|
Author
|
Topic: Creationism
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 12:32 AM
The Creationists here have done such a krappy job of making their case, I thought I'd just bring up the topic in a different way.
I'm not really making any particular case, just throwing a lot of stuff out there for discussion's sake.
Some thoughts:
There is obviously no conclusive proof that God created the universe/Earth/humanity, but neither is there conclusive proof that the human race evolved up from microscopic slime cells.
There is a fuckload of evidence, and we live in a society where a person can be convicted of a crime based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, but there's still nothing you can call proof.
We also have to realize that when you're talking about Creationism, you're talking about a supernatural being that can do whatever the fuck it wants. It does not have to obey any "law" of nature, science, etc.
So if we accept the existence of a God that can do anything (for the sake of argument), then all bets are off when it comes to explaining away things scientifically. If I theorize that some dude who can do anything made the Universe in 6 days, then there's no amount of scientific data that can disprove my theory. We can find "scientific" explanations for previously unexplained phenomena or show that certain things are extremely unlikely, but we can't disprove a friggin' thing.
In the other corner, we must accept how extremely improbable it is that everything in the Bible is literally true. Also, it should be noted that the odds that your parents taught you the "correct" religion (assuming they are mutally exclusive) are very slim.
But there are bound to be many mistakes with regards to any particular religion, simply because they involve human interpretation of data (sometimes even of the same book(s)!).
Issues of the various flavors of religion have little to do with the existence or nonexistence of supreme beings. Does God become any more or less real if the Pope decides abortion is OK?
So, tearing at all the problems with the various religious institutions doesn't really get you anywhere either.
One thing that I have noticed about Creationists is that they kinda don't take their own jive seriously. I mean, why is it totally believable that bigass miracles happened all the time a few thousand years ago, but now that there's an actual chance to definitively document one, it doesn't happen any more?
I'm not saying "Where are the contemporary miracles?", I'm saying most Creationists I have met do not believe that miracles would happen now.
I mean, if you really believe in all the whacked out stuff that happened in the Bible, then it shouldn't be any big deal to accept that miracles could happen now.
They're willing to believe that Noah somehow wrangled a pair of each species, from all over the world, on to a single boat (and built it in the same time frame with a couple of his kids or whatever), but they're not willing to believe that He's screwing around with carbon dating or whatever just to mess with us.
Why is it that they only want to think logically about the present, but any sort of fairy tale in the past is legit because it's in some book of questionable origin? If you told any of these dudes that some guy in Vermont was turning sticks into snakes, they'd never believe me. What's the big deal, if God likes to send messages via burning shrubbery?
I'm kinda all over the map here, but, like I said, I'm just throwing some ideas out there.
I'm just tired of seeing a potentially interesting debate bogged down in the particulars of an extinct species' bone structure and what not...
[ 12-07-2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 12:51 AM
Originally posted by gee, I wonder whom...: There is a fuckload of evidence, and we live in a society where a person can convicted of a crime based on nothing but circumstantial evidence, but there's still nothing you can call proof.
And seeing as evolution isn't a branch of mathematics, there never will be proof. There will only be that there is so much evidence stacked up to support it that disbelief becomes silly, like with the theory of a heliocentric solar system (whatever it's called), gravitation, atomic theory, etc... None of these can be "proven" in the classical sense: they can only be rewritten or supported until they explain the facts so well that, again, disbelief becomes silly.
So if we accept the existence of a God that can do anything (for the sake of argument), then all bets are off when it comes to explaining away things scientifically. If I theorize that some dude who can do anything made the Universe in 6 days, then there's no amount of scientific data that can disprove my theory. We can find "scientific" explanations for previously unexplained phenomena or show that certain things are extremely unlikely, but we can't disprove a friggin' thing.
This is true. But if I theorize that the universe is made from the boogers of the great Malady Monkey Master, Demogorgon, well, no one is to stop me from believing, but that certainly doesn't add any validity to the claim. As you and I think Rolken have stated previously: religious truth is just as valid as scientific truth.
Yet at the same time, on what do people base their religious beliefs? Would many Christians be Christians if they were not utterly convinced of the miracles Jesus performed, or the fulfilled prophesies in the Bible, or the 6-day creation story, or even simple things like God's influence in their lives, etc.? Would they adhere to such beliefs without the scientific or at least observational evidence to back it up?
I'm just tired of seeing a potentially interesting debate bogged down in the particulars of an extinct species' bone structure and what not...
Thanks, K, I feel real special. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 01:35 AM
MMM: There will only be that there is so much evidence stacked up to support it that disbelief becomes silly...
Let's assume, tho, that, for the sake of argument, there is a "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. Some dude with motives and emotions and a personality, not just some New Age "force".
If that were truly the case, then it would not be "silly".
Once you accept the basic premise that there is a God, then it's not too hard to accept that "everything is the way it is for a reason".
It's pretty tough to argue with that logic.
Perhaps God wants to make the possibility of His existence look "silly", in order to test the faith of his followers. That would make Him a dick, but there is other evidence of that, as well.
But if I theorize that the universe is made from the boogers of the great Malady Monkey Master, Demogorgon, well, no one is to stop me from believing, but that certainly doesn't add any validity to the claim.
No, but I think it's impossible to search for scientific validity of a being that violates all laws of science. The very nature of the thing you're searching for would prevent you from finding it.
Yet at the same time, on what do people base their religious beliefs?
That is an excellent question.
K: I'm just tired of seeing a potentially interesting debate bogged down in the particulars of an extinct species' bone structure and what not...
MMM: Thanks, K, I feel real special.
No offense, but you have to admit that when a "Why/how are we here?" discussion gets to that level, it's not all that interesting, particularly if it devolves into people simply quoting articles at each other.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 01:53 AM
We also have to realize that when you're talking about Creationism, you're talking about a supernatural being that can do whatever the fuck it wants. It does not have to obey any "law" of nature, science, etc.
Not nature, no. Logic, presumably, yes. A is A, and all that.
So if we accept the existence of a God that can do anything (for the sake of argument), then all bets are off when it comes to explaining away things scientifically. If I theorize that some dude who can do anything made the universe in 6 days, then there's no amount of scientific data that can disprove my theory.
Yeah. But I think it's worth it to ask what exactly an unfalsifiable theory is saying. There are an infinity of equally unfalsifiable, and thus equally plausible theories that nevertheless logically contradict yours. In all seriousness, why should anyone listen to you babble on about Dude?
I think discussion of this would quickly separate us (or any group) into a couple of different camps, if we were sufficiently knowledgable about the philosophy of language. One camp, at least, would be saying that unless you can derive some falsifiable prediction from the universe-in-6-days assertion, then what you are saying literally has no meaning.
In the other corner, we must accept how extremely improbable it is that everything in the Bible is literally true.
I think the scuttlebutt on the Bible (I can't provide references) is that this is in fact impossible, because it contradicts itself in places.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrazyJoker
Farting Nudist
Member # 2656
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 02:29 AM
A definition of God's Power: "He can do anything except for that which would make him ungodly." I forget where i got that from, but it satisfies the really big rock clause.
So how did humans come to learn of God? "He told us." He's infinately wise, powerful, and complex. How could we possibly understand any concept he produced. "He simplified it." He can't do that which wouldn't make him God. If he's so powerful, he's so complex, and if he's so complex, he can't just simplify himself for us.
We just don't understand Him, if HE exists, so basically, religion is trying to define the unexplainable. Therefor, major religions are crap.
If religions are crap, then what reason do you have for a creationist belief? Maybe science could explain creation, or, MAYBE, some all powerful being created it all. Hmmmmm. Difference between Science and God : Science is believable based on physical reason. With God, you just gotta have faith. What is faith other than an unprovable belief?
