...
You did not get what I meant in my previous posts. You see it goes like this.
Joe: "Hey Bob, I'm sure I can find a formula, and 'demonstrate' it with induction, for *insert random thing about the world*"
Bob: "Are you so sure that the respective *random thing abut the world* is mathematically predictable in the first place?"
Joe: "I dunno, I just assume that is. That's my core belief man!"
Quote:
I am not sure if I can judge completely what you write before the parentheses, but, do you question induction?
As long as it is assumed to work for whatever things (i.e everything can be written down as a comprehensible formula (for us), then I don't question it, I question the fact that people "assume" it works for everything in this world).
It works in math, where you 'invent' the language, you express your ideas, etc.. How do you know it applies to the world in the first place, isn't it just an assumption?
(that was my whole point)
Induction says nothing about PREDICTION. It only reveals the "inner structure" of the "thing" that you observe. And from what you say, you question that this is "inner-structure-light" by induction is not part of our world. As I said, I also greet aliens EVERY DAY.
Quote:
Quote:
Those who question so much science (including Science) can very well abandon their computers and homes, and find a shelter in a cave up in the nearest mountain alone - for a year at least. You guessed correctly; no technological achievement is allowed - that includes sharp stones as well.
This kind of argument is kinda pointless -- I mean, it's not all black and white.
Yes, but sometimes you have to see the extreme scenario and respect some things.
Quote:
If you think I hate science, you are wrong. I'm only saying, extending it to ALL areas is not good, and doing so is most definitely based on a belief.
Who said that extending it to ALL areas is good?
Quote:
Not but if we keep silly arguments like that we'd end up with silly stuff like: "Hey, man, if you question God, then you kill yourself, He gave you life" which is absurd -- you may say that there is no proof, but who said that there is proof that the computers work exactly as science put it?
Now you question that computers don't work the way they are supposed to work? This is ... naive, at least. If you see them as an extension of "Logic", then you even have a "completeness" theorem (by G\"odel), which is absent in arithmetic (arithmetic is more "loose") and moreover arithmetic is basically established by induction - and from what you say above you accept that "mathematical part of induction". So, by mathematical induction, you should also accept that computers are predictable, but, on the other hand, you say NO.
Quote:
Are we in a Matrix? Maybe we're in a Virtual World??? Will science be true then? Absolutely everything we know about the world would be false.
And what do you do? Do you do anything to get rid of "the Matrix" or the "Virtual World"? Is everything predetermined? If so, wait, and you 'll be enlightened, food will find its way to your mouth without moving a finger, and so on ...
Quote:
You may say that it does not affect us, etc... but I still got my point, it is still false nonetheless. Maybe you think that there's no reason at all to contemplate something like that. But what's your point again? What has that got to do with it being false or not?.
I don't get it. you say: " it does not affect us". Where "it" refers to? And what's your point? I don't want paraphrasing your point this time; may be it will work better for me ...
Quote:
For something to be false, it doesn't need to be 'useful', it simply is... false.
Yes. What is false?
Quote:
Quote:
LMAO Probabilities are about the future. If something happened (in the past that is - just like your capital letters indicate ...) it happened with probability 1. If it didn't happen, it happened with probability 0. There are 100 tickets in a lottery and you buy one. All of them have the same probability that they can win the single prize (1/100). You picked ticket #01. After the draw, ticket #01 wins. What is the probability that your ticket numbered #01 wins, now that ticket #01 wins? I know ... there is 1 out of 100 chance that you can cash your ticket ...
Bob comes to you, and asks you: "What was the probability that I could win the lottery?"
Joe: "1%"
Bob: "See? I'm the man!!!"
Or was Joe supposed to answer "100%" because it happened?
Read again. You are wrong because you also assume that Joe knows Bob's ticket as well as the outcome when Bob asks. So, it is NOT 1%.