Unfortunately, not only is it unproveable, it's not able to be disproven. So, we're left discussing it.
- - - - -
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk: OMFG VELOS EATS HIS SPERM WTF?
veloS: Copying CJ is a crime.
-at least i'm remembered for something.
From: Philly | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 05:00 AM
So if we accept the existence of a God that can do anything (for the sake of argument), then all bets are off when it comes to explaining away things scientifically. If I theorize that some dude who can do anything made the Universe in 6 days, then there's no amount of scientific data that can disprove my theory. We can find "scientific" explanations for previously unexplained phenomena or show that certain things are extremely unlikely, but we can't disprove a friggin' thing.
My point exactly. I hate having to keep bringing that up every time someone says "IF THERE'S A GOD HE CAN DO ANYTHING". Maybe they'll listen to you instead..
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
veloS
8=D~~O:
Member # 2636
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 10:29 AM
I believe that miracles can still happen. I believe that they are happening. The Bible even says that Jesus' followers will do greater things than He did on earth. I believe that. I saw people getting healed in my church. Physically and emotionally.
And Gonk, I understand your point, I really do. I haven't always been a christian too, you know, but what bothers me is that alot of you people, including Gonk, just don't understand that if there's a God, we won't be able to understand Him completely. We won't be able to proof His existence.
Why? Because we humans are fuckwits and we dare to compare ourselfs with Him. We can't put God on the left side, and humanity on the other side. God is a being that is a thousand times more intelligent and beautiful and understanding than we will ever be. He's a higher being. If He does something, then we might not understand that. He does. Try to think of eternity. Try to imagine how long it is. I once tried to understand eternity. The results? A fucking big headache. We can't comprehend that. God can. We're like these 2-d characters that try to understand 3-D objects. We can't! So what do we do? We say that 3-D objects don't exist, they are lies. Just because we can't comprehend it. Dogs can't see color. But still we know that color exists.
I can't give another explanation. I just do what I think is the most logical. If I would say (while looking at the white house):"Wow! What a beautiful house! This must have been created by an explosion in a brick-factory!", then I would be insulting the architect(s) and the people who build it. The same with God. We're a beautiful piece of work. We were designed. And if there's a design, than there's a designer. God.
Why I chose christianity? Because of Jesus and His love. He (the Son of God) actually took the ass-kicking that I deserved! And that while He is much higher and important than I am! If I would own a ant-farm, and I knew that my ants were going to die, and the only way I could save them was by giving my own life...then I wouldn't care! Let those stupid ants die! I'm not gonna die for those insignificant little creatures! Yet, God loved/loves us so much, that that was what He did. And that act of love is what made me a christian. That's a God that I want to serve! I gained a loving Father, who helps me and watches me and gave me good standards to live my life by.
And what if I was wrong? So what? I still had a blast! Being a christian doesn't mean that you have to live a life without joy! On the contrary! God is the God of pleasure too! He gave us our bodies, our feelings, our tastebuds...everything! Why? So that we can enjoy the things we do in life! And if after my death would turn out that I was wrong, then it wouldn't matter, because I would've still lived a great life, and so what if I believed in a God? I at least had the hope of having a blast in heaven! So either way, it's a win-win situation for a christian like me ![[Wink]](wink.gif) . IMO, there's nothing better than that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
- - - - -
www.mightyrhapsody.com
From: Amsterdam | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 10:49 AM
Quiery:
If God exists, why doesn't he follow the same laws of nature that we know to 'exist'?
I mean, Gravity is certainly here, for example.
You can't argue that 'He isn't alive, so he doesn't!', as I haven't seen many rocks floating around and defying gravity, either.
As for a lack of miracles now, any firm-believing Christian will tell you that 'He is testing your faith' or some such bull.
Let's propose the idea that God exists.
He created the Universe.
Obviously, he had a reason.
Christians tend to believe that it was to create us. (How egotistical is this?!)
Alright, let's propose that God created the Universe, to create us.
Once again, there must be a reason.
If you claim that there doesn't need to be a reason, then you are getting into the 7-year old string of "Just because!", which doesn't cut it in life. If you want followers, you need a reason.
I've heard that this reason has something to do with making man in His image, or something like that (This is getting far-fetched...).
Fair enough. Let's assume God created the Universe to create Humans, in order to create something in His image.
Problem number 1: If He has an image, why are humans still being born with deformities, or why have we EVOLVED to have different colours of skin? If we were in His image, we would all be the same, unless His image is changing, in which case you could be in His image one minute, then not in the next. Go kill yourself at this point; your life is meaningless ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Anyway, ignoring that, there should be a reason to why God created us in 'His image'.
This is where I draw a blank.
Is he vain? Does He enjoy His image so much that he needs billions of Mini-Me s?
Would this make Dr. Evil God?
All-in-all, there isn't any reasoning, that we know of, for this. At least the colour-blind dog can see shades, to let it know that everything isn't one big black smear.
Plus, if we find other life in the Universe, be it in the form of bacteria trapped in the ice on Mars, or actual intelligent life, it kills off the idea that 'God' created US, here on Earth. Either that, or there are more than one God, and they created other planets, for whatever reason.
Maybe we're part of a big celestial game?
In which case...
I CALL DIBS ON BEING THE ROOK!!!
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jumpman16
Farting Nudist
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 11:28 AM
veloS: We humans are fuckwits and we dare to compare ourselfs with Him. We can't put God on the left side, and humanity on the other side. God is a being that is a thousand times more intelligent and beautiful and understanding than we will ever be. He's a higher being. If He does something, then we might not understand that. He does. Try to think of eternity. Try to imagine how long it is. I once tried to understand eternity. The results? A fucking big headache. We can't comprehend that. God can. We're like these 2-d characters that try to understand 3-D objects. We can't! So what do we do? We say that 3-D objects don't exist, they are lies. Just because we can't comprehend it. Dogs can't see color. But still we know that color exists.
Great point...I myself have tried fathoming the eternity of Heaven that you spoke of later, and it blows my fucking mind...but we can't just write it off because we can't conceive of it.
I guess I'll finally weigh in on one of these Evoligion topics later...
From: Where they make Heinz® ketchup | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 12:00 PM
simply because they involve human interpretation of data (sometimes even of the same book(s)!).
OMG OMG Could people interpret things differently? Wow that's crazy. I mean everyone thinks that MIB II was a genius film right? I think the phuq not.
Also, miracles are not there in the bible so everyone can marvel at how cool God is and follow him because he is so impressive. Miracles are in there to show the extent of God's love for us. At least that's what I believe. Therefore if you quote me quote the fact that I said it was my personal belief and don't just flame my beliefs because they won't change soon.
Also, miracles will not occur in today's world. You know why? In my opinion (note that disclaimer of it being my opinon there) today's world is a phuqed up place.
A lot of people have strayed from religion for many, often very honourable, reasons. I believe that the only way God could affect the mass conversion of people back to religion would be to in fact perform a lot of miracles. This would then impress people and they would either fear or whatever and turn back to religion.
But He won't. And I think this is because of one thing. What else are religions often referred to as? Faiths. The most important part, in my opinion, of every religion is the faith of those that follow it. Faith is often described as blind unsubstantiated belief in something. I think this is a beautiful description. As The Big Guy said: ''Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.''
I have seen no proof of my faith, except the great way I am treated as part of a faith community by people of my own faith and of others. Faith is important. I believe in God and have faith in him. Even if he doesn't exist then I think the fact that a lot of people have faith in him and to others accordingly is a good thing.
P.S. - Don't come at me with a dictionary description of faith please. The guy that said that description is a cathechist (wrong spelling?) who plays electric guitar so he wins by default.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uiru
Sketch Molester
Member # 437
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 01:31 PM
quote:
I mean, why is it totally believable that bigass miracles happened all the time a few thousand years ago, but now that there's an actual chance to definitively document one, it doesn't happen any more?
They wrote it down.
Let's say, for example, that God sent a memo around your neighbourhood that He was going to turn your house pink at high noon next Saturday. You'd bring a bunch of people around, and you'd videotape it, and everyone would see your house turn pink with a fanfare and with the singing of angels and all that.
Two thousand years later, they dig up your old videotape and come up with a hundred reasons why it's false. Most people wouldn't believe it was true. But it was good enough for you and your neighbours, and it will probably be good for a few generations, but people will always disbelieve things. Your great-grandkids will look at the archaic piece of hardware and say they could do it themselves in an afternoon. We could easily make a tape of a sea parting or a bush bursting into flame if we felt like playing God; what difference would it make?
The reason we don't get 'official' miracles anymore is because, as has been stated, the world is fucked up.
Other points:
LanderZ, I don't think you're going to be able to comprehend God any more than an ant is able to comprehend your shoe. And I call the Queen. Shut up, the Queen is good.
The inconsistancies in the Bible are more than likely errors, it having been written by many different people, all with their own interpretation of what happened. The Gospels probably have contradictions, and they were written by four people of the exact same thing living in the same time (I think).
If there was undeniable proof that God existed, it would destroy the entire point of faith. Maybe He's messing with us with the whole evolution thing. (Tell me you've never built a Metropolis and then turned on every disaster and just watched it.) Then again, maybe he's not. I think there's plenty of room in the creationism theory to fit evolution in as well.
quote:
If He has an image, why are humans still being born with deformities, or why have we EVOLVED to have different colours of skin?
We were made in His image THEN. Then evolution took hold. For all we know, God is a monkey. Birth defects are how evolution happens: eventually, when conditions change, some harmful birth defects could become helpful, allowing people with this defect to survive more easily than people without. This defect will then eventually become the norm. If you want another example, see insects and pesticides. A pesticide wipes out all the ants in an area, except for maybe six who have a birth defect that renders them immune to the pesticide. They procreate and soon the pesticide is useless because the ants have evolved to be able to resist it. (And who would want to kill ants? I like ants. If there was an ant Pokémon, I'd use it. )
That's enough for now.
~Uiru
- - - - -
TIDUDSOFIEIHUGHEXXXC: "maybe he will let you touch his blow up do"
AFRO NOOOOOOO!!!
From: the floating castle of Newfoundland | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Face
I invented cancer.
Member # 1916
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 01:32 PM
The Creationists here have done such a krappy job of making their case
What?
- - - - -
Weezing!
From: Hackensack, nj | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mewtwo Master
Farting Nudist
Member # 2257
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 04:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
They're willing to believe that Noah somehow wrangled a pair of each species, from all over the world, on to a single boat (and built it in the same time frame with a couple of his kids or whatever),
Well, the Bible says that the animals came to him. And I don't think it says how long it took to build the ark. Noah did live to be 600, you know.
- - - - -
Guys in the army should wear a helmets and codpieces, to protect both heads.
From: USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 08:10 PM
Uiru: The Gospels probably have contradictions, and they were written by four people of the exact same thing living in the same time (I think).
Probably? Nay, certainly.
And as has been said countless times, I think the problem is that the creationists try to take their arguments to ground where they are bound to fail. They're trying to prove their religion using science. Of course this won't work! The secularists and scientists are the ones who specialize in this field: it's no wonder the "creation scientists" are at a loss to compete. Those trying to prove Christianity need to stick to religion. Proving religion with science or logic is nigh impossible, and for a reason, I believe, because part of faith is not certainty.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
SDShamshel
Farting Nudist
Member # 791
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 08:53 PM
There's a belief among some Christians that the 7 "days" weren't literally 24 hours, but more of a symbolic term, like a few millennia or so (?).
From: Tokyo-3 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fluorine
SMELLY BUTT
Member # 2904
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 09:17 PM
K:
So if we accept the existence of a God that can do anything (for the sake of argument), then all bets are off when it comes to explaining away things scientifically.
Yeah, because we're talking about a being being OUTSIDE of our system. A being that would function in a different timeline, in a different universe, just like a comic strip's artist or someone playing the Sims.
However, I think that most of you are mixing up (or maybe not, but that's the impression I get) the idea of God and the "MACHINE" operating under God's supervision. God and science are in no way excluding each other, and most of you fail to see that, in reality, they aren't talking about the same thing!
Religion tries to explain the relation between our universe and what's OUTSIDE of our universe. Science tries to explain the relation of our universe with ITSELF. There is a hell of a big difference. Whether gravity is God's work or not, it still is following a pattern, which is what science tries to explain.
Religion doesn't even enter in contradiction with the main scientific theories used against it, i.e. evolution and the big bang. God might have provoked Big Bang, and made his creatures evolutive. And nothing tells us he didn't implant those patterns AFTER the world's creation, eventually resetting the entire universe and re-implanting a "backup" of the Earth in new settings. God might even have been messing up with our own past... Adam and Eve might have been the first humans, then God thought it was dumb and changed past to match a more organized pattern, explaining why we found fossils (okay, that theory is a little weird but it's still possible). Hey, we're talking about some dude who can do ANYTHING he wants, so our current scientific theories maybe didn't always happen the way they do!
MMM:
And seeing as evolution isn't a branch of mathematics, there never will be proof. There will only be that there is so much evidence stacked up to support it that disbelief becomes silly, like with the theory of a heliocentric solar system (whatever it's called), gravitation, atomic theory, etc... None of these can be "proven" in the classical sense: they can only be rewritten or supported until they explain the facts so well that, again, disbelief becomes silly.
Exactly, mister. The only acceptable proofs of a (general) concept is when it's totally coherent with an abstract system based on laws accepted inconditionnally, such as mathematics. It's a bit like computers, in the sense that you can prove a general statement only if you got the source code of the main program in which the statement is supposed to be true.
In the case of science, however, we obviously don't have access to the "source files of the universe". All we have access to is the data generated by the "program of universe". If we wanted to prove that, let's say, gravitation is true, we'd have to test it with every possible value... we'd have to test, one by one, all of the 10^80 atoms of the universe to see if their behavior matches the theory. Hey, maybe that some atom, somewhere in the universe, is programmed to twist around and explode when subject to a force of exactly 167 Newtons!
As you and I think Rolken have stated previously: religious truth is just as valid as scientific truth.
Technically, yes. However, there is an important difference between science and religion that should be noticed.
Scientific statements can be disproven: if you somehow find a special apple that falls away from the earth's surface if you let it go, gravitation technically goes out the window, and gets replaced by an updated version.
But religion CAN'T be disproven. It's similar to Freud's psychanalitic theories: whenever the patient would negate the psychanalyst's interpretation, it would be interpreted as a denegation, and therefore all the potential flaws in the theory could be flushed down the toilet this way, so disproving it would be impossible. Religion can explain everything by God's will. It can explain all its "flaws" by saying: "God made it that way" and when you ask "why?", they can simply answer: "God's reasons can't be understood by simple mortals". It might be true, but that kind of (fake) logic, IMO, is for simple minds.
K:
Perhaps God wants to make the possibility of His existence look "silly", in order to test the faith of his followers.
Or maybe he wants to amuse himself, or maybe he doesn't care at all ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Wintermute:
(We also have to realize that when you're talking about Creationism, you're talking about a supernatural being that can do whatever the fuck it wants. It does not have to obey any "law" of nature, science, etc.)
Not nature, no. Logic, presumably, yes. A is A, and all that.