____________
The empty set
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 09:50 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 21:54, 24 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
No. That's exactly what I meant. 0.99999999... (0.9 periodic is exactly the same as 1.0)
Ah yes you are right there, but I don't think we were discussing the same problem. If you are talking about Zenon's paradox then it has nothing to do with it -- there are still an infinite number of real numbers between any two real numbers
Quote:
science is NOT ONLY Physics (which is what is constantly used in this thread). science involves many sciences; e.g. biology, chemistry, and so on. So Math is not a science? What is math? Or is it a category on its own; i.e. math?
Math is a language, a language that we use to express logical formulations and mathematical representations.
Quote:
Induction says nothing about PREDICTION. It only reveals the "inner structure" of the "thing" that you observe. And from what you say, you question that this is "inner-structure-light" by induction is not part of our world. As I said, I also greet aliens EVERY DAY.
I appreciate your input and I realize you are talking about the mathematical induction. However, I am talking about this kind of induction
Quote:
Yes, but sometimes you have to see the extreme scenario and respect some things.
I never said science is useless, even though i think it's a religion of some sort -- I actually never said any religion is useless. I like computers (I am quite geekish), and of course that does not mean that they should be used for everything. For example, you don't use the Bible to explain electricity, no matter how religious you are
Likewise, you don't use the Scientific Method for something that is not reproducible -- or at least, don't expect reproducible 'facts'
Quote:
Who said that extending it to ALL areas is good?
Ah, sorry then, must have misunderstood you.
Quote:
Now you question that computers don't work the way they are supposed to work? This is ... naive, at least. If you see them as an extension of "Logic", then you even have a "completeness" theorem (by G\"odel), which is absent in arithmetic (arithmetic is more "loose") and moreover arithmetic is basically established by induction - and from what you say above you accept that "mathematical part of induction". So, by mathematical induction, you should also accept that computers are predictable, but, on the other hand, you say NO.
I never said computers are not predictable or the fact that we don't know what to expect from them. I'm saying that usefulness does not equal truth, in the absolute sense.
If we are in a virtual world, then electrons, etc.. are all just some 0s and 1s (0101101010), so whatever we know about them is false -- but that doesn't mean we can't use that to predict stuff and make them useful. That's why i said that "science is always false but is often useful".
Quote:
And what do you do? Do you do anything to get rid of "the Matrix" or the "Virtual World"? Is everything predetermined? If so, wait, and you 'll be enlightened, food will find its way to your mouth without moving a finger, and so on ...
Yeah I may not be able to do anything at all, you're right, but knowledge is still knowledge, whether it has any uses or not.
some abstract math has no practical use too, but it's still knowledge
Quote:
I don't get it. you say: " it does not affect us". Where "it" refers to? And what's your point? I don't want paraphrasing your point this time; may be it will work better for me ...
Even if something does not affect us or is not 'usable' does not mean that knowledge about it is false. And if I told you that this is only a dream, are you going to be affected by it (supposedly you can't wake up)? Not at all, but even though my information was 'useless', I still told something true, and the rest is false.
False has nothing to do with usefulness 
Quote:
Read again. You are wrong because you also assume that Joe knows Bob's ticket as well as the outcome when Bob asks. So, it is NOT 1%.
Joe knows Bob's ticket? Why?
I mean, if we are talking about something that happened in the past such as: "What's the probability that the Sun was formed" (just a silly example), we don't answer 100% because it happened, right?
anyway I guess I misunderstood you so apologize goes on my part.
EDIT: somehow it seems FireFox eats some text I write 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2008 10:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you don't use the Bible to explain electricity, no matter how religious you are
Unfortunately, some people still believe that lightning is caused by the anger of God.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 12:43 AM |
|
|
I know many will disagree with me but in my opinion religion was created to cover the holes that we couldnt explain.
But now we can explain most things so there is no point with religion anymore.
Religion is = with fairy-tales for me.
But im sure that in some time they will too become mythologies, like the old Norse/Egyptain/Greek/Roman religions became.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