God doesn't have to be logic. Most of everyone's actions aren't logic but instinctive, and chances are that a presumed God's would also be.
veloS:
we humans are fuckwits and we dare to compare ourselfs with Him. We can't put God on the left side, and humanity on the other side. God is a being that is a thousand times more intelligent and beautiful and understanding than we will ever be.
What do you know? Maybe that in an alternate universe, there is some kind of new software called "THE SIMS" in which the player gets to create his own universe from scratch. And that God is a 12 years old average ugly kid who had to simulate an universe for a school assignment.
And now that his assignment has been done, he's gonna have some fun and make an army of Godzilla-like monsters invade Earth and kill every one of us stupid mortals, just because the kid got sick of us and wants to have some fun. Amen.
Don't deny that. This scenario is possible.
He's a higher being. If He does something, then we might not understand that.
Maybe because his reasons are EXTERNAL to our universe. God just eliminated all fat people from Earth. Why? Because fat people are deviating humanity from the holy path? Hell no. It's because their fat asses were making God sick.
In fact, it's not that we can't "understand" God's reasons. We can surely understand God's reasons. But since his reasons might be external to our universe, we can't have a fucking clue of what they might be. And chances are that if we somehow knew, we'd be very, very disappointed.
Because as computer science will soon "prove" it to us, every fucktard is able to be the god of some world.
We can't comprehend that. God can. We're like these 2-d characters that try to understand 3-D objects. We can't! So what do we do? We say that 3-D objects don't exist, they are lies. Just because we can't comprehend it. Dogs can't see color. But still we know that color exists.
This is a very good comparison. It is however sightly simplist since mathematics have proven that knots are unfeasible when the number of physical dimensions is other than 3, and that since it is one of many essential bases of modern science, an universe similar to ours would be unfeasible in more or less than 3 dimensions.
But my argument is kinda simplist too since there might be other kind of universes, which IS impossible to apprehend
Besides, colors don't really exist, they only are representations.
We're a beautiful piece of work. We were designed. And if there's a design, than there's a designer. God.
I'd agree that the hypothesis of a designer is the most likely... but you can't exclude the two other possibilities: chaos and self-creation.
There is, statistically, a chance that we were created by chaos, emerging from spontaneous physical events.
And there is the chance that humanity as a whole is God, and is creating its own elements. That God lives in each of us and each of us is part of God, God being a melting pot of every human on Earth... there might also be a God for every specie... Goddish, for example... ._.
Why I chose christianity? Because of Jesus and His love.
Err... every religion is preaching that, in a form or another. Choosing a religion should be based on the agreement with a concept that is specific to it, not with a generality like this, or so I think.
If I would own a ant-farm, and I knew that my ants were going to die, and the only way I could save them was by giving my own life...then I wouldn't care! Let those stupid ants die! I'm not gonna die for those insignificant little creatures!
Are you saying you jauge the importance of a specie with its physical proportions? That's idiot and highly anthropomorphic. At least ants have a WORKING and functional communist system. As a whole, they might be just as intelligent as you and me. But of course, you can't understand them.
And what if I was wrong? So what? I still had a blast! Being a christian doesn't mean that you have to live a life without joy! On the contrary! God is the God of pleasure too! He gave us our bodies, our feelings, our tastebuds...everything! Why? So that we can enjoy the things we do in life! And if after my death would turn out that I was wrong, then it wouldn't matter, because I would've still lived a great life, and so what if I believed in a God? I at least had the hope of having a blast in heaven! So either way, it's a win-win situation for a christian like me . IMO, there's nothing better than that.
Your attitude is the attitude everyone should have in life, no matter their allegiance. Live in harmony with yourself
Boodabonzi:
As The Big Guy said: ''Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.''
I usually respect religion, but this quote is to me a blatant insult to human intelligence. I don't say believing without seeing is a bad thing, since we do that thousands of times per day, but don't PROMOTE it.
LanderZ:
If God exists, why doesn't he follow the same laws of nature that we know to 'exist'?
I mean, Gravity is certainly here, for example.
You can't argue that 'He isn't alive, so he doesn't!', as I haven't seen many rocks floating around and defying gravity, either.
I already said it and will repeat it. If God exists, he's outside of our universe, therefore not subject to its laws, and has access to all the keys to bypass them when he acts. It's like the Sims, or like Pokemon. You can shark Pokemon. The AI in Pokemon can't (well, with the exception of Lance). God can shark the universe. You can't.
Alright, let's propose that God created the Universe, to create us.
Once again, there must be a reason.
If you claim that there doesn't need to be a reason, then you are getting into the 7-year old string of "Just because!", which doesn't cut it in life. If you want followers, you need a reason.
Yes, but it doesn't have to be relative to us. Which is why we can't get it.
Uiru:
If there was undeniable proof that God existed, it would destroy the entire point of faith.
I'd like to see your interpretation of the meaning of faith. What is the point of faith? Is there any point to faith, other than messing with our minds?
Of course, God's reasons can't be known... HOWEVER, if the reasons aren't external to our world (in which case they probably don't really benefit humanity), they can be guessed. What's your guess?
[ 08-22-2002, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Fluorine ]
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-22-2002 10:04 PM
Me: Not nature, no. Logic, presumably, yes. A is A, and all that.
Fluorine: God doesn't have to be logic.
There's an adjectival form: "logical".
Most of everyone's actions aren't logic[al] but instinctive
I'm sure that's not what you mean.
and chances are that a presumed God's would also be.
I think we'd be on thin ice to speculate.
Anyway, you misunderstood the point. God can't violate the laws of logic. He can't make a thing that is a dog and is not a dog. He can't falsify a tautology.
If p -> q is true,
and q is false,
God can't make p true.
That sort of thing. Whether that has much relevance to the creation argument I'm not sure. I was just specifying K's point.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 12:18 AM
'mute: Logic, presumably, yes. A is A, and all that.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, if a being is infinitely powerful, I'm not sure it wouldn't be able to pull off the Arthur Dent trick of holding "tea" and "no tea" at the same time.
We have a fairly limited perception of the universe, so I'm not totally convinced that things we think are "impossible" actually are impossible.
I don't really know what it would mean to have done and also not done something at the same time, but I am open to the idea that it might be possible in some way.
Unless you can convince me otherwise...I'm also open to the possibility that the above statements are total krap.
But I think it's worth it to ask what exactly an unfalsifiable theory is saying.
I think that just means we're not going to come to any agreement at the end of this thread, but that's no surprise. As long we go into this discussion knowing that we'll never know the Truth in our lifetimes, I think it's OK to proceed.
There are an infinity of equally unfalsifiable, and thus equally plausible theories that nevertheless logically contradict yours. In all seriousness, why should anyone listen to you babble on about Dude?
That's a good question. I mean, that's the main thing I don't understand about people who take religion seriously. So much more than anyone will admit, they simply buy into the process because of whatever their parents told them.
In all seriousness, I don't know why anyone would listen to anyone babble on about God either, but I'd sure love to know the answer.
I think the scuttlebutt on the Bible (I can't provide references) is that this is in fact impossible, because it contradicts itself in places.
Do we really know that the "original" Bible (whatever that means) is full of contradictions? Can everything be explained away in interpretational and translational errors?
A lot of the contradictions I've seen regard the rules that God wants you to live by, but it's not really a contraction if on Tuesday he tells you to do this and Wednesday tells you to do something else.
It just means He's changed His mind.
velos: I believe that miracles can still happen. I believe that they are happening. The Bible even says that Jesus' followers will do greater things than He did on earth. I believe that. I saw people getting healed in my church. Physically and emotionally.
If there were actual proof of such "miracles", however, we'd have seen it by now. There have been no healings or such that would have to be classified as "supernatural". Nothing that violates laws of nature, as we would define them.
Anyway I'm talking serious, Big Time miracles. Water into wine, sticks into snakes, pillars of salt, etc. Not just getting a good feeling from a belief, but, as you said, "greater things".
Those sorts of things seemed to happen all the time, for a short while, and then they stopped.
Where's the magical stuff?
I don't buy the explanations others gave, that the world is too "fucked up" for miracles now. That's nonsense. God was so pissed off at how "fucked up" the world was back then, He was telling armies to exterminate cities, and now and then He'd go and do it himself...He even took out the whole planet because He was so pissed off.
I don't believe that we're worse now than we were then.
Why I chose christianity? Because of Jesus and His love.
Did you really choose Christianity, tho? I mean, at any point, did you examine all your options carefully and then select the one that seemed right for you? Or did you just go along with whatever your family did?
Consider this: If you were born into a society that'd never heard of Christianity, do you think it is equally likely that you would follow their belief system?
And what if I was wrong? So what? I still had a blast!
But what if you're going to experience some form of eternal damnation because you chose the wrong religion? Shouldn't you investigate all your options?
LanderZRPG: Let's propose the idea that God exists.
He created the Universe.
Obviously, he had a reason.
Yes, but we shouldn't pretend that we'd be able to comprehend whatever this reason is (if indeed He had one).
Parents do a lot of things to/for their kids that might seem like just pure meanness, but are really for the protection of the kids.
All-in-all, there isn't any reasoning, that we know of, for this.
Right.
Lot's more to respond to, but not enough time right now.
Anyway...carry on...
EDIT: Fuck grammar.
[ 08-23-2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 03:29 AM
I mean, if a being is infinitely powerful, I'm not sure it wouldn't be able to pull off the Arthur Dent trick of holding "tea" and "no tea" at the same time.
Maybe the most convincing way to look at it is that such statements (e.g. ~(p . ~p), "all bachelors are unmarried", etc.) are not really about the world at all. They are true, in some sense or other, "by definition" - by virtue of meaning alone. A being with the power to reshape the world (in the cosmological sense) instantly and totally and at will is therefore no closer to being able to falsify them than you are.
Before anyone argues that God can change meanings however he wants, the problem is that once He does, it's no longer the same statement.
We have a fairly limited perception of the universe, so I'm not totally convinced that things we think are "impossible" actually are impossible.
I guess I'm not really 100% sure about anything either. But again, our perception of the universe would seem to have nothing to do with it. It's not impossible merely in the sense of "no one can effect it", but in the sense of "doesn't even make sense", or "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". God can't weigh Tuesday. He can't count how many green there are in a heavy. Etc. Same deal with producing an example of a married bachelor.
Having said all that, the philosopher W.V.O. Quine once wrote a famous essay called "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", in which he argued that the distinction between synthetic statements (e.g. Dogs have fur.) and analytic statements (e.g. No bachelors are married.) is actually bogus. I don't think he's generally regarded as having demolished the distinction, but he scared the shit out of everyone.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 05:48 AM
Dogs can see color. While we have three kinds of cones (green, red, and blue), dogs have one in the yellow and one in the violet. That's like a person with red green color blindness and a spectral shift- they don't see stuff in black and white, they just don't have all the colors we do.
An interesting note: Our red and green cones used to be one (probably green), and probably the first one (we get brightness from them). The blue system was independent, and added first, then the green and ped cones split much, much later... that's why the green and red cones are so easy to screw up: it's a newer system. If you look at the spectral graph, green and red look almost identical, and are right next to each other, while the blue sensitivity is greatly decreased and off to the side.
Now, in addition to being vaguely interesting to dorks, I'd like to point something out: my statement there assumed evolution. I'm a Christian, and I believe that God kind of guided everything. But evolution makes a lot of sense. The numbers might not all crunch right, but we can explain things in terms of it. It's useful, and follows the same system of patterns that everything else in the world does.
The test of science isn't it's ability to explain what we know: it's the ability to go from what we do know to what we don't. That's why it's useful. When the theory of relativity predicted gravitional lensing, explained how electrostatics convert to electomagnetics, and explained precisely the deviation in Mercury's orbit that Newtonian theories didn't, it was the the fact that we could go out and observe the never before noticed gravitional lensing (it had to be done during an eclipse to see the stars) that was highly convincing, and suggested it wasn't just crafted to explain everything that we already knew.
Now- this is serious: religion has *never* granted us that power. Aside from specific prophesy (if you believe in them) and accurate historical documentation (which does nothing to prove or disprove anything), the Bible doesn't predict anything that wasn't know before.
Now, my personal beliefs are very similar to the ones K discusses at the top, and like most Christians, I ended up with my religion because I was told that was correct by people I trust. My dad also told me why the sky was blue, how to add numbers, how everything was made of really tiny things called atoms (and that they were made of smaller things), and a bunch of other stuff that turned out to be true. That doesn't mean I'm renouncing my religion, or searching the world for the "correct" religion, it just means that I doubt that many Christians who were born into the faith have really given all the other religions their fair shake.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course.
One thing that I have noticed about Creationists is that they kinda don't take their own jive seriously. I mean, why is it totally believable that bigass miracles happened all the time a few thousand years ago, but now that there's an actual chance to definitively document one, it doesn't happen any more?
Well, I've heard the "we still have miracles, we just call them medicine" line a bunch... But there really isn't an answer.
"Amber" just came on again. Didn't 311 used to be hardcore?
Basically all of the flaws that can be dug up about God are on the lines of "If <something given by religion> doesn't it not at all follow or make any sense that <something in reality>". This is a perfectly fine and useful method to disprove a hypothesis, but if you believe that God can do anything, even rewrite the rules of logic on the fly, clearly this doesn't apply.
To answer your question: I can't think of a single good reason that we don't have a nice, big, miracle happen in a population center sometime. Does this cast logical doubt on religion? Sure. It adds another teaspoon to the Jupiter-sized mound of reasonable doubt.
Now, here's a philosophical point: can God make A not A? It depends on your view of "all powerful". If you believe God parted the Red Sea, you believe one of two fundamental variants:
1- God, being all knowing, set up the Red Sea to part at just that time, knowing it would be needed. Every scientist measuring it would detect no errors in reality, and if they looked at it two minutes beforehand they might come to the conculsion that, given all that was going on, the sea just might part in a couple minutes.
2- God thought about it and the Red Sea parted. Bang. If you measured everything beforehand, you would still have no idea.
Most people tend toward idea 2. Predestination is out of favor, currently, right? If you buy into idea 2, then you accept that God is fundamentally changing reality. Moving a single molecule a micron that no physical force could predict breaks all the laws of mathematics as sure as 1=2. A tidal wave coming out of nowhere doesn't strike us as strange as weighing Tuesday, but they really are both as impossible, in the standard way of things. The "married bachelor" is supposedly "more impossible" because if you took a picture of the tidal wave it would look normal- static reality isn't contradicting itself at all, and somehow we are more OK with a point discontinuity than a continous one. However, do we have any evidence that reality is really like that? Isn't breaking dynamic reality just as bad as breaking static reality?
Anyway, that's not really important, but it struck me as interesting.
Now as for the "explosion at a brick factory" arguement... If brick factories exploded at an incredible rate, and if a single one looked kinda like a house after the explosion it would be capable of making copies of itself (also rapidly), AND if houses that looked better were selected for the next level of houses.... then yes, that would be a good analogy.
There might be something else besides random chance- something we could find via scientific methods someday- that helped evolution along. Everytime I look in a biology book it blows my mind. Whatever that is, we don't have any real evidence of it, so we act, scientifically, as if it isn't there. Because we can't detect it.
God doesn't exist for science. Not because of any hard feelings: if God does nothing to prove his existence, or always acts in predictable ways, science doesn't need God to explain things. That doesn't make God more or less real.
As I read more of the posts (I just scanned the first time) I see that Flourine sort of says the same thing. Good handle, too.
Unrelated (well, if anything is unrelated) : cops knocked on my door tonight. Apparently I was playing my music too loud, and they don't have the common courtesy to stamp on the floor / knock on the door and go straight to calling the cops. Bitches and punks.
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 08:09 AM
Why does Boodabonzi think this topic is that boring that it should be deleted due to unreadable long posts?
''Because he's holding a thermal detonator.''
C3PO: Coolest gay robot this side of Marvin who I personally think was a bit light in the shorts.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 09:01 AM
birdman: Most people tend toward idea 2. Predestination is out of favor, currently, right?
Since Heisenberg, I guess, yeah.
If you buy into idea 2, then you accept that God is fundamentally changing reality. Moving a single molecule a micron that no physical force could predict breaks all the laws of mathematics as sure as 1=2.
I don't follow the last statement at all. No one can predict the movements of electrons precisely, nor will they ever be able to do so, according to our present understanding. Yet they move. Given that they move and that this causes other events, and even chains of events, it seems that there are definite limits on our (i.e. any agency's) ability to predict events (this was Heisenberg). Now, regardless of whether it's God or something else that causes the electrons to move, I take the quote above to be saying that this indeterminacy is impossible, in some sense. Why? How does this break all the laws of mathematics? Can you give examples of some of the laws that are broken?
A tidal wave coming out of nowhere doesn't strike us as strange as weighing Tuesday, but they really are both as impossible, in the standard way of things. The "married bachelor" is supposedly "more impossible"
I agree with the scare quotes, because I'm arguing it's not a matter of degree at all. It's a matter of kind. Even if an unpredicted tidal wave is just as impossible, it's still a different sense of the term, as far as I can see.
because if you took a picture of the tidal wave it would look normal- static reality isn't contradicting itself at all, and somehow we are more OK with a point discontinuity than a continous one. However, do we have any evidence that reality is really like that? Isn't breaking dynamic reality just as bad as breaking static reality?
Isn't breaking dynamic reality (I'm a bit leery of this terminology, but I think I understand what you mean) the only kind of breaking? A break must be an event of some kind, no? Things were one way, then they're another way. It presupposes the flow of time.
But ok, getting away from nitpicking: I guess I understand you to be asserting the Principle of Causality - every event must have a cause. First, I'm don't see why your two options are the only two. Why couldn't God cause the tidal wave in a way that is (in principle) measureable and describable? He unleashes a stream of "God particles" at the water, that do some kind of crazy shit, but are ultimately sensible to physicists. The Principle is thus preserved. Second, I'd like to hear an argument that #2 actually violates the Principle. There was a cause - God (same as in #1, which may not violate the Principle either). And finally, my recollection of the PoC is that it's not exactly on the level of, say, Cogito Ergo Sum, certainty-wise. It's had great utility for us, because it's one of the bedrock underpinnings of science, but many have argued, for a long time now, that it's not logically necessary. Has this debate been updated, and can you suggest something that I should read?
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 10:50 AM
Posts by Toby make me feel both sorely inadqeuate and shamelessly aroused.
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jumpman16
Farting Nudist
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 11:01 AM
he probably has a huge ego
From: Where they make Heinz® ketchup | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 11:22 AM
In regards to Wintermute's comments about god being incapable of violating logical truths (falsifying a tautology, etc.), I'd like to play devil's advocate and bring up Descartes's idea of the omnipotent evil, the god that exists only to decieve.
That is, if god truly is all-powerful, why can't he cloud our judgement and perspective in regards to the study of logic? Perhaps current logical systems are woefully inadequate, and involve hundreds of other factors that are beyond our comprehension, or are simply being obscured from us by god. Perhaps the only reason any of our current logical systems make any sense to us is because god makes us believe them, if only so that he can laugh at how stupid we are.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 01:12 PM
Well, it's this or "work".
Fluorine redux: Religion tries to explain the relation between our universe and what's OUTSIDE of our universe.
The parallel to the mind-body problem is interesting here, and I think comes back to cfalcon's point. i.e. If our bodies are material and our souls are not, how does the soul guide or control the body (or vice versa)? Similarly, if God is totally outside our universe, I mean totally, how would he influence it? The Sims analogy is also very interesting, but doesn't seem to quite capture the same relationship. The stuff that happens on the screen and in the box is definitely within our universe.
Also, I liked the mention of unfalsifiability and Freud - I missed that the first time around. That's exactly the sort of thing I was trying to describe.
gruco: That is, if god truly is all-powerful, why can't he cloud our judgement and perspective in regards to the study of logic? Perhaps current logical systems are woefully inadequate, and involve hundreds of other factors that are beyond our comprehension, or are simply being obscured from us by god. Perhaps the only reason any of our current logical systems make any sense to us is because god makes us believe them, if only so that he can laugh at how stupid we are.
I think the Cartesian demon problem (a.k.a. Keanu Reeves-in-a-vat) is sort of the purest expression of why the evolutionists can never convince a dedicated creationist. All worldly evidence comes to us through our senses, which are vulnerable to a sufficiently l33t h4Xx0r.
Does the same concern apply to ~(p . ~p), etc? Do we rely on sensory data to be able to make such a statement (I've previously been suggesting no)? Or maybe bogus sensory data isn't even the issue. Could God reach right in and make us think that proposition, even though it somehow isn't true?
Like I said above, honestly I'm not really certain. Shoot, Quine made a hell of a good stab at de-sanctifying the tautology even (presumably) without God's help. Maybe he's right. My gut feeling is that talk of analytic statements and logical necessity and such is no less subject to a radical shift in comprehension than physics or chemistry or what have you. A majority of people might one day be convinced not so much that the laws of logic are wrong, but that we should talk about meaning in a different, more effective way. The question of why our current logical system makes sense to us strikes me as so stupendously deep that it makes my head hurt.
I'm not sure I'm ready to wimp out totally, though. I don't see how to rule out what gruco proposes, but I'm also not sure it's possible. Here's a consideration. In what sense might our current logical system be "woefully inadequate"? In particular, could it really be inadequate in the sense that (p . ~p) could be true? Isn't that question totally grounded in the current system? Would it even make sense outside the context of our system? What I originally asserted was that God couldn't break our current laws of logic. Even if it's the case that He's duping us into believing our current laws, when really some other system is in some way superior, I'm not sure it follows that that He could make (p . ~p) true. Such an act is defined by the current system, and I think he'd have to operate within that system to perform it in a way that retained its essential nature.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 01:51 PM
So really King Arthur could have been right when he said: ''1,2,5!'' In Holy Grail and in fact our perception is wrong. Also, it could be true that we are all really tiny compared to other life forms around the universe. Also it could mean that we are not made up of atoms but of little men grabbing on to each other for dear life. It could also mean that the old woman in ''The Shining'' was in fact damn good looking. However you look at it, at the end of the day you might not be looking at anything at all.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lunair
Farting Nudist
Member # 681
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 02:50 PM
Wintermute: "No one can predict the movements of electrons precisely, nor will they ever be able to do so, according to our present understanding." and "The parallel to the mind-body problem is interesting here, and I think comes back to cfalcon's point. i.e. If our bodies are material and our souls are not, how does the soul guide or control the body (or vice versa)? Similarly, if God is totally outside our universe, I mean totally, how would he influence it?"
(Warning: bad segue) If I remember correctly, God can't influence our actions because we have "free will". Wazzat mean? Some people seem to be taking it to mean that Heisenberg showed us how we can't measure things past a certain point - as we gain more accurate information on something's position, we lose accuracy on its velocity, or vice versa - and free will is when you can't predict it, ŕ la predestination. This seems to leave God some room to go hide in that uncertainty, but not really. Note that we can't violate this principle, yet, simply because our our method of measuring velocity and position of particles is by bouncing photons (for those of you who don't know, photons are basically particles of light) off them and seeing where the photons go. Unfortunately, the photons change energy levels of the things to be measured, creating the Principle. This is why the act of observation changes what's observed - because our modus operandi is imperfect.
If we could measure using psychic powers, or little "divine observation beams" that don't affect the thing on the hot seat, Heisenberg's Principle wouldn't apply.
If we could somehow measure using the aforementioned, non-influencing methods to find the location and velocity of every particle in the universe (including the particles in the device doing the measuring), then we would, theoretically, be able to predict all future events with 100% accuracy, as well as have a perfect way to look back into the past and find out what happened 2000 years ago. If we find that there certain spots where something couldn't have happened, I'd take that as conclusive evidence for God's existence.
The above relies on quantum foam not doing anything, so it probably wouldn't work.
Lastly, if the so-called "Dark Matter" really exists (dark matter is stuff that doesn't influence and isn't influenced by electromagnetism, and so light goes right through it), Heisenberg's Principle might not apply, as we'd need to find other ways of measuring it, ways which might not affect it.
-Lunair
- - - - -
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions." Terry Pratchett, The Truth.
From: United Union of Onions | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fluorine
SMELLY BUTT
Member # 2904
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-23-2002 03:12 PM
Wintermute:
Similarly, if God is totally outside our universe, I mean totally, how would he influence it? The Sims analogy is also very interesting, but doesn't seem to quite capture the same relationship. The stuff that happens on the screen and in the box is definitely within our universe.
Let's say you program a virtual reality device, with virtual molecules subject to a form of gravity, etc.
Of course, you are outside of that universe. You don't belong to it. You are not subject to any of its laws, and this virtual universe isn't subject to any of your laws. Of course, it kind of belongs to your universe - all of it is contained, encapsulated in data fragments that belong to your universe. But it's still a closed bubble that only reacts to its internal elements, therefore being what we could consider as a separated universe.
However, as the program's coder, you know that there still can be "links", "functions" that allow you to sneak into it and do whatever you want, converting external input into internal actions, like a bridge between two islands.
So your world and that virtual world would in fact be two different and independent "universes", that would still be linked by a (virtual) bridge allowing them to exchange data. And each of those world would react to that data depending on how it was "programmed" for.
It'd be interesting to know if those links can work both ways, and if it would be eventually possible to sneak into a presumed God's own universe via the "functions" he made for his own use, like some sort of virus.
gruco:
That is, if god truly is all-powerful, why can't he cloud our judgement and perspective in regards to the study of logic? Perhaps current logical systems are woefully inadequate, and involve hundreds of other factors that are beyond our comprehension, or are simply being obscured from us by god. Perhaps the only reason any of our current logical systems make any sense to us is because god makes us believe them, if only so that he can laugh at how stupid we are.
Our current logical systems can't be inadequate in the context of our own universe. If they were, we'd have figured that out soon enough.
Of course, EXTERNALLY, the logical system might be very different, but in our universe, it is definitely valid because it allows for a just explanation of what our senses tell us, which is the point of every logical system.
Besides, if you can create a world and change its logical system, just for a laugh, you'd soon realize that your own logic might be screwed as well, comparatively to the eventuality of a "super God".
So is there any "supreme" logic, or is it also a totally relative thing?
Lunair:
Note that we can't violate this principle, yet, simply because our our method of measuring velocity and position of particles is by bouncing photons (for those of you who don't know, photons are basically particles of light) off them and seeing where the photons go. Unfortunately, the photons change energy levels of the things to be measured, creating the Principle. This is why the act of observation changes what's observed - because our modus operandi is imperfect.
Are you sure of that?
I thought that Heisenberg's incertitude principle was relative to the fact that every particle also has a wave function, and that the position of a wave is uncertain of about one wavelength.
Wavelength being a function of mass, energy, etc. it can be calculated for every massive object. So scientists found out that the wavelength of a photon, electron, etc. was extremely big comparatively to the particle itself, therefore it was impossible to know where exactly it was. If you calculate it for a tennis ball, however, it gives you a ridiculously low wavelength, allowing a very high precision on its speed and position.
[ 08-23-2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Fluorine ]
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-24-2002 03:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Uiru:
I like ants. If there was an ant Pokémon, I'd use it. )
~Uiru
Welcome to my grade 8 life.
http://www.angelfire.com/games2/LanderZ/fakemon/Roant.jpg
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wintermute
My custom title sucks.
Member # 5
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-24-2002 05:51 PM
Lunair: If we could measure using psychic powers, or little "divine observation beams" that don't affect the thing on the hot seat, Heisenberg's Principle wouldn't apply.
My position is that God can't effect a logical impossibility. I understand cfalcon to have asserted that God is effecting a logical impossibility any time He alters reality simply by thinking about it. cfalcon suggested that the problem with such an event is that it is fundamentally unpredictable...
(An aside: perhaps God could part the Red Sea in such a way that the event could not be predicted though examination of the Red Sea. This doesn't rule out an as-yet-unmentioned possibility: that the event could be predicted through examination of God. I know many will leap to say that God is unknowable and is totally beyond our comprehension, and anyway we don't even generally have His whereabouts at any given time. Well I don't think He's totally unknowable. If that were true, Christianity itself would be spurious. Anything that behaves does so either randomly or, in principle, predictably. I don't think many believers would say that God's behavior is random. So I'm curious to see either evidence (ha ha) or a convincing argument that God's behavior is fundamentally unpredictable. Really, the position that God is totally unknowable to us is laughable - how do you know?)
... but I think that additional explanation is needed for why a fundamentally unpredictable event is a logical impossibility. I suggested that cfalcon was basically echoing the Principle of Causality, and objected that while the PoC is mucho important to science, it's not universally or even widely acknowledged to be logically necessary. Thus, violating it (which the Red Sea isn't even an unequivocal instance of) may not be a logical impossibility.
I bolstered these objections by offering Heisenberg's assertion that fundamentally unpredictable events happen all the time. I interpret you to be saying that these events aren't unpredictable fundamentally. I'm basically prepared to agree, because I think it is clear from my above outline that agreeing doesn't really damage my position. One concern I have is that we're not even sure that "psychic powers" or "divine beams" that can measure a thing without interacting with it in any way (this is what must happen for Heisenberg to be negated) are logically possible. I'm also not sure whether the photon bouncing issue totally encapsulates the Uncertainty Principle, or if it's just an everyday language way of understanding it. I've scanned a few summaries, and keep running into stuff about overlapping waveforms and the dual wave/particle nature of electrons. But I'll take your word for it, again, because it's totally not a crucial issue.
If we find that there certain spots where something couldn't have happened, I'd take that as conclusive evidence for God's existence.
For heaven's sake (ha ha) why? By couldn't have happened, you mean, "wasn't predictable", yes? (I mean, it DID happen.) Please outline for me the sound deductive argument through which you conclude, "ah, this unpredicted event clearly was caused by a supreme benevolent omniscient creator of the universe".
Based on what I've presented here, I wouldn't even be prepared to conclude that the unpredicted event was a logical impossibility, let alone a logical impossibility perpetrated by the Big Enchilada.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-24-2002 07:10 PM
Ironically enough, the parting of the Red Sea is a well-explained and documented phenomenon.
The Red Sea's Hebrew name translates as "sea of reeds", and ebcaus eof its nature, when the tides go out it creates the illusion that the sea is parting. In this state, it can be crossed through the center. When the tides return, it is impassable on foot.
There, God exacted neither a physical nor logical impossibility.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mewtwo Master
Farting Nudist
Member # 2257
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-24-2002 07:37 PM
Interesting point, Mentar. But that doesn't explain how come it was all timed just right. Out of curiosity, (sp?) does that still apply today?
The whole idea of God existing outside of our universe sort of makes sense, but I never really thought of it before. I guess I always thought God was able to defy laws of science by using loopholes sort of. (Like he isn't affected by gravity because he doesn't have a physical body.)
Still, God existing in another universe brings up a new question. Did God create any other universes? I mean, I guess I just thought that another universe would have a different god, but maybe not.
Oh, and with that ant farm comparason (sp?) I think you'd be a tad more willing to die if you could come back.
- - - - -
Guys in the army should wear a helmets and codpieces, to protect both heads.
From: USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-24-2002 11:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mewtwo Master:
Interesting point, Mentar. But that doesn't explain how come it was all timed just right.
I'd imagine that someone could have predicted the tides..
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-25-2002 01:47 AM
MM: Interesting point, Mentar. But that doesn't explain how come it was all timed just right. Out of curiosity, (sp?) does that still apply today?
People ascribe acts of luck or chance to higher powers all the time. So the answer is: luck made it happen. And really, would anyone have attributed it to God if it had been a fucking failure and all the Jews had been slaughtered?
(Insert semi-tastless insult to those of the Jewish faith here)
And to the best of my knowledge, it still happens today, although I'm just short of certain it doesn't do so when it's convenient for retreating armies.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Face
I invented cancer.
Member # 1916
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-25-2002 12:53 PM
Way too much to read and/or reply to right now... Maybe later... And I think everyone here knows where I stand when it comes to discussing God..
- - - - -
Weezing!
From: Hackensack, nj | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charmeleon42
Date Rapist
Member # 1066
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-25-2002 03:27 PM
Interesting point, Mentar. But that doesn't explain how come it was all timed just right.
*insert reference to Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court eclipe thing*
From: Mountain Dew Land | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wizzymoto
Farting Nudist
Member # 60
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-25-2002 04:20 PM
Twain really let me down there. With a few exceptions that has got to be the worst Twain book I ever read.
Hello Central!
Yeah, I'd type something out about this stuff to, but after reading all that high-level stuff above I feel kinda stupid...
But about the REd Sea thing, I'm not sure if all that particle uncertainty stuff covered this, but if you're saying that pure luck made the Seas part at that exact time, isn't that kind of the same thing as saying God did it?
From: Irvine, CA, USA | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-25-2002 05:24 PM
WM: But about the REd Sea thing, I'm not sure if all that particle uncertainty stuff covered this, but if you're saying that pure luck made the Seas part at that exact time, isn't that kind of the same thing as saying God did it?
Erm, no. What it's saying is that it's not entirely unheard of for acts of chance to occur: that acts of bad luck have occurred just as often, in just as critical spots: and that this was more likely one of those good luck events than an act of an interfering deity.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
veloS
8=D~~O:
Member # 2636
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 09:23 AM
Yes K, I did choose christianity. My dad's a nonbeliever and doesn't like the fact that I'm a christian. He respects it though.
And yes, I did check all my options. Did Muhammed die for me? No, he didn't. Did Mary? Nope. Buddha? Nope. Did God? Yes. Y? Because He loves me soooo much that He doesn't want my ass to fry. That was the most important thing. BTW, The Bible rocks IMO, it has everything a book should have, including great life-standards to live by. OK, I had trouble not to break the sex rule, but I know why He gave us that rule. Good thing God forgives me for all the shit I have done. In all the other religions, you have to be a good person in order to make it to heaven. You'd have to have done more good acts than bad acts, and let me tell you, even if good acts weigh 3 times heavier than bad ones, it would be impossible to get into heaven if that would be so.
And K, are you telling me that an amputated foot growing back on isn't a bigass miracle? Nor getting covered with gold dust and suddenly having gold fillings in your teeth? And just like the bible says, people are willingly ignorant. If something like that happens before their very eyes, some people still won't believe it.
- - - - -
www.mightyrhapsody.com
From: Amsterdam | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DarkLickitung
I AM FRIENDS WITH ZACK_COMRADE IRL
Member # 1672
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 12:44 PM
Muhammad, Mary, and Buddha are not the deities of their respective religions, so evidently you didn't do a whole lot of comparison and research at all if you tried to make that comparison.
From: See You Auntie. | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 05:48 PM
veloS: And yes, I did check all my options. Did Muhammed die for me? No, he didn't. Did Mary? Nope. Buddha? Nope. Did God? Yes. Y? Because He loves me soooo much that He doesn't want my ass to fry. That was the most important thing.
So basically, "I believe in Jesus because I believe in Jesus."
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 06:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DarkLickitung:
Muhammad, Mary, and Buddha are not the deities of their respective religions
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
Someone that finally gets a simple fact :/
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 07:27 PM
The Bible rocks IMO, it has everything a book should have, including great life-standards to live by.
Somebody quote him Deuteronomy..
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jumpman16
Farting Nudist
Member # 1089
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-26-2002 08:43 PM
veloS: Good thing God forgives me for all the shit I have done.
This smacks of cop-out.
From: Where they make Heinz® ketchup | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
veloS
8=D~~O:
Member # 2636
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-27-2002 03:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DarkLickitung:
Muhammad, Mary, and Buddha are not the deities of their respective religions, so evidently you didn't do a whole lot of comparison and research at all if you tried to make that comparison.
True, but the followers of their religion do give them the same amount of credit. Don't tell me that muslims don't kinda worship Muhammed. Eventhough, IMO he didn't do poo.
- - - - -
www.mightyrhapsody.com
From: Amsterdam | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
undone-backwards
Farting Nudist
Member # 197
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-27-2002 03:58 AM
quote:
True, but the followers of their religion do give them the same amount of credit. Don't tell me that muslims don't kinda worship Muhammed. Eventhough, IMO he didn't do poo.
"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad (pbuh) is his prophet."
Muslims cannot worship Muhammad. Period.
From: under your bed... | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk
Happy Good Times Fortune Happiness Happity Hocks Cat-Gonk Happifier
Member # 14
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-27-2002 04:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by veloS:
True, but the followers of their religion do give them the same amount of credit. Don't tell me that muslims don't kinda worship Muhammed. Eventhough, IMO he didn't do poo.
Ask any Muslim what he thinks of Jesus and he'll say "He's a prophet", ask them what they think of Christianity and they'll say "They're praying to the wrong guy". There are passages in the Koran explaining why the very idea of a "son of God" is stupid, and why Christians have their heads in the wrong places.
If you had been raised Islamic, right now you'd be saying "Christianity's stupid because they pray to the son of God and not God himself. Muhammad's the only one worthy of a mention given that he_is_the last prophet". It's all a matter of perspective.
- - - - -
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jetblackvalias
From: Perth, Western Australia. | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-27-2002 08:32 AM
The bible has stuff to live by, like fucking the hot chicks just because you're the king. Then repenting. Then doing it again. Just in Sodom this time. Oh yeah, the bible is great. New Testament is better, because you can draw more Monty Python parodies from it.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zerot
I pay schoolgirls to verbally abuse me.
Member # 1295
Member Rated:
|
posted 08-27-2002 05:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by veloS:
True, but the followers of their religion do give them the same amount of credit.
Not Buddhism. In Buddhism, there is more than one Buddha (and there will always be more buddhas, as anyone can become one), and you treat them as a teacher, not as a diety.
Of course, there are sects of Buddhism that are wierd, of course.
(psst, just one suggestion. Please use facts, not things from your ass, kthx)
From: Lizton, Indiana | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic