Alright , now I know that someone is going to tell me that an agnostic can be a theist too, or an atheist. That would be why I specified (strict) in the answer choice.
My main question: what do you believe is the most sensible choice atheism, theism, or agnosticism?
Give support for your reasoning...
Things just doesn't work otherwise.
If you believe that there is some error in something I have said, do tell. I am in no way any sort of religious professional. In fact, I am a 15 year old who has really never been even slightly interested in religion until recently.
"The word pantheism derives from the Greek words pan (='all') and theos (='God'). Thus pantheism means 'All is God'. In essence, pantheism holds that there is no divinity other than the universe and nature. Pantheism is a religious belief that reveres and cares for nature, a religion that joyously accepts this life as our only life, and this earth as our only paradise, if we look after it. Pantheism revels in the beauty of nature and the night sky, and is full of wonder at their mystery and power. Pantheism believes that all things are linked in profound unity ... All things interconnected and interdependent. In life and in death we humans are an inseparable part of this unity, and in realising this we can find our joy and our peace." (Harrison, Pantheism, 1999)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/pantheism.htm
g.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/pantheism.htm
g.
Which is more sensible? That's something that, as of yet, can't be answered truthfully or correctly. Think about it: Religion has caused quite a bit of nasty stuff (like Christianity and the Crusades, for example). But if God or some other deity really does exist, then religion will most certainly seem sensible. Conversely, if God or some other deity doesn't exist, religion and it's promises of an afterlife will become nothing more than a set of ridiculous ideas.
Hmmm... Apparently I was unclear on what I meant by 'sensible'. What I really meant, was: which of the options is more sensible in the fact that you truly can not know what will happen after life, yet everyone (except agnostics) believe 100% that they are correct.
I now realize that this thread is a little biased, as I myself am agnostic.
So here... I will rephrase my question as a statement of what I believe.
It is my belief that you simply can never be 100% certain of 'anything'. Especially something as unknown as the afterlife, a place/thing that no one will even possibly experience until they are dead. So, from my point of view, theism and atheism both have the same basic flaw, 100% certainty on a fact that, without death, they will never prove.
---
A good way to put this is: if theism and atheism were numbers, atheism would be -1, and theism would be 1, and agnosticism would be 0. They (theism and atheism) are both absolutely certain about something, but that something is opposite the other. And agnosticism is kinda the average of the two.
---
Hope that clears thing up a bit... It kinda changes the topic of the thread to 'Brent's feelings toward atheism and theism", but oh well. The poll should be valid still.
I now realize that this thread is a little biased, as I myself am agnostic.
So here... I will rephrase my question as a statement of what I believe.
It is my belief that you simply can never be 100% certain of 'anything'. Especially something as unknown as the afterlife, a place/thing that no one will even possibly experience until they are dead. So, from my point of view, theism and atheism both have the same basic flaw, 100% certainty on a fact that, without death, they will never prove.
---
A good way to put this is: if theism and atheism were numbers, atheism would be -1, and theism would be 1, and agnosticism would be 0. They (theism and atheism) are both absolutely certain about something, but that something is opposite the other. And agnosticism is kinda the average of the two.
---
Hope that clears thing up a bit... It kinda changes the topic of the thread to 'Brent's feelings toward atheism and theism", but oh well. The poll should be valid still.
QUOTE (brent.tc+Jun 14 2008, 05:07 PM)
Give support for your reasoning...
Things just doesn't work otherwise.
... Wow. That sounds icky.
Whys pa, I doesn't thank that ther rooster's sposed ta lie eggs.
Yes it is son. All chickens lie eggs, where'd ya thought yur breakfast come from?
Haha.
Things just doesn't work otherwise.
... Wow. That sounds icky.
Whys pa, I doesn't thank that ther rooster's sposed ta lie eggs.
Yes it is son. All chickens lie eggs, where'd ya thought yur breakfast come from?
Haha.
Hi brent.tc and all,
The problem with agnosticism (imho) is that it also sounds like 100% certainty of not knowing something or 'I'm 100% sure that I don't know either way'. Of course we are all agnostic because as you rightly point out it's very difficult to assert absolute certainty about stuff, however it is also important if we are introducing percentages to logically deduce which is most likely or more apparent.
Also it's difficult because just saying, 'I'm this or that' does not always clarify what one is 'this or that' about. If we are discussing some obscure Universal consciousness or a spiritual wonder and awe in light of the bewildering complexities of nature then I guess I lean toward the theist side. In contrast if we are discussing Zeus or Yahweh, Allah or Thor then I become much more atheist.
In other words (as this is really a semantic issue) 'How agnostic are you?' is probably a more sensible way to ask
I would reply that I am currently 1% theist and 99% atheist.
Any theist who isn't a 'Kool Aid' drinker would admit to themselves that they are perhaps at least 99% theist and 1% atheist.
There is a misconception that saying that you are atheist is arrogant, like stating that I know something. But is that really fair when the burden of proof rests with the proponents of theism. If people keep throwing things up in the air that cannot be proved or disproved then I'm sorry there is a limit to what I am prepared to pander to without any real evidence.
Percentages aside and semantics ignored this is my current thinking:
Atheism is the natural default position, agnosticism is unsure and theism is the assertion of knowing something without any evidence.
regards
The problem with agnosticism (imho) is that it also sounds like 100% certainty of not knowing something or 'I'm 100% sure that I don't know either way'. Of course we are all agnostic because as you rightly point out it's very difficult to assert absolute certainty about stuff, however it is also important if we are introducing percentages to logically deduce which is most likely or more apparent.
Also it's difficult because just saying, 'I'm this or that' does not always clarify what one is 'this or that' about. If we are discussing some obscure Universal consciousness or a spiritual wonder and awe in light of the bewildering complexities of nature then I guess I lean toward the theist side. In contrast if we are discussing Zeus or Yahweh, Allah or Thor then I become much more atheist.
In other words (as this is really a semantic issue) 'How agnostic are you?' is probably a more sensible way to ask
I would reply that I am currently 1% theist and 99% atheist.
Any theist who isn't a 'Kool Aid' drinker would admit to themselves that they are perhaps at least 99% theist and 1% atheist.
There is a misconception that saying that you are atheist is arrogant, like stating that I know something. But is that really fair when the burden of proof rests with the proponents of theism. If people keep throwing things up in the air that cannot be proved or disproved then I'm sorry there is a limit to what I am prepared to pander to without any real evidence.
Percentages aside and semantics ignored this is my current thinking:
Atheism is the natural default position, agnosticism is unsure and theism is the assertion of knowing something without any evidence.
regards
Well said Sinister Utopia
I do take issue with this statement however
There is a misconception that saying that you are atheist is arrogant, like stating that I know something. But is that really fair when the burden of proof rests with the proponents of theism. If people keep throwing things up in the air that cannot be proved or disproved then I'm sorry there is a limit to what I am prepared to pander to without any real evidence.
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
I do take issue with this statement however
QUOTE
There is a misconception that saying that you are atheist is arrogant, like stating that I know something. But is that really fair when the burden of proof rests with the proponents of theism. If people keep throwing things up in the air that cannot be proved or disproved then I'm sorry there is a limit to what I am prepared to pander to without any real evidence.
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 15 2008, 08:50 AM)
Well said Sinister Utopia
I do take issue with this statement however
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
Hi deadbeat,
But if one is to say that there is a God because I have faith then why are these forums brimming over with people spouting how wrong atheism is or how science is wrong or whatever. At the end of the day as I tried to explain in my post I am open minded and if something is true however bizarre or unlikely, then so be it. It's more a case of learning to understand that new fact. I leave the door open in light of necessary information.
But if somebody asserts that the Universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent flying badger then I would assume they would provide adequate evidence for that assertion. As much as might wish to entertain a more polite protocol and say something like 'Oh..well you believe that to be true with no evidence and I cannot disprove your flying badger faith, so I am agnostic', Well I have been like this in the past but enough is enough. When these people start hurling themselves into buildings and blowing themselves up, ordering the deaths of anyone who dares blaspheme or draw un-flattering images of their favored Super-badger, then I say put up or shut up.
Do I stand by the view that these people need to show evidence of their faith, well if they are content to follow their Religion privately and not attempt to introduce their badger style creation myth to my kid's science class then I say they do not need to prove anything to anyone. That's what faith is, isn't it?
But if they persist in trying to re-write constitutions and school science curriculum's etc then YES! they MUST! provide EVIDENCE!!!
They are not exempt because they have faith.
I do take issue with this statement however
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
Hi deadbeat,
But if one is to say that there is a God because I have faith then why are these forums brimming over with people spouting how wrong atheism is or how science is wrong or whatever. At the end of the day as I tried to explain in my post I am open minded and if something is true however bizarre or unlikely, then so be it. It's more a case of learning to understand that new fact. I leave the door open in light of necessary information.
But if somebody asserts that the Universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent flying badger then I would assume they would provide adequate evidence for that assertion. As much as might wish to entertain a more polite protocol and say something like 'Oh..well you believe that to be true with no evidence and I cannot disprove your flying badger faith, so I am agnostic', Well I have been like this in the past but enough is enough. When these people start hurling themselves into buildings and blowing themselves up, ordering the deaths of anyone who dares blaspheme or draw un-flattering images of their favored Super-badger, then I say put up or shut up.
Do I stand by the view that these people need to show evidence of their faith, well if they are content to follow their Religion privately and not attempt to introduce their badger style creation myth to my kid's science class then I say they do not need to prove anything to anyone. That's what faith is, isn't it?
But if they persist in trying to re-write constitutions and school science curriculum's etc then YES! they MUST! provide EVIDENCE!!!
They are not exempt because they have faith.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 15 2008, 09:26 AM)
Hi deadbeat,
But if one is to say that there is a God because I have faith then why are these forums brimming over with people spouting how wrong atheism is or how science is wrong or whatever. At the end of the day as I tried to explain in my post I am open minded and if something is true however bizarre or unlikely, then so be it. It's more a case of learning to understand that new fact. I leave the door open in light of necessary information.
But if somebody asserts that the Universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent flying badger then I would assume they would provide adequate evidence for that assertion. As much as might wish to entertain a more polite protocol and say something like 'Oh..well you believe that to be true with no evidence and I cannot disprove your flying badger faith, so I am agnostic', Well I have been like this in the past but enough is enough. When these people start hurling themselves into buildings and blowing themselves up, ordering the deaths of anyone who dares blaspheme or draw un-flattering images of their favored Super-badger, then I say put up or shut up.
Do I stand by the view that these people need to show evidence of their faith, well if they are content to follow their Religion privately and not attempt to introduce their badger style creation myth to my kid's science class then I say they do not need to prove anything to anyone. That's what faith is, isn't it?
But if they persist in trying to re-write constitutions and school science curriculum's etc then YES! they MUST! provide EVIDENCE!!!
They are not exempt because they have faith.
Hehe flying badgers, I like it.
I agree mostly, but often it is not the Badger (we praise his awesome teeth, and genuflect in the direction of his omnipotent tail) the nutjobs killing people are getting their orders from. Religion like anything else, even Atheism and communism are ripe for abuse of that nature.
I would suggest that value-based education CANNOT be eliminated entirely, the common values and laws of the host country should be respected and taught without preference to any particular faith, but with a respectful nod to the overarching predominant values shared, even including a generic and general coverage of those belief systems and their differences, including Atheism and Agnosticism as well.
It is ALL of our duty as citizens to ensure that individual rights not be trammeled or disrespected.
Our values and faiths cannot be established with scientific proof and evidence, but they should certainly be in compliance with it. This is the rub, the Atheists often go further than they should, not seeing the line where science stops and THEIR beliefs start. Often using the similar silliness from religious nuts to justify their own abuses.
Tolerance and mutual respect is needed, but often in short supply.
My largest agenda here has been to try to educate Atheists that not all religion is bad, and that they need to analyze THEIR OWN belief systems and faith, because like it or not, regardless of our professed religion or lack of it, we all still have beliefs and faith.
But if one is to say that there is a God because I have faith then why are these forums brimming over with people spouting how wrong atheism is or how science is wrong or whatever. At the end of the day as I tried to explain in my post I am open minded and if something is true however bizarre or unlikely, then so be it. It's more a case of learning to understand that new fact. I leave the door open in light of necessary information.
But if somebody asserts that the Universe was created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent flying badger then I would assume they would provide adequate evidence for that assertion. As much as might wish to entertain a more polite protocol and say something like 'Oh..well you believe that to be true with no evidence and I cannot disprove your flying badger faith, so I am agnostic', Well I have been like this in the past but enough is enough. When these people start hurling themselves into buildings and blowing themselves up, ordering the deaths of anyone who dares blaspheme or draw un-flattering images of their favored Super-badger, then I say put up or shut up.
Do I stand by the view that these people need to show evidence of their faith, well if they are content to follow their Religion privately and not attempt to introduce their badger style creation myth to my kid's science class then I say they do not need to prove anything to anyone. That's what faith is, isn't it?
But if they persist in trying to re-write constitutions and school science curriculum's etc then YES! they MUST! provide EVIDENCE!!!
They are not exempt because they have faith.
Hehe flying badgers, I like it.
I agree mostly, but often it is not the Badger (we praise his awesome teeth, and genuflect in the direction of his omnipotent tail) the nutjobs killing people are getting their orders from. Religion like anything else, even Atheism and communism are ripe for abuse of that nature.
I would suggest that value-based education CANNOT be eliminated entirely, the common values and laws of the host country should be respected and taught without preference to any particular faith, but with a respectful nod to the overarching predominant values shared, even including a generic and general coverage of those belief systems and their differences, including Atheism and Agnosticism as well.
It is ALL of our duty as citizens to ensure that individual rights not be trammeled or disrespected.
Our values and faiths cannot be established with scientific proof and evidence, but they should certainly be in compliance with it. This is the rub, the Atheists often go further than they should, not seeing the line where science stops and THEIR beliefs start. Often using the similar silliness from religious nuts to justify their own abuses.
Tolerance and mutual respect is needed, but often in short supply.
My largest agenda here has been to try to educate Atheists that not all religion is bad, and that they need to analyze THEIR OWN belief systems and faith, because like it or not, regardless of our professed religion or lack of it, we all still have beliefs and faith.
QUOTE (brent.tc+)
It is my belief that you simply can never be 100% certain of 'anything'. Especially something as unknown as the afterlife, a place/thing that no one will even possibly experience until they are dead. So, from my point of view, theism and atheism both have the same basic flaw, 100% certainty on a fact that, without death, they will never prove.
brent.tc: In regards to "the afterlife" and "certainty" from a Biblically Christian perspective, I briefly offer the following:
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."(Ephesians 1:13-14)
"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."(II Corinthians 1:21-22)
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."(II Corintians 5:1-8)
Genuine Christians have been indwelt by the Spirit of God. This "earnest of the Spirit" or "downpayment of the Spirit" not only allows for fellowship with God in this present life, but also allows the genuine Christian to be "confident" in hopes of an afterlife with God. The "walking by faith" that Paul spoke of CANNOT(although it constantly is on this forum) be separated from the reality of such an indwelling of God's Spirit. In other words, Biblical "faith" is NOT just some "wishful thinking". No, rather, it is a confident trust in the promises of God Who has not only already shown Himself to be faithful to an individual numerous times in this life, but has also "sealed" him/her with the "downpayment" or "earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession". Christ will one day return to those whom He has "purchased" with His own blood. Until that day comes, those who truly belong to Him maintain fellowship with Him through the indwelling Spirit of God. When posers like deadbeat go on about "you cannot know God" and it's all about "faith", they are actually preaching to the world that they know nothing of Christ themselves and that they do not genuinely belong to Him. As far as your desired "proof" in this regards is concerned, I, once again, offer the following words of Jesus Christ, as recorded in scripture:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye shall see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."(John 14:15-23)
I've been in the midst of a hellacious(if that's a word) work schedule that resumes tomorrow and then I'm heading out on a much needed vacation with my family. I won't be around for another week and a half/2 weeks, but I thought that I'd just bother to remind the forum folks for the umpteenth time that much of their complaining about "God" is just strawman related. They've redefined "faith" and have continually bickered about a lack of evidence that God NEVER promised to them, because they've disqualified themselves from such, due to their rejection of Christ. Anyhow, I'll read up on my sure to come "fan mail" when I return and possibly comment further at that time. Happy Father's day to all the fathers on this forum. Take care.
brent.tc: In regards to "the afterlife" and "certainty" from a Biblically Christian perspective, I briefly offer the following:
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."(Ephesians 1:13-14)
"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."(II Corinthians 1:21-22)
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."(II Corintians 5:1-8)
Genuine Christians have been indwelt by the Spirit of God. This "earnest of the Spirit" or "downpayment of the Spirit" not only allows for fellowship with God in this present life, but also allows the genuine Christian to be "confident" in hopes of an afterlife with God. The "walking by faith" that Paul spoke of CANNOT(although it constantly is on this forum) be separated from the reality of such an indwelling of God's Spirit. In other words, Biblical "faith" is NOT just some "wishful thinking". No, rather, it is a confident trust in the promises of God Who has not only already shown Himself to be faithful to an individual numerous times in this life, but has also "sealed" him/her with the "downpayment" or "earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession". Christ will one day return to those whom He has "purchased" with His own blood. Until that day comes, those who truly belong to Him maintain fellowship with Him through the indwelling Spirit of God. When posers like deadbeat go on about "you cannot know God" and it's all about "faith", they are actually preaching to the world that they know nothing of Christ themselves and that they do not genuinely belong to Him. As far as your desired "proof" in this regards is concerned, I, once again, offer the following words of Jesus Christ, as recorded in scripture:
"If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more: but ye shall see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."(John 14:15-23)
I've been in the midst of a hellacious(if that's a word) work schedule that resumes tomorrow and then I'm heading out on a much needed vacation with my family. I won't be around for another week and a half/2 weeks, but I thought that I'd just bother to remind the forum folks for the umpteenth time that much of their complaining about "God" is just strawman related. They've redefined "faith" and have continually bickered about a lack of evidence that God NEVER promised to them, because they've disqualified themselves from such, due to their rejection of Christ. Anyhow, I'll read up on my sure to come "fan mail" when I return and possibly comment further at that time. Happy Father's day to all the fathers on this forum. Take care.
There appears to be a definition of agnosticism emerging here that equates to " I do not know" and there is a further suggestion that there may be degrees of agnosticism. This would in fact be a rather intellectually lazy approach and would probably apply more to theists and atheists , many of whom will entertain some level of doubt about their position. The correct definition of Agnostic is " a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God " ( O.E.D. ).
Atheism is like the antithesis for Theism. And I'm too tired to finish this thought.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 15 2008, 07:44 AM)
There appears to be a definition of agnosticism emerging here that equates to " I do not know" and there is a further suggestion that there may be degrees of agnosticism. This would in fact be a rather intellectually lazy approach and would probably apply more to theists and atheists , many of whom will entertain some level of doubt about their position. The correct definition of Agnostic is " a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God " ( O.E.D. ).
Why is admitting you don't know intellectually lazy?
I can freely admit that I don't know if ET's exist and no one gets annoyed. Why is this different?
Why is admitting you don't know intellectually lazy?
I can freely admit that I don't know if ET's exist and no one gets annoyed. Why is this different?
Hi gmilam,
Good question and I must admit I phrased my view of intellectual laziness badly - no offence was intended. What I was trying to articulate is that compared with agnosticism, as I have defined it, it is relatively easier to say "I donīt know" and probably does not require the same intellectual effort as it does to arrive at a definitive committment to agnosticism. However some may arrive at the "I donīt know" position having committed every bit as much effort as that invested by the true agnostic, though , in most cases, probably not.
As for ET, of course you can say that you do not know whether or not they exist but I am not sure that it would be rational to say that we can never know - which is precisely the distinction I was attempting to make between a simple and honest " I donīt know" and agnosticism.
peace
edward
Good question and I must admit I phrased my view of intellectual laziness badly - no offence was intended. What I was trying to articulate is that compared with agnosticism, as I have defined it, it is relatively easier to say "I donīt know" and probably does not require the same intellectual effort as it does to arrive at a definitive committment to agnosticism. However some may arrive at the "I donīt know" position having committed every bit as much effort as that invested by the true agnostic, though , in most cases, probably not.
As for ET, of course you can say that you do not know whether or not they exist but I am not sure that it would be rational to say that we can never know - which is precisely the distinction I was attempting to make between a simple and honest " I donīt know" and agnosticism.
peace
edward
Hello Edward3,
I can accept that. My personal stance is that there is and cannot be any logical or rational proof of the existence or non-existence of "god". Any proof one finds must be personal. (i.e. - an experience that proves to you that a god of some sort exists.)
I consider this to be agnosticism.
I'm still waiting for proof. And I am willing to let others look for theirs in their own way.
Peace,
Glenn
I can accept that. My personal stance is that there is and cannot be any logical or rational proof of the existence or non-existence of "god". Any proof one finds must be personal. (i.e. - an experience that proves to you that a god of some sort exists.)
I consider this to be agnosticism.
I'm still waiting for proof. And I am willing to let others look for theirs in their own way.
Peace,
Glenn
Hi Glenn,
I think you have defined it every bit as well as the O.E.D - by the way, just checked out your site - will be back for more of that music.
thanks
eamonn
I think you have defined it every bit as well as the O.E.D - by the way, just checked out your site - will be back for more of that music.
thanks
eamonn
QUOTE (Deadbeat+)
Hehe flying badgers, I like it.
I agree mostly, but often it is not the Badger (we praise his awesome teeth, and genuflect in the direction of his omnipotent tail)
BLASPHEMY!! You are describing his evil nemesis 'The Abominable Silver Tailed Botty Beaver', Damn that beaver
QUOTE
the nutjobs killing people are getting their orders from. Religion like anything else, even Atheism and communism are ripe for abuse of that nature
Well all things are ripe for abuse in this context, however in regard to atheism specifically, where would an atheist get orders to commit such crimes? As discussed in previous threads, atheism has no real meaning in that I am only defined by my lack of belief in somebody else's faith. It only becomes apparent that atheist's exist because of those of faith exist. It is those of faith who created the distinction and labelled those who resist their ideology, ie; godless, infidel, gentile, atheist etc.
Are you an atheist in regards to the flying badger or are you an agnostic or theist?
If you are (as I would hope) an atheist in this regard then, what has changed about you since you became one?, I would guess that nothing has changed apart from that you are now aware of something else you do not believe is true and that's all it need be. No ceremony, no arm waving, no agenda, no anything really other than, no I do not believe the Flying Beaver or badger exists end of. It is when as discussed nutjobs want to impress upon you that it does exist and that you are arrogant for not believing that it exists or that agnosticism is a more suitable position or we will kill you if you don't believe as we hate atheists and there agenda to keep us out of science education, politics etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the nutjobs killing people are getting their orders from. Religion like anything else, even Atheism and communism are ripe for abuse of that nature |
Well all things are ripe for abuse in this context, however in regard to atheism specifically, where would an atheist get orders to commit such crimes? As discussed in previous threads, atheism has no real meaning in that I am only defined by my lack of belief in somebody else's faith. It only becomes apparent that atheist's exist because of those of faith exist. It is those of faith who created the distinction and labelled those who resist their ideology, ie; godless, infidel, gentile, atheist etc.
Are you an atheist in regards to the flying badger or are you an agnostic or theist?
If you are (as I would hope) an atheist in this regard then, what has changed about you since you became one?, I would guess that nothing has changed apart from that you are now aware of something else you do not believe is true and that's all it need be. No ceremony, no arm waving, no agenda, no anything really other than, no I do not believe the Flying Beaver or badger exists end of. It is when as discussed nutjobs want to impress upon you that it does exist and that you are arrogant for not believing that it exists or that agnosticism is a more suitable position or we will kill you if you don't believe as we hate atheists and there agenda to keep us out of science education, politics etc.
I would suggest that value-based education CANNOT be eliminated entirely, the common values and laws of the host country should be respected and taught without preference to any particular faith, but with a respectful nod to the overarching predominant values shared, even including a generic and general coverage of those belief systems and their differences, including Atheism and Agnosticism as well.
What you mean social etiquette or something? Don't get me wrong I am certainly no expert on what type of education is 'best'. Atheism, theism and agnosticism just seem like topics that are not suitable for children in the context of their personal beliefs. I mean we could ask them the question and answer any questions they may have on the issue, teach them the history and the impact of Religion etc no problem but this is open to abuse as (IMO) has been the case in some Schools around the world historically. I mean what is a faith school all about? How on earth can these kids know the meaning of life and deal with concepts like hell when some of the most sophisticated adults struggle with it their whole lives. how can they deal with the concept of faith in creation before they can boast a thorough understanding of the theory of evolution? An understanding which they may have to dismiss to accept a creationist explanation? I may be no expert and perhaps my reasoning here is flawed somehow but I find it puzzling when I afford too much respect to these theistic establishments, however when I attempt to assess with more objectivity I can't help feeling like we may be screwing with their heads too soon.
QUOTE
Tolerance and mutual respect is needed, but often in short supply.
Respect must be earned as my mom would say, I'm not sure if that is right but it seems fair to me. If a person of faith wishes to earn my respect then they will have to accept that I grant no extra respect to anyone just because of the faith they have.
That is hopefully their own choice and so if someone is fasting at a certain time of year, do not expect me to not eat in front of you or complain about it if I do.
This scenario occurred where I work and those involved accused me of insensitivity because I chose to eat a sand which next to my colleague who was fasting. I didn't think about it, I always eat at my desk, I forgot it was this time of year and received a telling off from a non-religious colleague for eating. At first I felt terrible, but the more I thought about it, it was in fact me who should have felt hard done by. After all it was my colleagues choice to fast and at other times of the year he eats at his desk too. If anything if me eating in front of him is offensive how much worse is it that I feel guilty for eating in front of him. Surely I was within my rights to eat? This is where too much respect is granted for the beliefs without reason. I do not dictate when my colleague eats, I expect the same courtesy. In fairness the colleague who was fasting said it was not a problem and he felt embarrassed too because I stopped eating.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tolerance and mutual respect is needed, but often in short supply. |
Respect must be earned as my mom would say, I'm not sure if that is right but it seems fair to me. If a person of faith wishes to earn my respect then they will have to accept that I grant no extra respect to anyone just because of the faith they have.
That is hopefully their own choice and so if someone is fasting at a certain time of year, do not expect me to not eat in front of you or complain about it if I do.
This scenario occurred where I work and those involved accused me of insensitivity because I chose to eat a sand which next to my colleague who was fasting. I didn't think about it, I always eat at my desk, I forgot it was this time of year and received a telling off from a non-religious colleague for eating. At first I felt terrible, but the more I thought about it, it was in fact me who should have felt hard done by. After all it was my colleagues choice to fast and at other times of the year he eats at his desk too. If anything if me eating in front of him is offensive how much worse is it that I feel guilty for eating in front of him. Surely I was within my rights to eat? This is where too much respect is granted for the beliefs without reason. I do not dictate when my colleague eats, I expect the same courtesy. In fairness the colleague who was fasting said it was not a problem and he felt embarrassed too because I stopped eating.
My largest agenda here has been to try to educate Atheists that not all religion is bad, and that they need to analyze THEIR OWN belief systems and faith, because like it or not, regardless of our professed religion or lack of it, we all still have beliefs and faith.
Well you have not needed to educate me in that regard and I hope I haven't given the impression that I think all religion is bad. Atheism is not a belief system although it may appear that way at times. But when someone disputes a valid scientific theory eg;evolution then please refute it scientifically with evidence or expect a frosty response. The constant rebuttal's to these often camouflaged attempts to disprove a valid scientific theory and often boil down to 'goddidit' becomes tiresome and annoying
And defense of the theory can turn into trawling through one biblical assertion after another only to be informed rather impolitely that I must worship Satan or have an atheist agenda or religion. NO, or not in my case.If being dragged through scripture by dad1 or those of his ilk is a belief system then so be it, but I submit to you that it is the absence of such belief system that causes the conflict. I don't care what these people believe, just please stop telling me what I must believe or want. I don't see why someone who professes to have a strong or true faith need to push their ideas into a school, unless that is an aspect of that faith.
In which case others often find themselves in the prickly position of Resistance.
I fully agree with Edward 3 on his view of agnosticism.
Theists and atheists 'know' that god does/doesn't exist. And both have roughly the same amount of evidence proving their ideas (none).Don't claim that the big bang theory, or evolution completely proves religion wrong. All it gives is an alternate choice. Religion really just provides a starting point, and an ending point.
To me, agnostics are the only ones who really KNOW anything, the fact that we will never really know until we die. And strict agnosticism takes it one step further and says that we won't TRULY know even then.
I fully believe that 'all' theists and atheists know that 1 + 1 = 2. Remember, we are talking about knowledge of the afterlife, and the beginning.
Theists and atheists 'know' that god does/doesn't exist. And both have roughly the same amount of evidence proving their ideas (none).Don't claim that the big bang theory, or evolution completely proves religion wrong. All it gives is an alternate choice. Religion really just provides a starting point, and an ending point.
To me, agnostics are the only ones who really KNOW anything, the fact that we will never really know until we die. And strict agnosticism takes it one step further and says that we won't TRULY know even then.
I fully believe that 'all' theists and atheists know that 1 + 1 = 2. Remember, we are talking about knowledge of the afterlife, and the beginning.
QUOTE
Theists and atheists 'know' that god does/doesn't exist. And both have roughly the same amount of evidence proving their ideas (none).
Why is it the responsibility of an atheist to disprove that god exists.
It's simple; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but is nonetheless absence of evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Theists and atheists 'know' that god does/doesn't exist. And both have roughly the same amount of evidence proving their ideas (none). |
Why is it the responsibility of an atheist to disprove that god exists.
It's simple; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but is nonetheless absence of evidence.
Don't claim that the big bang theory, or evolution completely proves religion wrong. All it gives is an alternate choice. Religion really just provides a starting point, and an ending point.
Which Religion? It depends whether or not the theory is compatible with a Religious explanation to decide whether it disproves it. eg; If there was the belief that the Universe is shrinking by a religion and yet we find evidence to the contrary, that's just tough.
QUOTE
To me, agnostics are the only ones who really KNOW anything, the fact that we will never really know until we die. And strict agnosticism takes it one step further and says that we won't TRULY know even then.
Again agnosticism in this sense tries to appear knowledge-less, but whats the point of learning anything if you play 'We don't know anything' card.
Ask your self what DO you know. In order to sit on the fence in regard to the afterlife surely there would be something in Living beings that we could debate whether or not this 'thing' can survive physical death. But what is it? Science is learning more about consciousness and interestingly animal consciousness as well. We know that so far there is no evidence that there is a separate entity or whatever that is 'You' or 'I' that does not require your body to exist. Why would we even need a brain if we can just as well function as a human without one? Why do we need blood and all that gooey stuff that makes you, you. When humans die that gooey stuff no longer supports that individual and they are no longer alive. Sure I can understand why people would want to believe that there is an afterlife but all the evidence leads to a different conclusion. Sad but most probably true. Of course once again we can play the 'We don't know for sure' and that is always valid but sometimes seems somewhat childish or un-knowledgeable.
Who knows the entire physics of the Universe may suddenly change in a minute and I could fall through the floor. I am agnostic because I cannot disprove the assertion that it might happen, but come on. When your not sure about that which you cannot know then go with what you do KNOW for sure. It's not great but sometimes it's all we have and no more.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me, agnostics are the only ones who really KNOW anything, the fact that we will never really know until we die. And strict agnosticism takes it one step further and says that we won't TRULY know even then. |
Again agnosticism in this sense tries to appear knowledge-less, but whats the point of learning anything if you play 'We don't know anything' card.
Ask your self what DO you know. In order to sit on the fence in regard to the afterlife surely there would be something in Living beings that we could debate whether or not this 'thing' can survive physical death. But what is it? Science is learning more about consciousness and interestingly animal consciousness as well. We know that so far there is no evidence that there is a separate entity or whatever that is 'You' or 'I' that does not require your body to exist. Why would we even need a brain if we can just as well function as a human without one? Why do we need blood and all that gooey stuff that makes you, you. When humans die that gooey stuff no longer supports that individual and they are no longer alive. Sure I can understand why people would want to believe that there is an afterlife but all the evidence leads to a different conclusion. Sad but most probably true. Of course once again we can play the 'We don't know for sure' and that is always valid but sometimes seems somewhat childish or un-knowledgeable.
Who knows the entire physics of the Universe may suddenly change in a minute and I could fall through the floor. I am agnostic because I cannot disprove the assertion that it might happen, but come on. When your not sure about that which you cannot know then go with what you do KNOW for sure. It's not great but sometimes it's all we have and no more.
I fully believe that 'all' theists and atheists know that 1 + 1 = 2. Remember, we are talking about knowledge of the afterlife, and the beginning.
Well for someone who appears to be flying the flag for agnosticism, you are the one who appears to be throwing around the absolutes.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 15 2008, 10:24 AM)
Again agnosticism in this sense tries to appear knowledge-less, but whats the point of learning anything if you play 'We don't know anything' card.
It isn't that I am trying to sound knowledge-less, all I am trying to say, is that no matter how much we learn of the universes creation, we will never truly be able to completely deny that there could easily be a God. But we will also never be able to prove the existence of God either. Clearly others do not see it the same way as me, but to me there is a fifty-fifty chance that there exists a god, or otherwise.
And though we may be able to grasp a better understanding of how the universe works, we will more than likely never know of it's original creation.
The main reason that I used to be Christian is that I needed an explanation for how the universe was originally created. God had that answer. And then I though about where God came from. No one had that answer. For some reason, I simply cannot imagine that something can just be there, without first being created. But I do realize that whatever was here first, must have always been here... This topic is the most confusing I have ever come across... Maybe not some much confusing as paradoxic... If such a word exists.
--
I think I may be done posting in this thread. I believe that whatever credibility I started with is slowly fading.
It isn't that I am trying to sound knowledge-less, all I am trying to say, is that no matter how much we learn of the universes creation, we will never truly be able to completely deny that there could easily be a God. But we will also never be able to prove the existence of God either. Clearly others do not see it the same way as me, but to me there is a fifty-fifty chance that there exists a god, or otherwise.
And though we may be able to grasp a better understanding of how the universe works, we will more than likely never know of it's original creation.
The main reason that I used to be Christian is that I needed an explanation for how the universe was originally created. God had that answer. And then I though about where God came from. No one had that answer. For some reason, I simply cannot imagine that something can just be there, without first being created. But I do realize that whatever was here first, must have always been here... This topic is the most confusing I have ever come across... Maybe not some much confusing as paradoxic... If such a word exists.
--
I think I may be done posting in this thread. I believe that whatever credibility I started with is slowly fading.
Pascal's Wager
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
QUOTE
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
brent.tc,
Your credibility is intact - you are acknowledging the greatest dilemna of our existence and you are doing so with honesty.
peace
edward
Your credibility is intact - you are acknowledging the greatest dilemna of our existence and you are doing so with honesty.
peace
edward
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 15 2008, 08:43 PM)
brent.tc,
Your credibility is intact - you are acknowledging the greatest dilemna of our existence and you are doing so with honesty.
peace
edward
edwood i lik you your credibility is intatters.
Your credibility is intact - you are acknowledging the greatest dilemna of our existence and you are doing so with honesty.
peace
edward
edwood i lik you your credibility is intatters.
You are right. There is no way to prove that there is or isn't a god. I have no real issue with this statement, but it leads me to a question that I think to be one of the most relevant questions to this debate: what is the basis of the god hypothesis?
You say that atheists and theists are in the same boat as neither has any evidence to support their position. I agree with you to a point but I ask this: why should atheists try to find evidence to support their position? There is no reason for us to suspect that a god may exist. Does that not support the atheist position? Having no evidence of somethings existence is not a reason to emphatically rule that it doesn't exist, but it does mean that it should be ignored until evidence presents itself. Why would we even imagine that something so devoid of support to be a legitimate perspective?
We don't even have ONE OUNCE of reason to suspect that there is a god so I maintain that even speaking of such an idea should be left to the world of fiction.
I'm not an atheist, I am a realist.
You say that atheists and theists are in the same boat as neither has any evidence to support their position. I agree with you to a point but I ask this: why should atheists try to find evidence to support their position? There is no reason for us to suspect that a god may exist. Does that not support the atheist position? Having no evidence of somethings existence is not a reason to emphatically rule that it doesn't exist, but it does mean that it should be ignored until evidence presents itself. Why would we even imagine that something so devoid of support to be a legitimate perspective?
We don't even have ONE OUNCE of reason to suspect that there is a god so I maintain that even speaking of such an idea should be left to the world of fiction.
I'm not an atheist, I am a realist.
DuzmA,
I agree with your post but for one caveat. I am not as adamantly opposed to god as I am to religion. I don't believe a god created the universe, but if one wishes to accept that premise then so be it. However, I don't see any advantage to then surround that belief in mysticism and beat unbelievers about the head with it, literally or figuratively.
The god hypothesis still leaves us with the same two impossibilities. Either something arose from nothing or everything always existed, neither argument is acceptable.
QUOTE
I'm not an atheist, I am a realist.
I agree with your post but for one caveat. I am not as adamantly opposed to god as I am to religion. I don't believe a god created the universe, but if one wishes to accept that premise then so be it. However, I don't see any advantage to then surround that belief in mysticism and beat unbelievers about the head with it, literally or figuratively.
The god hypothesis still leaves us with the same two impossibilities. Either something arose from nothing or everything always existed, neither argument is acceptable.
Xtrmn8r,
The god hypthotesis leaves us with two impossibilities? - surely all hypotheses as to our origin leave us with the same two unacceptable scenarios?
edward
The god hypthotesis leaves us with two impossibilities? - surely all hypotheses as to our origin leave us with the same two unacceptable scenarios?
edward
Edward 3
Yes they do! Sorry I didn't make that more clear, you are correct.
QUOTE
Xtrmn8r,
The god hypthotesis leaves us with two impossibilities? - surely all hypotheses as to our origin leave us with the same two unacceptable scenarios?
edward
The god hypthotesis leaves us with two impossibilities? - surely all hypotheses as to our origin leave us with the same two unacceptable scenarios?
edward
Yes they do! Sorry I didn't make that more clear, you are correct.
Which is more sensible???
Atheism of course!
Think of it this way...
If god exists as the theists propose, he is omnipotent and omniscient (O&O) and anything that we do here on earth is by his direct hand! PERIOD!. There can no no other conclusion for a god that is O&O. After all he would hot be subject to any uncertainty at all. Therefore he would be directly responsible for all the suffering we see in the world, not just passively but an active creator of pain and suffering. A god that would create the universe purposely with all this suffering that he chooses not only to ignore, but brings about a great deal of it directly in his name, does not deserve the respect (not to mention worship) of the simplest of life forms!
This really disturbs me because theists know that their god can and does inflict a great deal of pain and suffering on his "children", most of whom will, by their own admission, spend eternity in he11) yet they still get down on their knees and pray to him! Personally, the thought of a god of this nature is completely repulsive and asinine.
If god does not exist, then we are all responsible for what we do and the choices we make. We are subject to the random happenings of the universe as well as the not-so-random causality of others. Then the suffering is, although just as horrible, not caused by an O&O being watching from the stands (as it were) but by the randomness and arbitrary nature of the natural world. It is easy to live without a god of this nature. Our work/ideas/creations actually means something to us. Our morals are defined by us and it is up to us to live by them.
Agnostics are (some anyways) just people that have discovered the complete fallacy of god, but have a difficult time emotionally with the idea that we a just pimples on the a55 of a small planet circling a rather average star in an indistinct galaxy and that, if we blew ourselves up tomorrow, the universe would not even take notice.
We are only special in our own minds. We are subject to the laws/whims/currents of the universe, and there is no life guard! (or perhaps more precisely-there is no bully)!
FGG
Atheism of course!
Think of it this way...
If god exists as the theists propose, he is omnipotent and omniscient (O&O) and anything that we do here on earth is by his direct hand! PERIOD!. There can no no other conclusion for a god that is O&O. After all he would hot be subject to any uncertainty at all. Therefore he would be directly responsible for all the suffering we see in the world, not just passively but an active creator of pain and suffering. A god that would create the universe purposely with all this suffering that he chooses not only to ignore, but brings about a great deal of it directly in his name, does not deserve the respect (not to mention worship) of the simplest of life forms!
This really disturbs me because theists know that their god can and does inflict a great deal of pain and suffering on his "children", most of whom will, by their own admission, spend eternity in he11) yet they still get down on their knees and pray to him! Personally, the thought of a god of this nature is completely repulsive and asinine.
If god does not exist, then we are all responsible for what we do and the choices we make. We are subject to the random happenings of the universe as well as the not-so-random causality of others. Then the suffering is, although just as horrible, not caused by an O&O being watching from the stands (as it were) but by the randomness and arbitrary nature of the natural world. It is easy to live without a god of this nature. Our work/ideas/creations actually means something to us. Our morals are defined by us and it is up to us to live by them.
Agnostics are (some anyways) just people that have discovered the complete fallacy of god, but have a difficult time emotionally with the idea that we a just pimples on the a55 of a small planet circling a rather average star in an indistinct galaxy and that, if we blew ourselves up tomorrow, the universe would not even take notice.
We are only special in our own minds. We are subject to the laws/whims/currents of the universe, and there is no life guard! (or perhaps more precisely-there is no bully)!
FGG
QUOTE (brent.tc+)
It isn't that I am trying to sound knowledge-less, all I am trying to say, is that no matter how much we learn of the universes creation, we will never truly be able to completely deny that there could easily be a God.
But that is a very un-agnostic assertion. Saying that we will never do something is an absolute statement that you cannot know either.
It would be more agnostic to say that we just don't know for sure now.
But again we would firstly need to establish what God we are discussing.
In regards to the 50/50 chance I would ask myself, 'Is there more probability that the Universe was created by Yahweh, Brahma, Allah or Flying Spaghetti Monster?'
Do you think they all have a 50/50 chance of being true?
Does one have more supporting evidence than another?
If so, what is it?
I personally cannot see a 50/50 split. There are more possible contenders including all currently unknown explanations and more importantly the actual truth, whatever that may be.
But again we would firstly need to establish what God we are discussing.
In regards to the 50/50 chance I would ask myself, 'Is there more probability that the Universe was created by Yahweh, Brahma, Allah or Flying Spaghetti Monster?'
Do you think they all have a 50/50 chance of being true?
Does one have more supporting evidence than another?
If so, what is it?
I personally cannot see a 50/50 split. There are more possible contenders including all currently unknown explanations and more importantly the actual truth, whatever that may be.
And though we may be able to grasp a better understanding of how the universe works, we will more than likely never know of it's original creation.
But you assume that it was created. The art of not knowing something includes battling through those assumptions.
These are very big questions that have puzzled us from the first question why?
I am personally happy not knowing something for sure. I love learning new things and trying to see how it all fits together. (imho) God is somebody else's explanation.
I accept the hypothesis and leave room for it. But for me trying to find room for that which does not evidently exist (despite what we might choose to believe) is fine but it is important for my understanding to learn about what actually does evidently exist.
If there was a creator then this is what it has evidently created for us to understand.
Anything else is just imaginary until proven otherwise, in other words the truth is real, if it ain't what we want it to be then that is tough.
My reasoning cannot account for absolute nothingness, therefore I am logically left with eternity or infinity. In other words how can existence do anything other than at least exist? This may not be true, just a hunch. If that is any help with your deductions.
These are very big questions that have puzzled us from the first question why?
I am personally happy not knowing something for sure. I love learning new things and trying to see how it all fits together. (imho) God is somebody else's explanation.
I accept the hypothesis and leave room for it. But for me trying to find room for that which does not evidently exist (despite what we might choose to believe) is fine but it is important for my understanding to learn about what actually does evidently exist.
If there was a creator then this is what it has evidently created for us to understand.
Anything else is just imaginary until proven otherwise, in other words the truth is real, if it ain't what we want it to be then that is tough.
My reasoning cannot account for absolute nothingness, therefore I am logically left with eternity or infinity. In other words how can existence do anything other than at least exist? This may not be true, just a hunch. If that is any help with your deductions.
I think I may be done posting in this thread. I believe that whatever credibility I started with is slowly fading.
Well I would consider that a shame to quit posting because of credibility. You haven't bad mouthed anyone from what I have seen. Your thoughts and ideas are most important as they are yours. If anything asking questions about life, spirituality etc is to your credit. Just be mindful about lumping atheists with theists as we are all atheists, agnostics etc, Theists are in a category of there own making which defines the atheist position. I don't believe in fairies so I guess that makes me 'afairieist' if that makes sense.
keep questioning, what harm can it do?
Kind regards.
Surely the first step is to define what we mean by 'God', before we go 'proving' anything one way or another?
For instance, does everybody agree that 'God' is an Infinite thing?
g.
Surely the first step is to define what we mean by 'God', before we go 'proving' anything one way or another?
For instance, does everybody agree that 'God' is an Infinite thing?
g.
But that's just it as well, If God is unknowable then how can we honestly agree on characteristics?
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
But that is a very un-agnostic assertion. Saying that we will never do something is an absolute statement that you cannot know either.
It would be more agnostic to say that we just don't know for sure now.
QUOTE
But we will also never be able to prove the existence of God either. Clearly others do not see it the same way as me, but to me there is a fifty-fifty chance that there exists a god, or otherwise.
But again we would firstly need to establish what God we are discussing.
In regards to the 50/50 chance I would ask myself, 'Is there more probability that the Universe was created by Yahweh, Brahma, Allah or Flying Spaghetti Monster?'
Do you think they all have a 50/50 chance of being true?
Does one have more supporting evidence than another?
If so, what is it?
I personally cannot see a 50/50 split. There are more possible contenders including all currently unknown explanations and more importantly the actual truth, whatever that may be.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But we will also never be able to prove the existence of God either. Clearly others do not see it the same way as me, but to me there is a fifty-fifty chance that there exists a god, or otherwise. |
But again we would firstly need to establish what God we are discussing.
In regards to the 50/50 chance I would ask myself, 'Is there more probability that the Universe was created by Yahweh, Brahma, Allah or Flying Spaghetti Monster?'
Do you think they all have a 50/50 chance of being true?
Does one have more supporting evidence than another?
If so, what is it?
I personally cannot see a 50/50 split. There are more possible contenders including all currently unknown explanations and more importantly the actual truth, whatever that may be.
And though we may be able to grasp a better understanding of how the universe works, we will more than likely never know of it's original creation.
But you assume that it was created. The art of not knowing something includes battling through those assumptions.
QUOTE
The main reason that I used to be Christian is that I needed an explanation for how the universe was originally created. God had that answer. And then I though about where God came from. No one had that answer. For some reason, I simply cannot imagine that something can just be there, without first being created. But I do realize that whatever was here first, must have always been here... This topic is the most confusing I have ever come across... Maybe not some much confusing as paradoxic... If such a word exists.
These are very big questions that have puzzled us from the first question why?
I am personally happy not knowing something for sure. I love learning new things and trying to see how it all fits together. (imho) God is somebody else's explanation.
I accept the hypothesis and leave room for it. But for me trying to find room for that which does not evidently exist (despite what we might choose to believe) is fine but it is important for my understanding to learn about what actually does evidently exist.
If there was a creator then this is what it has evidently created for us to understand.
Anything else is just imaginary until proven otherwise, in other words the truth is real, if it ain't what we want it to be then that is tough.
My reasoning cannot account for absolute nothingness, therefore I am logically left with eternity or infinity. In other words how can existence do anything other than at least exist? This may not be true, just a hunch. If that is any help with your deductions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The main reason that I used to be Christian is that I needed an explanation for how the universe was originally created. God had that answer. And then I though about where God came from. No one had that answer. For some reason, I simply cannot imagine that something can just be there, without first being created. But I do realize that whatever was here first, must have always been here... This topic is the most confusing I have ever come across... Maybe not some much confusing as paradoxic... If such a word exists. |
These are very big questions that have puzzled us from the first question why?
I am personally happy not knowing something for sure. I love learning new things and trying to see how it all fits together. (imho) God is somebody else's explanation.
I accept the hypothesis and leave room for it. But for me trying to find room for that which does not evidently exist (despite what we might choose to believe) is fine but it is important for my understanding to learn about what actually does evidently exist.
If there was a creator then this is what it has evidently created for us to understand.
Anything else is just imaginary until proven otherwise, in other words the truth is real, if it ain't what we want it to be then that is tough.
My reasoning cannot account for absolute nothingness, therefore I am logically left with eternity or infinity. In other words how can existence do anything other than at least exist? This may not be true, just a hunch. If that is any help with your deductions.
I think I may be done posting in this thread. I believe that whatever credibility I started with is slowly fading.
Well I would consider that a shame to quit posting because of credibility. You haven't bad mouthed anyone from what I have seen. Your thoughts and ideas are most important as they are yours. If anything asking questions about life, spirituality etc is to your credit. Just be mindful about lumping atheists with theists as we are all atheists, agnostics etc, Theists are in a category of there own making which defines the atheist position. I don't believe in fairies so I guess that makes me 'afairieist' if that makes sense.
keep questioning, what harm can it do?
Kind regards.
When I'm in a discussion at the local pub and someone asks me if I believe in god I ask them to define the word first. Then I can tell you if I believe in that or not.
Amazingly most people can't define it... but yet they assume that it means the same thing to all people.
Amazingly most people can't define it... but yet they assume that it means the same thing to all people.
gmilam - after considering it for a few minutes, I really can't come up with any great definition for 'God', but here goes.
God - a thought capable being that created the universe, and determines our fate after life...
... but now I'm thinking "simple as that?... no way."
New 'subtopic':
Define God, without first using any sort of reference.
--
Good argument Sinister Utopia. That is all I will say. Along with that, and that, and that, and that, and that, and ...
God - a thought capable being that created the universe, and determines our fate after life...
... but now I'm thinking "simple as that?... no way."
New 'subtopic':
Define God, without first using any sort of reference.
--
Good argument Sinister Utopia. That is all I will say. Along with that, and that, and that, and that, and that, and ...
I personally find atheism more sensible, but that's because I used to be a believer. I suspect that being a strict agnostic might be more sensible for someone who didn't used to be a believer, because they can't (fully) grasp what the believer is talking about. Though, obviously, they can get pretty close.
QUOTE (brent.tc+Jun 16 2008, 01:38 AM)
Good argument Sinister Utopia. That is all I will say. Along with that, and that, and that, and that, and that, and ...
As you wish
As you wish
QUOTE
There is no way to prove that there is or isn't a god.
Surely the first step is to define what we mean by 'God', before we go 'proving' anything one way or another?
For instance, does everybody agree that 'God' is an Infinite thing?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 12:05 PM)
Surely the first step is to define what we mean by 'God', before we go 'proving' anything one way or another?
For instance, does everybody agree that 'God' is an Infinite thing?
g.
But that's just it as well, If God is unknowable then how can we honestly agree on characteristics?
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 15 2008, 08:50 AM)
Well said Sinister Utopia
I do take issue with this statement however
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
Do you or do you not believe in the Pope's Divine infalibility?
I realize it's not turned on all the time and is only for certain occasions but even still.
Are you really eating the flesh of Christ but are incapable of seeing evidence of it?
I do take issue with this statement however
This is untrue. Theists require only Faith, Atheists claim to aspire to some "truth", so the burden in fact rests on them.
Of course, I find Agnostic actually much more sensible and actually an attainable state. Theists cannot "know" there is a God any more than Atheists can claim to "know" there is not one.
By the same token, some of the silliness that passes for religion out there never ceases to amaze and astound me that ANYONE could sustain such a dissonance with obvious reality. I am happy with mine however.
Do you or do you not believe in the Pope's Divine infalibility?
I realize it's not turned on all the time and is only for certain occasions but even still.
Are you really eating the flesh of Christ but are incapable of seeing evidence of it?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 08:07 AM)
But that's just it as well, If God is unknowable then how can we honestly agree on characteristics?
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
And that's the problem.
If one was to take a pantheist approach and say god is everything. That's kind of difficult to argue with as the universe obviously exists. I would have to lean towards being a theist.
If you think of god as existing outside of the universe, then you raise even more question than you answer. Example - if the universe is all there is, then what does outside the universe mean? I would have to remain in the agnostic camp with a heavy tilt towards atheism. (I view the scientific hypotheses that include an omniverse or a multiverse in the same light.)
If your concept of god is a king sitting on a throne somewhere keeping score of your life and counting every hair on your head... I would have to claim atheist.
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
And that's the problem.
If one was to take a pantheist approach and say god is everything. That's kind of difficult to argue with as the universe obviously exists. I would have to lean towards being a theist.
If you think of god as existing outside of the universe, then you raise even more question than you answer. Example - if the universe is all there is, then what does outside the universe mean? I would have to remain in the agnostic camp with a heavy tilt towards atheism. (I view the scientific hypotheses that include an omniverse or a multiverse in the same light.)
If your concept of god is a king sitting on a throne somewhere keeping score of your life and counting every hair on your head... I would have to claim atheist.
Hi all,
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Saying "God is only an observer" brings up one major question.
Why pray?
Why pray?
Theism does not necessarily involve prayer - if, for example, your religious belief includes pre-destination, I would see little point in prayer - no point in askin if you are certain of no response - would be even worse than negative feedback!!!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 16 2008, 02:49 PM)
Hi all,
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Ok, while we are at it, lets throw caution to the wind and suggest that while we attempt in vain to define a singular entity, couldn't it be more likely that it is a civilization, billions of years more advanced than our own? Could we be the 'Sims'?
I don't see why not, if we are ignoring the infinite regress.
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Ok, while we are at it, lets throw caution to the wind and suggest that while we attempt in vain to define a singular entity, couldn't it be more likely that it is a civilization, billions of years more advanced than our own? Could we be the 'Sims'?
I don't see why not, if we are ignoring the infinite regress.
Hi SU,
Only problem I have with that is that we are far too dysfunctional to be treated like the Sims !!
Actually , you are pointing the discussion in an interesting direction - specifically, are we defining God as an advanced man? The danger here is the age-old one of man defining God in his own image. Keep the thoughts flowing.
regards
E3
Only problem I have with that is that we are far too dysfunctional to be treated like the Sims !!
Actually , you are pointing the discussion in an interesting direction - specifically, are we defining God as an advanced man? The danger here is the age-old one of man defining God in his own image. Keep the thoughts flowing.
regards
E3
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 02:07 AM)
But that's just it as well, If God is unknowable then how can we honestly agree on characteristics?
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
Who says it is 'unknowable'?
Why don't we try to find out, instead of assuming?
This is it. Let's do it here and now.
Here's the start, and let's progress one step at a time...
Is there an Infinite aspect to whatever people like to call 'God'?
Can this be agreed?
g.
There are so many subjective interpretations and established yet contrary proposals from various sects and denominations, religions etc.
Who says it is 'unknowable'?
Why don't we try to find out, instead of assuming?
This is it. Let's do it here and now.
Here's the start, and let's progress one step at a time...
Is there an Infinite aspect to whatever people like to call 'God'?
Can this be agreed?
g.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 10:02 AM)
Could we be the 'Sims'?
Then when we die, our RAM is deallocated and returned to the memory pool.
Then when we die, our RAM is deallocated and returned to the memory pool.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 15 2008, 01:04 PM)
I can freely admit that I don't know if ET's exist and no one gets annoyed. Why is this different?
I believe the difference is that scientifically it seems logical that some form of life exists on other planets. Perhaps even intelligent life. Whereas, to accept the supernatural would require a blind faith.
I believe the difference is that scientifically it seems logical that some form of life exists on other planets. Perhaps even intelligent life. Whereas, to accept the supernatural would require a blind faith.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Who says it is 'unknowable'?
Proponents, when pressed to provide evidence, in my experience.
However if God is knowable then how can we logically define something prior to looking?
I agree, and I think the mistake we would make from the offset, again would be to define it before we know what actually is there to be found.
I agree, and I think the mistake we would make from the offset, again would be to define it before we know what actually is there to be found.
This is it. Let's do it here and now.
I fear I would be foolish to turn down an offer like that
Some may see it this way, but again we would be defining what God is before searching. In short I don't know if God is infinite untill we know whether God is infinite.
Some may see it this way, but again we would be defining what God is before searching. In short I don't know if God is infinite untill we know whether God is infinite.
Can this be agreed?
As a hypothesis yes, in reality I don't know.
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
Well I guess it is to explain away infinity, existence and depending on how far back you go and to which human definition we extrapolate from everything that was un-explainable at the time to those humans.
But again, there are many proposed God's. Which one shall we pick?
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
Been wanting to see this addressed for some time.
Religions all have their different models of "God", and of course, each considers the models proposed by the religions outside their own to be false, entirely different, idols, etc. It is this very idea of separate, specific Gods that has contributed to me eventually falling away from the idea that one particular religion holds all the answers and is the sole way to finding God. "My God is better/more real than your God" just seemed like playground smack-talking to me.
My intuition tells me that there is a singularity somewhere up the line from which everything we observe, think, feel (and many other things we can't) all stem from. Kind of a paradox, a singularity that also encompasses an infinite number of things, both physical and non. I cringe at the word "God", because it does just as previous posts have mention - "God" implies a masculine, bearded man-on-a-throne, reigning from the clouds. The popular interpretation is so skewed in favor of the Christian portrayal that yes, we end up limiting our open-mindedness to the idea of what, exactly, God may encompass.
I will use a capitalized "It" instead of the G-word from now on, to avoid subjectivity.
I believe the universe to be a physical expression of It, though most likely not the only. To truly possess the infinite knowledge that need be attributed to It, this seems to demand the multiverse model of quantum mechanics... It would need to experience every possible happening, feeling, action, embodiment, etc. in order to truly be "all-knowing".
Perhaps our consciousness follows a particular channel of this possibly infinite multiverse, as part of It's overall experience. This may suggest we are a slice of God, but if every physical manifestation of matter and energy is an expression, it could also be considered a slice. Maybe a consciousness innate to every electron and photon is responsible for the wave-function collapse necessary to explain some of the interactions we suspect take place with no observer and detector?
So your life's purpose could be to just *exist*, and experience the things you have/do/will.
Anyways, It could be so many more things that have never been conceptualized by humans, and possibly never will be. Truly, speculation is quite enjoyable though
Everything I've just said is nothing I would preach. It is merely my current beliefs, which are extremely subject to change based upon the acquisition of new knowledge and experience.
I have considered similarly to this in that I can imagine us to act like 'Camera-men/women' of the Universe. Not just humans though but anything that has some means of sensation. All other things that do not have means of sense are registered by those that can sense provided that they are encountered in whatever way.
Kinda like the Universe trying to figure out what it is. I don't mean that in the sense that the Universe knows that's what it is doing but more that as our awareness of it increases so does the Universes. We are the Universe, the mind of nature or a mind or collection of. We are not the creator but essentially as close to a God that there is or that we currently know.
As far as we currently know the earth is the only place in the entire Universe that has means of this awareness.
So, we can either argue endlessly about it, or try to get through the minefield.
Fair do's
Well in a religious context, I haven't labeled myself as such, more that the label was given to myself and others that resist the ideologies of the 'labelers'.
I am just me. On this forum when debating the existence of eg; Allah or Yahweh, I am clearly an atheist. I say it to wind proponents up I guess
Well in a religious context, I haven't labeled myself as such, more that the label was given to myself and others that resist the ideologies of the 'labelers'.
I am just me. On this forum when debating the existence of eg; Allah or Yahweh, I am clearly an atheist. I say it to wind proponents up I guess
For me, the act of communication serves a purpose, and that is that we help each other to understand this thing we call 'life', whether we do this consciously or not. The 'antagonistic' approach will leave unanswered questions hanging in our minds anyway, so my feeling is that it is better to try to communicate effectively from the start, if that is possible. It is only possible if that is what people actually want, but it also involves wading through the 'semantic minefield', as you say.
Many people claim they do not have the time, or the 'stomach' for such a daunting prospect, but surprisingly they do find the time to argue endlessly!
Well it would be refreshing to attempt a theistic discussion without being being bashed over the head with King James's Book of magic spells.
What does it mean to me? Well I guess an entity who can live for ever and cannot be killed but had a birth or beginning perhaps?, (for some reason I always think of Zeus and his entourage). (imho) Time/motion would indeed be a more realistic ingredient.
Is this a real possibility, do you think? I mean, does 'forever' only stretch in the one direction? Or is this a return to the idea that 'something can come from nothing', and then proceed to continue its existence forever? How might this be possible, given that the laws of physics we have as yet uncovered state that this would not be possible? Surely, if a thing has no 'end' it must necessarily have no 'beginning' either? How does a thing with no end begin?
You see, these 'semantic issues' really are the concern of what is necessarily Real, as opposed to what we believe might be real.
And this is why the correct definition of 'infinity' is such an important issue. There is always, and this is without exception, an element of 'infinity' to any idea whatsoever that we care to choose to posit, when the discussion of the topic becomes serious. 'Infinity' is therefore the point at which all things meet.
It is also difficult for people, because no one wants to appear 'unknowledgable', yet when questioned it is something they have not thought about. It then becomes a face-saving game, and people try to use those good old 'semantic issues' to their advantage...which is why they exist!
The only way to get around this problem is for more people to become aware of it.
The thread title is 'Which is more sensible?' ...and my contention is that 'sensible' can only refer to that which actually exists, so it is pretty much pointless calling yourself some 'ist' or other if the thing in question is in doubt of existence. So, the reason for starting with the premise of 'infinity' is that this is the only absolute aspect at which all ideologies agree, regardless of the other names we give it...'Void', 'God', 'Nature', 'Tao', 'Space', whatever...
g.
Proponents, when pressed to provide evidence, in my experience.
However if God is knowable then how can we logically define something prior to looking?
QUOTE
Why don't we try to find out, instead of assuming?
I agree, and I think the mistake we would make from the offset, again would be to define it before we know what actually is there to be found.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why don't we try to find out, instead of assuming? |
I agree, and I think the mistake we would make from the offset, again would be to define it before we know what actually is there to be found.
This is it. Let's do it here and now.
I fear I would be foolish to turn down an offer like that
QUOTE
Here's the start, and let's progress one step at a time...Is there an Infinite aspect to whatever people like to call 'God'?
Some may see it this way, but again we would be defining what God is before searching. In short I don't know if God is infinite untill we know whether God is infinite.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here's the start, and let's progress one step at a time...Is there an Infinite aspect to whatever people like to call 'God'? |
Some may see it this way, but again we would be defining what God is before searching. In short I don't know if God is infinite untill we know whether God is infinite.
Can this be agreed?
As a hypothesis yes, in reality I don't know.
QUOTE
However if God is knowable then how can we logically define something prior to looking?
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 16 2008, 03:11 PM)
Hi SU,
Only problem I have with that is that we are far too dysfunctional to be treated like the Sims !!
Actually , you are pointing the discussion in an interesting direction - specifically, are we defining God as an advanced man? The danger here is the age-old one of man defining God in his own image. Keep the thoughts flowing.
regards
E3
Well, I dabble in a bit of programming myself and it is conceivable (to me at least) that future humans may possess technology that enables them to create realistic simulation's, where the characters are self aware or whatever. Multiplying this concept to a species possibly billions of years more advanced than us, then to me it is equally conceivable that our observable Universe could be a 'Bubble' created perhaps just to see what would happen.
I see no added or special reason to imagine 'God' as a singular entity other than to satisfy monotheism. As there is no evidence that this is the case anyway, so no not necessarily an 'advanced man' A race or civilization seems more plausible to me. But 'advanced man' if you prefer.
however I suspect that if there is any truth to my speculation then I guess they would not have known what we would looked like until we evolved. Which means that they would probably not look like us, unless they evolved as primates as well.
Only problem I have with that is that we are far too dysfunctional to be treated like the Sims !!
Actually , you are pointing the discussion in an interesting direction - specifically, are we defining God as an advanced man? The danger here is the age-old one of man defining God in his own image. Keep the thoughts flowing.
regards
E3
Well, I dabble in a bit of programming myself and it is conceivable (to me at least) that future humans may possess technology that enables them to create realistic simulation's, where the characters are self aware or whatever. Multiplying this concept to a species possibly billions of years more advanced than us, then to me it is equally conceivable that our observable Universe could be a 'Bubble' created perhaps just to see what would happen.
I see no added or special reason to imagine 'God' as a singular entity other than to satisfy monotheism. As there is no evidence that this is the case anyway, so no not necessarily an 'advanced man' A race or civilization seems more plausible to me. But 'advanced man' if you prefer.
however I suspect that if there is any truth to my speculation then I guess they would not have known what we would looked like until we evolved. Which means that they would probably not look like us, unless they evolved as primates as well.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 04:04 PM)
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
Well I guess it is to explain away infinity, existence and depending on how far back you go and to which human definition we extrapolate from everything that was un-explainable at the time to those humans.
But again, there are many proposed God's. Which one shall we pick?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 05:33 AM)
Well I guess it is to explain away infinity, existence and depending on how far back you go and to which human definition we extrapolate from everything that was un-explainable at the time to those humans.
But again, there are many proposed God's. Which one shall we pick?
All of them. Just the word 'God'.
Has there ever been a 'God' that is considered 'finite'?
g.
But again, there are many proposed God's. Which one shall we pick?
All of them. Just the word 'God'.
Has there ever been a 'God' that is considered 'finite'?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 04:04 PM)
It is Humans who have posited the idea of a 'God', so it is to Humans we must look for a definition.
What exactly is it, that Humans think their invented word 'God' represents?
g.
Been wanting to see this addressed for some time.
Religions all have their different models of "God", and of course, each considers the models proposed by the religions outside their own to be false, entirely different, idols, etc. It is this very idea of separate, specific Gods that has contributed to me eventually falling away from the idea that one particular religion holds all the answers and is the sole way to finding God. "My God is better/more real than your God" just seemed like playground smack-talking to me.
My intuition tells me that there is a singularity somewhere up the line from which everything we observe, think, feel (and many other things we can't) all stem from. Kind of a paradox, a singularity that also encompasses an infinite number of things, both physical and non. I cringe at the word "God", because it does just as previous posts have mention - "God" implies a masculine, bearded man-on-a-throne, reigning from the clouds. The popular interpretation is so skewed in favor of the Christian portrayal that yes, we end up limiting our open-mindedness to the idea of what, exactly, God may encompass.
I will use a capitalized "It" instead of the G-word from now on, to avoid subjectivity.
I believe the universe to be a physical expression of It, though most likely not the only. To truly possess the infinite knowledge that need be attributed to It, this seems to demand the multiverse model of quantum mechanics... It would need to experience every possible happening, feeling, action, embodiment, etc. in order to truly be "all-knowing".
Perhaps our consciousness follows a particular channel of this possibly infinite multiverse, as part of It's overall experience. This may suggest we are a slice of God, but if every physical manifestation of matter and energy is an expression, it could also be considered a slice. Maybe a consciousness innate to every electron and photon is responsible for the wave-function collapse necessary to explain some of the interactions we suspect take place with no observer and detector?
So your life's purpose could be to just *exist*, and experience the things you have/do/will.
Anyways, It could be so many more things that have never been conceptualized by humans, and possibly never will be. Truly, speculation is quite enjoyable though
Everything I've just said is nothing I would preach. It is merely my current beliefs, which are extremely subject to change based upon the acquisition of new knowledge and experience.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jun 16 2008, 08:49 AM)
Hi all,
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Maybe the reason that religious groups have not used the whole 'observer' idea is because an observer inspires no fear. Most, and perhaps all, religion is based on fear, or at very least, some amazingly unimaginable reward at the end. Fear inspires behavior.
Only being a little bit mischievous with this notion - Any of you ever think of God as the great observer, external to the physical universe, who collapses all those probability waves spreading out from Copenhagen ??!!!!!! I have never understood why some religious group did not come up with this.
regards
edward
Maybe the reason that religious groups have not used the whole 'observer' idea is because an observer inspires no fear. Most, and perhaps all, religion is based on fear, or at very least, some amazingly unimaginable reward at the end. Fear inspires behavior.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 04:49 PM)
All of them. Just the word 'God'.
Has there ever been a 'God' that is considered 'finite'?
g.
Ok, then is there a distinction between immortal and infinite we need to establish or dismiss first?
I'm referring to the Greco/Roman or paganistic etc types I guess.
Has there ever been a 'God' that is considered 'finite'?
g.
Ok, then is there a distinction between immortal and infinite we need to establish or dismiss first?
I'm referring to the Greco/Roman or paganistic etc types I guess.
No 'diclaimer' needed, am_u ~ 'twas a great post!
Here, we come across another word that has many currently differing opinions attached to it... 'Universe'.
Also, why should a mere Human feel that 'possession' of the entire knowledge of the universe be necessary to determine any 'infinite' aspect of it?
One plausible answer to the 'multiverse' hypothesis is that every wave-centre may be considered the centre of it own 'sense-able Universe', or 'observable/detectable Universe', being that it is made up of all of the out~waves emitted from whatever else exists (the rest of Infinite Space). Thus, each entity (and collections thereof) of Space may consider itself the centre of its observable/detectable 'universe'. This would go a long way to explaining our intuition of such things, and also that as our understanding 'expands' we apply this erroneously to the rest of the physical universe. History shows that it is our understanding that 'expands'.
An example of this...say, a single wave-centre 'particle' that goes to make up a part of your fingernail, would only be able to detect other similar 'fingernail-like' particles, and these go to make up the entire 'Universe' of the whole fingernail. Drop in the ocean.
Anyway, to get to the truth of anything, we must strip it to its barest bones, and rebuild the thing from scratch. Then, we understand how it goes together. Seeing as no 'God' has ever been posited as being less than 'infinite', this would be the logical place to begin our search, the point at which we all agree, and build from there...
g.
~ 'twas a great post!QUOTE
I believe the universe to be a physical expression of It, though most likely not the only. To truly possess the infinite knowledge that need be attributed to It, this seems to demand the multiverse model of quantum mechanics... It would need to experience every possible happening, feeling, action, embodiment, etc. in order to truly be "all-knowing".
Here, we come across another word that has many currently differing opinions attached to it... 'Universe'.
Also, why should a mere Human feel that 'possession' of the entire knowledge of the universe be necessary to determine any 'infinite' aspect of it?
One plausible answer to the 'multiverse' hypothesis is that every wave-centre may be considered the centre of it own 'sense-able Universe', or 'observable/detectable Universe', being that it is made up of all of the out~waves emitted from whatever else exists (the rest of Infinite Space). Thus, each entity (and collections thereof) of Space may consider itself the centre of its observable/detectable 'universe'. This would go a long way to explaining our intuition of such things, and also that as our understanding 'expands' we apply this erroneously to the rest of the physical universe. History shows that it is our understanding that 'expands'.
An example of this...say, a single wave-centre 'particle' that goes to make up a part of your fingernail, would only be able to detect other similar 'fingernail-like' particles, and these go to make up the entire 'Universe' of the whole fingernail. Drop in the ocean.
Anyway, to get to the truth of anything, we must strip it to its barest bones, and rebuild the thing from scratch. Then, we understand how it goes together. Seeing as no 'God' has ever been posited as being less than 'infinite', this would be the logical place to begin our search, the point at which we all agree, and build from there...
g.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 16 2008, 02:41 PM)
And that's the problem.
If one was to take a pantheist approach and say god is everything. That's kind of difficult to argue with as the universe obviously exists. I would have to lean towards being a theist.
If you think of god as existing outside of the universe, then you raise even more question than you answer. Example - if the universe is all there is, then what does outside the universe mean? I would have to remain in the agnostic camp with a heavy tilt towards atheism. (I view the scientific hypotheses that include an omniverse or a multiverse in the same light.)
If your concept of god is a king sitting on a throne somewhere keeping score of your life and counting every hair on your head... I would have to claim atheist.
This is my thinking as well.
I believe I could be considered a theist, agnostic or atheist.
It depends on what is under the microscope so to speak or how I am considered or perceived.
It's a semantic minefield if you ask me.
If one was to take a pantheist approach and say god is everything. That's kind of difficult to argue with as the universe obviously exists. I would have to lean towards being a theist.
If you think of god as existing outside of the universe, then you raise even more question than you answer. Example - if the universe is all there is, then what does outside the universe mean? I would have to remain in the agnostic camp with a heavy tilt towards atheism. (I view the scientific hypotheses that include an omniverse or a multiverse in the same light.)
If your concept of god is a king sitting on a throne somewhere keeping score of your life and counting every hair on your head... I would have to claim atheist.
This is my thinking as well.
I believe I could be considered a theist, agnostic or atheist.
It depends on what is under the microscope so to speak or how I am considered or perceived.
It's a semantic minefield if you ask me.
QUOTE
I believe the universe to be a physical expression of It, though most likely not the only. To truly possess the infinite knowledge that need be attributed to It, this seems to demand the multiverse model of quantum mechanics... It would need to experience every possible happening, feeling, action, embodiment, etc. in order to truly be "all-knowing".
I have considered similarly to this in that I can imagine us to act like 'Camera-men/women' of the Universe. Not just humans though but anything that has some means of sensation. All other things that do not have means of sense are registered by those that can sense provided that they are encountered in whatever way.
Kinda like the Universe trying to figure out what it is. I don't mean that in the sense that the Universe knows that's what it is doing but more that as our awareness of it increases so does the Universes. We are the Universe, the mind of nature or a mind or collection of. We are not the creator but essentially as close to a God that there is or that we currently know.
As far as we currently know the earth is the only place in the entire Universe that has means of this awareness.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 03:58 PM)
Kinda like the Universe trying to figure out what it is.
I have been guilty of saying that we are the universe's way of trying to figure itself out.
I honestly don't remember if I came up with that or if I stole it from Carl Sagan.
I have been guilty of saying that we are the universe's way of trying to figure itself out.
I honestly don't remember if I came up with that or if I stole it from Carl Sagan.
I got a problem with this thread:
The poll question an the question in the thread title are two different questions.
Now, in response to the question in the title, it's a complicated one, to my way o thinkin.
Dependin on whether ya assume the existence/non-existence o God, the answer is different.
If ya assume he's real, then o course it's more sensible to believe in 'im. Ya don't wanna go to hell, right?
If ya assume he's fake, then o course it's more sensible to not believe, an thereby free up some valuable time to be spent doin more fulfillin things than prayin or studyin the bible.
Then there's other considerations: What kinda person are ya? Do ya need that kind o faith to be a good person, like many folk what convert to christianity in jail? Well then, regardless o whether or not God exists, it's sensible to believe in him. Or maybe yer like most folk, an ye see believin in God an the bible as a good excuse fer not studyin up on evolutionary biology, the philosophy o ethics, or any other subject that might make ye doubt yer faith, robbin ya o critical thinkin skills an leavin ya doin hypocritical an un-christian things, meanin that whether or not God exists, it's sensible to not believe in him.
Anyways, I didn't vote cause I didn't see a "Naturalistic Theist" option, but now ya know what I think.
The poll question an the question in the thread title are two different questions.
Now, in response to the question in the title, it's a complicated one, to my way o thinkin.
Dependin on whether ya assume the existence/non-existence o God, the answer is different.
If ya assume he's real, then o course it's more sensible to believe in 'im. Ya don't wanna go to hell, right?
If ya assume he's fake, then o course it's more sensible to not believe, an thereby free up some valuable time to be spent doin more fulfillin things than prayin or studyin the bible.
Then there's other considerations: What kinda person are ya? Do ya need that kind o faith to be a good person, like many folk what convert to christianity in jail? Well then, regardless o whether or not God exists, it's sensible to believe in him. Or maybe yer like most folk, an ye see believin in God an the bible as a good excuse fer not studyin up on evolutionary biology, the philosophy o ethics, or any other subject that might make ye doubt yer faith, robbin ya o critical thinkin skills an leavin ya doin hypocritical an un-christian things, meanin that whether or not God exists, it's sensible to not believe in him.
Anyways, I didn't vote cause I didn't see a "Naturalistic Theist" option, but now ya know what I think.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 16 2008, 09:28 AM)
This is my thinking as well.
I believe I could be considered a theist, agnostic or atheist.
It depends on what is under the microscope so to speak or how I am considered or perceived.
It's a semantic minefield if you ask me.
Exactly!
So, we can either argue endlessly about it, or try to get through the minefield.
It is my understanding that the moment we label ourselves with some 'ist' or other, it becomes a political issue, as we segregate ourselves and all think we are 'special', or more 'knowing', for doing so!
For me, the act of communication serves a purpose, and that is that we help each other to understand this thing we call 'life', whether we do this consciously or not. The 'antagonistic' approach will leave unanswered questions hanging in our minds anyway, so my feeling is that it is better to try to communicate effectively from the start, if that is possible. It is only possible if that is what people actually want, but it also involves wading through the 'semantic minefield', as you say.
Many people claim they do not have the time, or the 'stomach' for such a daunting prospect, but surprisingly they do find the time to argue endlessly!
'Immortal' - what does it mean to you? Nothing in the Universe ever stays the same, an established fact. Is there a discrepancy with this? Is 'immortal' just a fanciful idea with nothing of real substance attached to it, or is it possibly some kind of metaphoric representation of something else, connected with 'time', maybe?
g.
I believe I could be considered a theist, agnostic or atheist.
It depends on what is under the microscope so to speak or how I am considered or perceived.
It's a semantic minefield if you ask me.
Exactly!
So, we can either argue endlessly about it, or try to get through the minefield.
It is my understanding that the moment we label ourselves with some 'ist' or other, it becomes a political issue, as we segregate ourselves and all think we are 'special', or more 'knowing', for doing so!
For me, the act of communication serves a purpose, and that is that we help each other to understand this thing we call 'life', whether we do this consciously or not. The 'antagonistic' approach will leave unanswered questions hanging in our minds anyway, so my feeling is that it is better to try to communicate effectively from the start, if that is possible. It is only possible if that is what people actually want, but it also involves wading through the 'semantic minefield', as you say.
Many people claim they do not have the time, or the 'stomach' for such a daunting prospect, but surprisingly they do find the time to argue endlessly!
QUOTE
Ok, then is there a distinction between immortal and infinite we need to establish or dismiss first?
'Immortal' - what does it mean to you? Nothing in the Universe ever stays the same, an established fact. Is there a discrepancy with this? Is 'immortal' just a fanciful idea with nothing of real substance attached to it, or is it possibly some kind of metaphoric representation of something else, connected with 'time', maybe?
g.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 16 2008, 04:10 PM)
I got a problem with this thread:
The poll question an the question in the thread title are two different questions.
I a$$/u/me the original poster a$$/u/med that a person would be whatever they considered most sensible.
The poll question an the question in the thread title are two different questions.
I a$$/u/me the original poster a$$/u/med that a person would be whatever they considered most sensible.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 16 2008, 10:09 AM)
I have been guilty of saying that we are the universe's way of trying to figure itself out.
I honestly don't remember if I came up with that or if I stole it from Carl Sagan.
It doesn't matter who says it. It is a fact.
But what it means is that the 'All is consciousness' brigade have it somewhat wrong. If 'All is consciousness', then why the need to evolve an aspect of itself to 'figure it out'?
'Self (universal) consciousness' is thus just an aspect, one of the possibilities available to the motion of what exists.
g.
I honestly don't remember if I came up with that or if I stole it from Carl Sagan.
It doesn't matter who says it. It is a fact.
But what it means is that the 'All is consciousness' brigade have it somewhat wrong. If 'All is consciousness', then why the need to evolve an aspect of itself to 'figure it out'?
'Self (universal) consciousness' is thus just an aspect, one of the possibilities available to the motion of what exists.
g.
QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 16 2008, 09:12 PM)
I a$$/u/me the original poster a$$/u/med that a person would be whatever they considered most sensible.
Me too, that's why I gave that semi-ling winded answer.
Me too, that's why I gave that semi-ling winded answer.
QUOTE (Mjolnir Pants+)
Me too, that's why I gave that semi-ling winded answer.
Of course with some of the people here that may not be a valid assumption.
Of course with some of the people here that may not be a valid assumption.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
So, we can either argue endlessly about it, or try to get through the minefield.
Fair do's
QUOTE
It is my understanding that the moment we label ourselves with some 'ist' or other, it becomes a political issue, as we segregate ourselves and all think we are 'special', or more 'knowing', for doing so!
Well in a religious context, I haven't labeled myself as such, more that the label was given to myself and others that resist the ideologies of the 'labelers'.
I am just me. On this forum when debating the existence of eg; Allah or Yahweh, I am clearly an atheist. I say it to wind proponents up I guess
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is my understanding that the moment we label ourselves with some 'ist' or other, it becomes a political issue, as we segregate ourselves and all think we are 'special', or more 'knowing', for doing so! |
Well in a religious context, I haven't labeled myself as such, more that the label was given to myself and others that resist the ideologies of the 'labelers'.
I am just me. On this forum when debating the existence of eg; Allah or Yahweh, I am clearly an atheist. I say it to wind proponents up I guess
For me, the act of communication serves a purpose, and that is that we help each other to understand this thing we call 'life', whether we do this consciously or not. The 'antagonistic' approach will leave unanswered questions hanging in our minds anyway, so my feeling is that it is better to try to communicate effectively from the start, if that is possible. It is only possible if that is what people actually want, but it also involves wading through the 'semantic minefield', as you say.
Many people claim they do not have the time, or the 'stomach' for such a daunting prospect, but surprisingly they do find the time to argue endlessly!
Well it would be refreshing to attempt a theistic discussion without being being bashed over the head with King James's Book of magic spells.
QUOTE
'Immortal' - what does it mean to you? Nothing in the Universe ever stays the same, an established fact. Is there a discrepancy with this? Is 'immortal' just a fanciful idea with nothing of real substance attached to it, or is it possibly some kind of metaphoric representation of something else, connected with 'time', maybe?
What does it mean to me? Well I guess an entity who can live for ever and cannot be killed but had a birth or beginning perhaps?, (for some reason I always think of Zeus and his entourage). (imho) Time/motion would indeed be a more realistic ingredient.
Not haven caught up on the comments of this thread the topic intrigued me to respond.
As far as the most sensible, Atheism would have to be the logical choice. All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
That said this human experience involves many aspects that are not so easily arrived at.
How many times have you hoped the odds would lean in your favor for a certain outcome. Who did you thank if you beat the odds, Lady Luck?
My point is we do not always think purely logical.
Maybe there is a reason natural or not.
As far as the most sensible, Atheism would have to be the logical choice. All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
That said this human experience involves many aspects that are not so easily arrived at.
How many times have you hoped the odds would lean in your favor for a certain outcome. Who did you thank if you beat the odds, Lady Luck?
My point is we do not always think purely logical.
Maybe there is a reason natural or not.
QUOTE
Well I guess an entity who can live for ever and cannot be killed but had a birth or beginning perhaps?
Is this a real possibility, do you think? I mean, does 'forever' only stretch in the one direction? Or is this a return to the idea that 'something can come from nothing', and then proceed to continue its existence forever? How might this be possible, given that the laws of physics we have as yet uncovered state that this would not be possible? Surely, if a thing has no 'end' it must necessarily have no 'beginning' either? How does a thing with no end begin?
You see, these 'semantic issues' really are the concern of what is necessarily Real, as opposed to what we believe might be real.
And this is why the correct definition of 'infinity' is such an important issue. There is always, and this is without exception, an element of 'infinity' to any idea whatsoever that we care to choose to posit, when the discussion of the topic becomes serious. 'Infinity' is therefore the point at which all things meet.
It is also difficult for people, because no one wants to appear 'unknowledgable', yet when questioned it is something they have not thought about. It then becomes a face-saving game, and people try to use those good old 'semantic issues' to their advantage...which is why they exist!
The only way to get around this problem is for more people to become aware of it.
The thread title is 'Which is more sensible?' ...and my contention is that 'sensible' can only refer to that which actually exists, so it is pretty much pointless calling yourself some 'ist' or other if the thing in question is in doubt of existence. So, the reason for starting with the premise of 'infinity' is that this is the only absolute aspect at which all ideologies agree, regardless of the other names we give it...'Void', 'God', 'Nature', 'Tao', 'Space', whatever...
g.
Hi g,
Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite.
My thinking concludes this due to what the opposite of infinity would be 'absolute nothingness', no extention, no retraction, no motion, complete absense of anything. This is my deduction and could well be flawed but I have never heard a convincing argument against it so far.
Also my logic breaks down when attempting to attack the notion: 'how can existence do anything other than at least exist, in some form or other?', again infinity.
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Just thoughts.
QUOTE
And this is why the correct definition of 'infinity' is such an important issue. There is always, and this is without exception, an element of 'infinity' to any idea whatsoever that we care to choose to posit, when the discussion of the topic becomes serious. 'Infinity' is therefore the point at which all things me
Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite.
My thinking concludes this due to what the opposite of infinity would be 'absolute nothingness', no extention, no retraction, no motion, complete absense of anything. This is my deduction and could well be flawed but I have never heard a convincing argument against it so far.
Also my logic breaks down when attempting to attack the notion: 'how can existence do anything other than at least exist, in some form or other?', again infinity.
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Just thoughts.
Hi SU, most wonderful, as ever.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'!
...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact.
Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
g.
Not haven caught up on the comments of this thread the topic intrigued me to respond.
As far as the most sensible, Atheism would have to be the logical choice. All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
That said this human experience involves many aspects that are not so easily arrived at.
How many times have you hoped the odds would lean in your favor for a certain outcome. Who did you thank if you beat the odds, Lady Luck?
My point is we do not always think purely logical.
Maybe there is a reason natural or not.
Not possible. Sounds good. It is the kind of Atheistic ideal most Atheists would approve of, hell even I would approve of. In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
Not possible. Sounds good. It is the kind of Atheistic ideal most Atheists would approve of, hell even I would approve of. In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
deadbeat,
Lower animals.
Does that answer your questions.
QUOTE
Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite. |
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'!
...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact. Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
g.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2008, 12:42 AM)
Not haven caught up on the comments of this thread the topic intrigued me to respond.
As far as the most sensible, Atheism would have to be the logical choice. All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
That said this human experience involves many aspects that are not so easily arrived at.
How many times have you hoped the odds would lean in your favor for a certain outcome. Who did you thank if you beat the odds, Lady Luck?
My point is we do not always think purely logical.
Maybe there is a reason natural or not.
Not possible. Sounds good. It is the kind of Atheistic ideal most Atheists would approve of, hell even I would approve of. In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
'Religion' is therefore just a description of the Reality you do not 'believe'.
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 10:55 AM)
'Religion' is therefore just a description of the Reality you do not 'believe'.
g.
I would say that is EXACTLY wrong.
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'. There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true.
RELIGION SHOULD BE therefore a description of the reality you DO believe, and do not know.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not. That is NOT how it is supposed to be.
g.
I would say that is EXACTLY wrong.
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'. There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true.
RELIGION SHOULD BE therefore a description of the reality you DO believe, and do not know.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not. That is NOT how it is supposed to be.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 06:48 AM)
Not possible. Sounds good. It is the kind of Atheistic ideal most Atheists would approve of, hell even I would approve of. In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
deadbeat,
Lower animals.
Does that answer your questions.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 12:04 AM)
I would say that is EXACTLY wrong.
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'. There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true.
RELIGION SHOULD BE therefore a description of the reality you DO believe, and do not know.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not. That is NOT how it is supposed to be.
It is YOU who are 'exactly wrong'.
'Religion' is therefore just a description of the Reality you do not 'believe'.
...being that I just exchanged word for word from YOUR OWN QUOTE!!
There is no 'supposed to be'. You make this up to justify your OWN actions, and then have the hypocritical gall to call it 'moral'!!!
You are not qualified to make statements such as "There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true." ~ as you have shown via almost constant hypocrisy that you will twist and turn you views to suit any 'truth' you see fit to suit a 'purpose' of your subjective choice.
This is how you destroy your own 'religion' over time, and is in fact the only thing I can think of applauding you for! Do carry on!
g.
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'. There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true.
RELIGION SHOULD BE therefore a description of the reality you DO believe, and do not know.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not. That is NOT how it is supposed to be.
It is YOU who are 'exactly wrong'.
QUOTE
Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe. |
'Religion' is therefore just a description of the Reality you do not 'believe'.
...being that I just exchanged word for word from YOUR OWN QUOTE!!
There is no 'supposed to be'. You make this up to justify your OWN actions, and then have the hypocritical gall to call it 'moral'!!!
You are not qualified to make statements such as "There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true." ~ as you have shown via almost constant hypocrisy that you will twist and turn you views to suit any 'truth' you see fit to suit a 'purpose' of your subjective choice.
This is how you destroy your own 'religion' over time, and is in fact the only thing I can think of applauding you for!
Do carry on!g.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2008, 11:10 AM)
deadbeat,
Lower animals.
Does that answer your questions.
Uh no it does not.
So you are NEVER justified in Killing another human?
Not in self-defense?
Not in defense of others?
Lower animals.
Does that answer your questions.
Uh no it does not.
So you are NEVER justified in Killing another human?
Not in self-defense?
Not in defense of others?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 07:24 AM)
Uh no it does not.
So you are NEVER justified in Killing another human?
Not in self-defense?
Not in defense of others?
What does this have to do with my posts
I have to leave
I will respond later
So you are NEVER justified in Killing another human?
Not in self-defense?
Not in defense of others?
What does this have to do with my posts
I have to leave
I will respond later
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2008, 11:27 AM)
What does this have to do with my posts
I have to leave
I will respond later
I am trying to show you that "All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience" is not possible, by giving you a simple ethical and moral dilemma, and a rather important one at that.
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize. That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
I have to leave
I will respond later
I am trying to show you that "All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience" is not possible, by giving you a simple ethical and moral dilemma, and a rather important one at that.
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize. That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 17 2008, 12:27 AM)
What does this have to do with my posts
I have to leave
I will respond later
Don't worry, deadbeat has some personal issues with 'murder' and 'killing' to reconcile within himself! This is why he joins in with the chorus of hate for the likes of Richard Dawkins, whilst simultaneously trying to impress the idea that he knows something about 'morals'!!
The straight-jacket of 'religion' is obviously needed for some, but why bring it to a physics forum?
g.
I have to leave
I will respond later
Don't worry, deadbeat has some personal issues with 'murder' and 'killing' to reconcile within himself! This is why he joins in with the chorus of hate for the likes of Richard Dawkins, whilst simultaneously trying to impress the idea that he knows something about 'morals'!!
The straight-jacket of 'religion' is obviously needed for some, but why bring it to a physics forum?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 11:32 AM)
Don't worry, deadbeat has some personal issues with 'murder' and 'killing' to reconcile within himself! This is why he joins in with the chorus of hate for the likes of Richard Dawkins, whilst simultaneously trying to impress the idea that he knows something about 'morals'!!
The straight-jacket of 'religion' is obviously needed for some, but why bring it to a physics forum?
g.
Yes I do have issues, I am wondering why you evil Atheists do not care about Murder or Killing in self-defense.
So we can just throw those religious laws out, right?
Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy.
The straight-jacket of 'religion' is obviously needed for some, but why bring it to a physics forum?
g.
Yes I do have issues, I am wondering why you evil Atheists do not care about Murder or Killing in self-defense.
So we can just throw those religious laws out, right?
Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy.
Again with the murder and killing! ~ Is it all you have?
And I am not an 'Atheist'.
How about joining in with some normal conversation?
g.
And I am not an 'Atheist'.
How about joining in with some normal conversation?
QUOTE
Hi SU, most wonderful, as ever. smile.gif
Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
QUOTE
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'! rolleyes.gif ...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact.
Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
Firstly and seperate from the 'God' issue if you will indulge me for a moment, I cannot logically see anyway that the Universe is NOT infinite.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
QUOTE
However I do not wish to attribute a 'Humanistic personality' to this intuition of infinity, just as I do not attribute it to particles/waves, energy, matter etc as they have factual properties. I just don't know what the factual properties of infinity or existence are. I would simply speculate that everything must be connected at some level or it would break down.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'! rolleyes.gif ...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact.
Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 11:41 AM)
Again with the murder and killing!
Is it all you have?
And I am not an 'Atheist'.
g.
Oh not by a long shot, it is just an easy one.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
Is it all you have?
And I am not an 'Atheist'.
g.
Oh not by a long shot, it is just an easy one.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 12:44 AM)
Oh not by a long shot, it is just an easy one.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
I've just told you that I am not an 'Atheist', so how do you expect me to answer for someone who considers themselves such?
These are just words we invent, that have no real meaning outside of our concepts, thus they are a question of individual choice.
Identifying ourselves with our concepts is another form of division. Doesn't work.
g.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
I've just told you that I am not an 'Atheist', so how do you expect me to answer for someone who considers themselves such?
These are just words we invent, that have no real meaning outside of our concepts, thus they are a question of individual choice.
Identifying ourselves with our concepts is another form of division. Doesn't work.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 11:49 AM)
I've just told you that I am not an 'Atheist', so how do you expect me to answer for someone who considers themselves such?
These are just words we invent, that have no real meaning outside of our concepts, thus they are a question of individual choice.
Identifying ourselves with our concepts is another form of division. Doesn't work.
g.
Oh good, sounds like a John Lennon song.
So "religion" would be a division too, so everyone EVEN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are great and fine, and every bit as good and right as you.
These are just words we invent, that have no real meaning outside of our concepts, thus they are a question of individual choice.
Identifying ourselves with our concepts is another form of division. Doesn't work.
g.
Oh good, sounds like a John Lennon song.
So "religion" would be a division too, so everyone EVEN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are great and fine, and every bit as good and right as you.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 06:32 AM)
That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
That is complete and utter crap. You can have a system of morals and ethics that are completely independent of religion. Religion exists simply to provide people with an explanation for the unexplainable (because they're too afraid to say 'we don't know yet') and to provide comfort for those who are afraid to die.
Morals and ethics are NOT religion. They are morals and ethics. Don't you think the fact that most religions share very similar moral codes suggests something?
That is complete and utter crap. You can have a system of morals and ethics that are completely independent of religion. Religion exists simply to provide people with an explanation for the unexplainable (because they're too afraid to say 'we don't know yet') and to provide comfort for those who are afraid to die.
Morals and ethics are NOT religion. They are morals and ethics. Don't you think the fact that most religions share very similar moral codes suggests something?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 11:44 AM)
Oh not by a long shot, it is just an easy one.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
For Atheists this life is all there is. It's not merely a waiting room for the real existence.
This make this life valuable to Atheists.
Most Atheists believe it is wrong to hurt other people, and the things you listed hurt other people. So Atheists would be against them because of what they believe in, not because they believe some other entity says not to.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
For Atheists this life is all there is. It's not merely a waiting room for the real existence.
This make this life valuable to Atheists.
Most Atheists believe it is wrong to hurt other people, and the things you listed hurt other people. So Atheists would be against them because of what they believe in, not because they believe some other entity says not to.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 11:36 AM)
Yes I do have issues, I am wondering why you evil Atheists do not care about Murder or Killing in self-defense.
So we can just throw those religious laws out, right?
Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy.
Deadbeat, I fear our previous conversations were in vain.
I maintained a deluded notion that simply by conducting myself naturally and contrary to the strongly held views you associate with atheism, would be sufficient to highlight the erroneous nature of your evident deeply held prejudice against it.
I now see the folly in that notion.
So we can just throw those religious laws out, right?
Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy.
Deadbeat, I fear our previous conversations were in vain.
I maintained a deluded notion that simply by conducting myself naturally and contrary to the strongly held views you associate with atheism, would be sufficient to highlight the erroneous nature of your evident deeply held prejudice against it.
I now see the folly in that notion.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 10:48 AM)
Not possible.
Wrong.
Don't it?
Don't it?
In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
When ya have reason to believe yer own life or the life o another is in immediate danger, an killing a specific individual is the most effective way o eliminatin that threat, it is justified.
Yer contradictin yerself. First ya say:
Yer contradictin yerself. First ya say:
Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Then ya say:
But it's too be expected, I suppose. Ye'll say anythin to try to make atheism look bad...
But it's too be expected, I suppose. Ye'll say anythin to try to make atheism look bad...
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'.
That don't even make any sense. Try this definition, next time...
Dictionary.com - Science
Yer confusin belief an faith.
Belief
Faith
Ye might want to be sure to read the whole page on each before ya go quote mining em to try an prove me wrong.
Yer confusin belief an faith.
Belief
Faith
Ye might want to be sure to read the whole page on each before ya go quote mining em to try an prove me wrong.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not.
Like you.
That I can solve off the top o me head. Here's another solution:
"Killin is wrong when it bothers yer conscience."
Based entirely on a biological function.
That I can solve off the top o me head. Here's another solution:
"Killin is wrong when it bothers yer conscience."
Based entirely on a biological function.
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize.
Wow. All them atheists will sure be surprised to learn their lives was more complicated than they thought, jes cause you said so...
Ya contradicted yerself again...
Ya contradicted yerself again...
Yes I do have issues, I am wondering why you evil Atheists do not care about Murder or Killing in self-defense.
So now we're back to atheists bein evil, are we?
An I'm jes tired o self-righteous, religious, idiotic dumbasses what think they're about twice as smart as they really are sayin all kinds o hypocritical, derogatory an idiotic things to try an prove they know more about atheism than atheists.
An I'm jes tired o self-righteous, religious, idiotic dumbasses what think they're about twice as smart as they really are sayin all kinds o hypocritical, derogatory an idiotic things to try an prove they know more about atheism than atheists.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
Ahem...
Wrong, Wrong an Wrong. In that order.
Oh, ya really proved him wrong with that quip...
Wrong.
QUOTE
Sounds good.
Don't it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Sounds good. |
Don't it?
In a real world however, it is not possible, and why Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Wrong.
QUOTE
Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method.
Wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ethics and morals are not amenable to scientific method. |
Wrong.
For example, answer this question "based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience".
When is killing another Murder, and when is it justified.
When ya have reason to believe yer own life or the life o another is in immediate danger, an killing a specific individual is the most effective way o eliminatin that threat, it is justified.
QUOTE
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
Yer contradictin yerself. First ya say:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism. |
Yer contradictin yerself. First ya say:
Atheism is just not a real philosophy, just a description of what you DO NOT believe.
Then ya say:
QUOTE
It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism.
But it's too be expected, I suppose. Ye'll say anythin to try to make atheism look bad...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It just demonstrates that Atheism is just disguised Theism. |
But it's too be expected, I suppose. Ye'll say anythin to try to make atheism look bad...
SCIENCE is therefore just a description of the reality you do not 'believe'.
That don't even make any sense. Try this definition, next time...
Dictionary.com - Science
QUOTE
There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true.
Yer confusin belief an faith.
Belief
Faith
Ye might want to be sure to read the whole page on each before ya go quote mining em to try an prove me wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no BELIEF needed when you KNOW something to be true. |
Yer confusin belief an faith.
Belief
Faith
Ye might want to be sure to read the whole page on each before ya go quote mining em to try an prove me wrong.
Although we all know of religious people who believe things they should not.
Like you.
QUOTE
I am trying to show you that "All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience" is not possible, by giving you a simple ethical and moral dilemma, and a rather important one at that.
That I can solve off the top o me head. Here's another solution:
"Killin is wrong when it bothers yer conscience."
Based entirely on a biological function.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am trying to show you that "All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience" is not possible, by giving you a simple ethical and moral dilemma, and a rather important one at that. |
That I can solve off the top o me head. Here's another solution:
"Killin is wrong when it bothers yer conscience."
Based entirely on a biological function.
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize.
Wow. All them atheists will sure be surprised to learn their lives was more complicated than they thought, jes cause you said so...
QUOTE
That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
Ya contradicted yerself again...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion. |
Ya contradicted yerself again...
Yes I do have issues, I am wondering why you evil Atheists do not care about Murder or Killing in self-defense.
So now we're back to atheists bein evil, are we?
QUOTE
Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy.
An I'm jes tired o self-righteous, religious, idiotic dumbasses what think they're about twice as smart as they really are sayin all kinds o hypocritical, derogatory an idiotic things to try an prove they know more about atheism than atheists.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just tired of pompous self-inflated Atheists with no idea of their own philosophy. |
An I'm jes tired o self-righteous, religious, idiotic dumbasses what think they're about twice as smart as they really are sayin all kinds o hypocritical, derogatory an idiotic things to try an prove they know more about atheism than atheists.
How about telling me where Atheists stand on:
Plagiarism
Cheating
infidelity
oh heck just pick one...
Ahem...
Wrong, Wrong an Wrong. In that order.
QUOTE
Oh good, sounds like a John Lennon song.
Oh, ya really proved him wrong with that quip...
You don't see other animals, bacteria, insects, etc. running, slithering, crawling around slaughtering each other because they don't have the higher thinking capacity for religion do you?
No.
Why? BECAUSE IT ISN'T GOOD FOR THE SPECIES.
eesh.
No.
Why? BECAUSE IT ISN'T GOOD FOR THE SPECIES.
eesh.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 10:37 AM)
Hi SU, most wonderful, as ever.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'! ...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact.
Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
g.
Thankyou, your too kind and back at ya with knobs on
Ok, well for the purpose of discussion can we assume that the Universe is infinite and move on from there?
What would the next step be?, I've kinda hit an infinite brick wall.
That's because there isn't one! You have to invent all kinds of strange concepts that make no sense ('bangs' with 'voids', and 'gods') and then keep pushing them into peoples faces for them to gain any 'credibility'. The use of either physical or psychological 'force' is somewhat of a give-away to the erroneous Nature of these 'ideas'. What is Natural should come Naturally, when simply allowed to 'do its thing'.
The Infinite aspect (the Real, Spatial 3-d kind) is also the Absolute aspect. I have seen people try to argue that Infinity and Absolute are two different things, but how can this be? ~ It is another attempt to divide the indivisible. So, when people mention such as an 'absolute nothingness', this is a vague intuition of the Absolute aspect without the necessary logic of 'something must exist' applied. We have evolved from a very paranoid/superstitious state, where concepts of 'nothingness' and 'voids/emptiness' have played traditional roles.
Yes, whatever 'name' we give to things, it will remain as a concept or metaphor that we use to describe to each other with. This is why J. Krishnamurti says: "The description is not the described."
It IS this inherent aspect of interconnection, which determines how things exist, and so our attempts at description, so communication, are also aspects of interconnection. This is another 'absolute aspect' that we may use as part of our starting point for discussion, being that it is indisputable.
But 'Infinity'... Spatial Infinity, being 3-dimensional, must of necessity be everywhere, or in effect, be the One thing that actually exists in an 'Absolute' form. Then, to produce the existence we observe (and are), there must be some mechanism, some property of interconnection that is determinable in a language that we can all agree upon. Back to 'semantics'!
...but now we see why we evolve a 'scientific method', to attempt to discredit our own erroneous thoughts by reducing them to what is left of necessary fact. Really, any language would work, as long as we could stick to established fact, but 'science' is a method invented for this very purpose and is consequently more accurate, as long as people once again stick to its guiding principles. It is slightly worrying that even scientific principles are not being taught correctly to so called 'scientists', being so sceptical that no advancement is ever made! Here lies the true 'genius' of Einstein; that he was able to advance science by using the scientific method correctly, but without pandering to the 'only that which is already established may pass' brigade.
g.
Thankyou, your too kind and back at ya with knobs on
Ok, well for the purpose of discussion can we assume that the Universe is infinite and move on from there?
What would the next step be?, I've kinda hit an infinite brick wall.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 09:16 PM)
But what it means is that the 'All is consciousness' brigade have it somewhat wrong. If 'All is consciousness', then why the need to evolve an aspect of itself to 'figure it out'?
'Self (universal) consciousness' is thus just an aspect, one of the possibilities available to the motion of what exists.
Maybe a universal, semantic differential scale of consciousness exists?
Everyone can agree we are more conscious than the "lower animals", for example. That would make us MUCH more conscious than electrons, if we want to (speculatively) attribute a consciousness to them. Sinister Utopia mentions "...anything that has means of sensation." Is sensation also prone to semantics? If we give the electron consciousness, does it "sense", to some degree? Is it self-aware (obviously the most ridiculous of these questions)?
Our experience is limited to human consciousness. How can we ever know what it is like to be something entirely different?
We can't. So I'll shut up about it.
I will agree that self universal consciousness is indeed just one model out of a possible infinity for... infinity.
This is a cool take on the subject that was "channeled" through a psychic. I'm not asking to you believe the passage, nor that it is psychic in origin. Just food for thought.
God had a beginning, and there was a Creation, though it differs markedly from the Christian version. In God's early stages, the universe existed in a state of potentiality within what Seth referred to as God's dreams. The agony of knowing the potential of the universe, yet not being able to express it, compelled God to find the means to actualize its dreams. Additional impetus was provided by the individuals in its dreams, whom God had imbued with life and consciousness, and who clamored to be made real. In a passage of the Material addressed to Robert Butts, Seth said:
"The first state of agonized search for expression may have represented the birth throes of All That Is as we know It. Pretend, then, that you possessed within yourself the knowledge of all the world's masterpieces in sculpture and art, that they pulsed as realities within you, but that you had no physical apparatus, no knowledge of how to achieve them, that there was neither rock nor pigment nor source of any of these, and you ached with the yearning to produce them. This, on an infinitesimally small scale, will perhaps give you, as an artist, some idea of the agony and impetus that was felt.
"Desire, wish and expectation rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within All That Is, therefore, the wish, desire, and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations then became in your terms so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them.
"In other words, All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this 'period' of contracted yearning, All That Is could concentrate Its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."
A ton of other interesting takes on reality can be found on that wiki page.
'Self (universal) consciousness' is thus just an aspect, one of the possibilities available to the motion of what exists.
Maybe a universal, semantic differential scale of consciousness exists?
Everyone can agree we are more conscious than the "lower animals", for example. That would make us MUCH more conscious than electrons, if we want to (speculatively) attribute a consciousness to them. Sinister Utopia mentions "...anything that has means of sensation." Is sensation also prone to semantics? If we give the electron consciousness, does it "sense", to some degree? Is it self-aware (obviously the most ridiculous of these questions)?
Our experience is limited to human consciousness. How can we ever know what it is like to be something entirely different?
We can't. So I'll shut up about it.
I will agree that self universal consciousness is indeed just one model out of a possible infinity for... infinity.
This is a cool take on the subject that was "channeled" through a psychic. I'm not asking to you believe the passage, nor that it is psychic in origin. Just food for thought.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts+)
God had a beginning, and there was a Creation, though it differs markedly from the Christian version. In God's early stages, the universe existed in a state of potentiality within what Seth referred to as God's dreams. The agony of knowing the potential of the universe, yet not being able to express it, compelled God to find the means to actualize its dreams. Additional impetus was provided by the individuals in its dreams, whom God had imbued with life and consciousness, and who clamored to be made real. In a passage of the Material addressed to Robert Butts, Seth said:
"The first state of agonized search for expression may have represented the birth throes of All That Is as we know It. Pretend, then, that you possessed within yourself the knowledge of all the world's masterpieces in sculpture and art, that they pulsed as realities within you, but that you had no physical apparatus, no knowledge of how to achieve them, that there was neither rock nor pigment nor source of any of these, and you ached with the yearning to produce them. This, on an infinitesimally small scale, will perhaps give you, as an artist, some idea of the agony and impetus that was felt.
"Desire, wish and expectation rule all actions and are the basis for all realities. Within All That Is, therefore, the wish, desire, and expectation of creativity existed before all other actuality. The strength and vitality of these desires and expectations then became in your terms so insupportable that All That Is was driven to find the means to produce them.
"In other words, All That Is existed in a state of being, but without the means to find expression for Its being. This was the state of agony of which I spoke. Yet it is doubtful that without this 'period' of contracted yearning, All That Is could concentrate Its energy sufficiently enough to create the realities that existed in probable suspension within it."
A ton of other interesting takes on reality can be found on that wiki page.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 16 2008, 09:11 PM)
'Immortal' - what does it mean to you?
You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
It truly is SO distressing that my "universe" is incredibly different than your "universe"
Deadbeat, good threadjack attempt. Andddd that's all you'll hear out of me.
You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
It truly is SO distressing that my "universe" is incredibly different than your "universe"
Deadbeat, good threadjack attempt. Andddd that's all you'll hear out of me.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 12:53 AM)
Oh good, sounds like a John Lennon song.
So "religion" would be a division too, so everyone EVEN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are great and fine, and every bit as good and right as you.
It does not bother me that people call themselves 'religious'. It is the action that follows, which divides people. The pride in 'our religion is better than yours' attitude.
So it is all about people, not the methods they use to try and understand their surroundings. Science is just more advanced as a language, as it seeks to dispell all of the falsity that has built up within our everyday language. Those who still cling to the false and self-damaging ideologies of the past will, of course, be opposed to that which exposes them!
'Ethically', it is to our advantage to be nice to one another ~ live and let live, but 'politically', a few troubled minds with 'power' are much greedier than this. For them to live BETTER, they have to create an imbalance and make others live WORSE, or not at all.
Any 'religion' that promotes this kind of imbalance is just riddled with political fakery, becomes hypocritical, and fails dismally like all other forms of division do, eventually.
There is no 'escape', as it is all self-inflicted without the faintest knowledge that you are doing it to yourself. Other people can see it, but you have not yet developed the eyes to see your~true~self with.
And just for your further consideration, I do not necessarily appoint such words as 'good' and 'right' to my activities either. The ubiquitous Mr. Hitler used such terminology to his perceived advantage, which turned out to be his eventual downfall. Are we still not learning anything from such imbalanced mistakes yet?
But wait! ...Perhaps he was merely offering himself as a sacrafice to Humanity, just to show how rotten we have become?
g.
So "religion" would be a division too, so everyone EVEN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE are great and fine, and every bit as good and right as you.
It does not bother me that people call themselves 'religious'. It is the action that follows, which divides people. The pride in 'our religion is better than yours' attitude.
So it is all about people, not the methods they use to try and understand their surroundings. Science is just more advanced as a language, as it seeks to dispell all of the falsity that has built up within our everyday language. Those who still cling to the false and self-damaging ideologies of the past will, of course, be opposed to that which exposes them!
'Ethically', it is to our advantage to be nice to one another ~ live and let live, but 'politically', a few troubled minds with 'power' are much greedier than this. For them to live BETTER, they have to create an imbalance and make others live WORSE, or not at all.
Any 'religion' that promotes this kind of imbalance is just riddled with political fakery, becomes hypocritical, and fails dismally like all other forms of division do, eventually.
There is no 'escape', as it is all self-inflicted without the faintest knowledge that you are doing it to yourself. Other people can see it, but you have not yet developed the eyes to see your~true~self with.
And just for your further consideration, I do not necessarily appoint such words as 'good' and 'right' to my activities either. The ubiquitous Mr. Hitler used such terminology to his perceived advantage, which turned out to be his eventual downfall. Are we still not learning anything from such imbalanced mistakes yet?
But wait! ...Perhaps he was merely offering himself as a sacrafice to Humanity, just to show how rotten we have become?
g.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Jun 17 2008, 04:50 AM)
Maybe a universal, semantic differential scale of consciousness exists?
Everyone can agree we are more conscious than the "lower animals", for example. That would make us MUCH more conscious than electrons, if we want to (speculatively) attribute a consciousness to them. Sinister Utopia mentions "...anything that has means of sensation." Is sensation also prone to semantics? If we give the electron consciousness, does it "sense", to some degree? Is it self-aware (obviously the most ridiculous of these questions)?
Our experience is limited to human consciousness. How can we ever know what it is like to be something entirely different?
We can't. So I'll shut up about it.
I will agree that self universal consciousness is indeed just one model out of a possible infinity for... infinity.
This is a cool take on the subject that was "channeled" through a psychic. I'm not asking to you believe the passage, nor that it is psychic in origin. Just food for thought.
You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
It truly is SO distressing that my "universe" is incredibly different than your "universe"
Deadbeat, good threadjack attempt. Andddd that's all you'll hear out of me.
Blimey, mate...many questions! (recount in a D!ck van Dyke stylee, if you have to! )
All fair comments though.
A lot depends on how much importance we put on 'consciousness', or an aspect of Universal self-awareness, as it actually is. In order for existence to be the way we observe it to be, does it need to be 'self-aware'? ~ Or is this just something that occasionally happens...because it can?
I tend to favour the latter example because of many other factors. For instance, surely no 'part' of existence can have any more importance than another, if we understand that we cannot evolve a supporting organism for the brain/mind without all of the other 'ingredients' that go to make up the whole organism, and so each and every aspect is just as 'important' as the other, being that the whole would not exist without them.
In cosmological terms, 'gas' has at least as much importance as 'consciousness' because without the aspect we call 'gas', the organism that is 'us' would not be able to exist either.
Back to our One 'Infinite thing', which must be 'Space', as this is what we observe everywhere, and it is established that we are talking about 'energy'. All things have 'energetic properties', and what is more this energy is proven to be neither 'created' nor 'destroyed'. As far as 'electrons sensing each other', we can say that this happens in a very rudimentary way, simply by default of certain similar wave-frequencies being 'attracted' to each other, as a form of 'harmonic' motion. If we understand that 'all things are in reality One thing' (infinite), then this explains why there is such a phenomenon as 'harmony' at source. However, this is far from the 'consciousness' that we use to do our understanding with. 'Harmonic wave-frequencies' are acceptable science, and that is our language of choice because it is relevant to the times in which we are conducting our process of investigation... 'now'.
'Now', we have a plausible explanation for the initial intuition of what we superstitiously 'believe' to be an 'omnipotent creator' ~ but it is not some 'separate entity' egotistically masquerading as a male of the Human species, but is Space itself, inherent in all things, and thus 'everywhere, always in the process of creating new forms of itself ('omnipotently', constantly re~creating, in infinity)'.
So, what exists (and remember this is regardless of whatever 'name' we give it) must do so;
a.) Infinitely
b.) Energetically
c.) Interconnectedly
Is it possible for us to agree with this? Or, is there any valid reason why it is not true? We cannot move forward until we have established a 'base-camp' of fundamentally necessary truth, as we will end up back in the realm of subjectivity and more speculation, leading to our old friend the 'semantic issue' again...
If we can agree upon terms and their meanings, we have a platform to work from.
The 'bottom line' is that we are trying to advance our understanding of our surroundings, our 'environment', so that we may more efficiently co-exist within it, and thus the most plausible understanding is what we seek, but this act of 'understanding' is a task, a motion, performed by the individual, and what we struggle with is a terminology that allows us to find a comfortable balance between our personal views, and the way in which existence necessarily 'operates'.
g.
Everyone can agree we are more conscious than the "lower animals", for example. That would make us MUCH more conscious than electrons, if we want to (speculatively) attribute a consciousness to them. Sinister Utopia mentions "...anything that has means of sensation." Is sensation also prone to semantics? If we give the electron consciousness, does it "sense", to some degree? Is it self-aware (obviously the most ridiculous of these questions)?
Our experience is limited to human consciousness. How can we ever know what it is like to be something entirely different?
We can't. So I'll shut up about it.
I will agree that self universal consciousness is indeed just one model out of a possible infinity for... infinity.
This is a cool take on the subject that was "channeled" through a psychic. I'm not asking to you believe the passage, nor that it is psychic in origin. Just food for thought.
You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
It truly is SO distressing that my "universe" is incredibly different than your "universe"
Deadbeat, good threadjack attempt. Andddd that's all you'll hear out of me.
Blimey, mate...many questions! (recount in a D!ck van Dyke stylee, if you have to!
)All fair comments though.
A lot depends on how much importance we put on 'consciousness', or an aspect of Universal self-awareness, as it actually is. In order for existence to be the way we observe it to be, does it need to be 'self-aware'? ~ Or is this just something that occasionally happens...because it can?
I tend to favour the latter example because of many other factors. For instance, surely no 'part' of existence can have any more importance than another, if we understand that we cannot evolve a supporting organism for the brain/mind without all of the other 'ingredients' that go to make up the whole organism, and so each and every aspect is just as 'important' as the other, being that the whole would not exist without them.
In cosmological terms, 'gas' has at least as much importance as 'consciousness' because without the aspect we call 'gas', the organism that is 'us' would not be able to exist either.
Back to our One 'Infinite thing', which must be 'Space', as this is what we observe everywhere, and it is established that we are talking about 'energy'. All things have 'energetic properties', and what is more this energy is proven to be neither 'created' nor 'destroyed'. As far as 'electrons sensing each other', we can say that this happens in a very rudimentary way, simply by default of certain similar wave-frequencies being 'attracted' to each other, as a form of 'harmonic' motion. If we understand that 'all things are in reality One thing' (infinite), then this explains why there is such a phenomenon as 'harmony' at source. However, this is far from the 'consciousness' that we use to do our understanding with. 'Harmonic wave-frequencies' are acceptable science, and that is our language of choice because it is relevant to the times in which we are conducting our process of investigation... 'now'.
'Now', we have a plausible explanation for the initial intuition of what we superstitiously 'believe' to be an 'omnipotent creator' ~ but it is not some 'separate entity' egotistically masquerading as a male of the Human species, but is Space itself, inherent in all things, and thus 'everywhere, always in the process of creating new forms of itself ('omnipotently', constantly re~creating, in infinity)'.
So, what exists (and remember this is regardless of whatever 'name' we give it) must do so;
a.) Infinitely
b.) Energetically
c.) Interconnectedly
Is it possible for us to agree with this? Or, is there any valid reason why it is not true? We cannot move forward until we have established a 'base-camp' of fundamentally necessary truth, as we will end up back in the realm of subjectivity and more speculation, leading to our old friend the 'semantic issue' again...
If we can agree upon terms and their meanings, we have a platform to work from.
The 'bottom line' is that we are trying to advance our understanding of our surroundings, our 'environment', so that we may more efficiently co-exist within it, and thus the most plausible understanding is what we seek, but this act of 'understanding' is a task, a motion, performed by the individual, and what we struggle with is a terminology that allows us to find a comfortable balance between our personal views, and the way in which existence necessarily 'operates'.
g.
QUOTE (am_Unition+)
Everyone can agree we are more conscious than the "lower animals", for example. That would make us MUCH more conscious than electrons, if we want to (speculatively) attribute a consciousness to them. Sinister Utopia mentions "...anything that has means of sensation." Is sensation also prone to semantics? If we give the electron consciousness, does it "sense", to some degree? Is it self-aware (obviously the most ridiculous of these questions)?
Excellent point!
For me self-awareness is more than just sensation, it is also the comprehension of awareness and sufficiently evolved senses to fuel it. The brain/mind/body is the key in this regard.
(imo)This is how the Universe See's itself. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is an outer consciousness or awareness unless there exists the necessary equipment to do so, which there is no evidence of. What there is evidence of is that we are conscious and more than that we have developed the ability to communicate it to other conscious parts of the Universe. We are the Universe or parts of it looking at itself but only via the necessary means and equipment. The more limited the equipment the less or no awareness.
Bingo!
Call it a faith if you will but I cannot see any other possible way.
Bingo!
Call it a faith if you will but I cannot see any other possible way.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
Now this is a fascinating discussion in it's own right for me.
I could babble on this subject infinitely
Dolphin communication is interesting in this regard as their 'language' is (imo) potentially a clue to how information could be better transferred.
They have a kind of work-around telepathy as in apparently the image of what one individual dolphin's Eco-location sends back may be understood by other dolphins in ear shot. I'll search for some support for that though.
Regards
Excellent point!
For me self-awareness is more than just sensation, it is also the comprehension of awareness and sufficiently evolved senses to fuel it. The brain/mind/body is the key in this regard.
(imo)This is how the Universe See's itself. I don't subscribe to the notion that there is an outer consciousness or awareness unless there exists the necessary equipment to do so, which there is no evidence of. What there is evidence of is that we are conscious and more than that we have developed the ability to communicate it to other conscious parts of the Universe. We are the Universe or parts of it looking at itself but only via the necessary means and equipment. The more limited the equipment the less or no awareness.
QUOTE
You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite.
Bingo!
Call it a faith if you will but I cannot see any other possible way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You guys nailed it... the whole "nature of time" question aside, existence is the only thing that is immortal, when given an infinite time frame. However, as for having a finite beginning... this is possible for many things, such as our universe, but ultimately SOMETHING has to have existed forever. By definition, the infinite. |
Bingo!
Call it a faith if you will but I cannot see any other possible way.
In a related vein, language's subjectivity will eventually frustrate our species to the point of evolving a more effective way to communicate, just as pre-language man was frustrated by the limited amount of things gesturing and grunting could convey. Perhaps we will be able to transfer a pure concept, untainted with language. As for the medium... maybe increased neurological EM wave sensitivity? Maybe higher dimension channels??
Now this is a fascinating discussion in it's own right for me.
I could babble on this subject infinitely
Dolphin communication is interesting in this regard as their 'language' is (imo) potentially a clue to how information could be better transferred.
They have a kind of work-around telepathy as in apparently the image of what one individual dolphin's Eco-location sends back may be understood by other dolphins in ear shot. I'll search for some support for that though.
Regards
We appear to be operating on a similar frequency.
g.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jun 17 2008, 06:04 PM)
We appear to be operating on a similar frequency.
g.
I'll consider that as a very high praise indeed
Slightly off topic but just to back up the dolphin stuff.
THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNICATION WITH THE INTELLIGENT, SOCIAL DOLPHINS OF THE OCEAN
g.
I'll consider that as a very high praise indeed
Slightly off topic but just to back up the dolphin stuff.
QUOTE
Many researchers believe that dolphins can interpret some information from echolocation clicks of other dolphins. This idea has even been taken a step further, to a hypothesis where dolphins may communicate directly using their echolocation clicks. The dolphin constructs its image of the environment from the pair of acoustical waveforms arriving at its two acoustic receptors. The dolphin also has two separate sound producing organs which it can use together as well as independently. In humans the principal mode of communication is acoustic, different from the principal mode of perception, visual. Dolphins communicate using the same acoustic sense with which they perceive, and could possibly even be capable of transmitting imagery to another dolphin.
THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNICATION WITH THE INTELLIGENT, SOCIAL DOLPHINS OF THE OCEAN
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 07:32 AM)
I am trying to show you that "All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience" is not possible, by giving you a simple ethical and moral dilemma, and a rather important one at that.
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize. That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
deadbeat,
I will try to reiterate the response I made while rushing to go to work.
I wrote:
All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
You said it was impossible.
I suggested the lower animals without the time to expand on that.
Don't you see it is possible for them. Not only possible but it works.
Even animals can understand there are consequences for certain actions good and bad.
The main point I was making was that superstition is part of being human and I doubt it can be removed.
deadbeat, do you need your religion to tell you right from wrong or do you actually have a conscience
I am trying to show you that life without "religion" is far more complicated than Atheists seem to realize. That there is no such thing really, without religion, you just have to substitute some other philosophy that is no better or more valid than religion.
deadbeat,
I will try to reiterate the response I made while rushing to go to work.
I wrote:
All actions and decisions could be based solely on natural responses with the knowledge gained by study and experience.
You said it was impossible.
I suggested the lower animals without the time to expand on that.
Don't you see it is possible for them. Not only possible but it works.
Even animals can understand there are consequences for certain actions good and bad.
The main point I was making was that superstition is part of being human and I doubt it can be removed.
deadbeat, do you need your religion to tell you right from wrong or do you actually have a conscience
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Jun 17 2008, 09:40 AM)
I'll consider that as a very high praise indeed
Me too!
Great link, by the way. I have a place for that...
g.
Me too!
Great link, by the way. I have a place for that...
g.
deadbeat,
Please disregard the last statement in my last post
Even though your continual claim that morality can only come from religion gets tiring there was no good reason for my comment.
Please disregard the last statement in my last post
Even though your continual claim that morality can only come from religion gets tiring there was no good reason for my comment.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 18 2008, 12:39 AM)
deadbeat,
Please disregard the last statement in my last post
Even though your continual claim that morality can only come from religion gets tiring there was no good reason for my comment.
Thank you for that.
My continual claim is just to illustrate something to those who deny it...
That they reject so-called "religion", but ignore the philosophy they replace it with that is just religion in another name. YOU may not call it religion, but it is a VERY fine line.
When you examine what you detest (religion) and why you reject it, and then actually honestly look at what you replace it with, (most people do not even manage that), you will see it (the philosophy that takes the place of religion) no more "scientific" or "authoritative" by nature than religion CAN BE, and that it is just as prone to abuse and perversion as any religion.
Please disregard the last statement in my last post
Even though your continual claim that morality can only come from religion gets tiring there was no good reason for my comment.
Thank you for that.
My continual claim is just to illustrate something to those who deny it...
That they reject so-called "religion", but ignore the philosophy they replace it with that is just religion in another name. YOU may not call it religion, but it is a VERY fine line.
When you examine what you detest (religion) and why you reject it, and then actually honestly look at what you replace it with, (most people do not even manage that), you will see it (the philosophy that takes the place of religion) no more "scientific" or "authoritative" by nature than religion CAN BE, and that it is just as prone to abuse and perversion as any religion.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 17 2008, 09:15 PM)
Thank you for that.
My continual claim is just to illustrate something to those who deny it...
That they reject so-called "religion", but ignore the philosophy they replace it with that is just religion in another name. YOU may not call it religion, but it is a VERY fine line.
Philosophy is NOT a religion. Ethics are NOT religion. Morals are NOT religion.
Believing in some DIVINE FORCE is RELIGION.
Morality, ethics, laws, etc. can VERY WELL come from 'natural' laws. It doesn't make SENSE as a SPECIES to steal from one another or to randomly slaughter each other. The fact that these laws are hardcoded in religion is because early humans did not have the capability to explain the world around them so they resorted to developing a divine figure to explain it all for them.
My continual claim is just to illustrate something to those who deny it...
That they reject so-called "religion", but ignore the philosophy they replace it with that is just religion in another name. YOU may not call it religion, but it is a VERY fine line.
Philosophy is NOT a religion. Ethics are NOT religion. Morals are NOT religion.
Believing in some DIVINE FORCE is RELIGION.
Morality, ethics, laws, etc. can VERY WELL come from 'natural' laws. It doesn't make SENSE as a SPECIES to steal from one another or to randomly slaughter each other. The fact that these laws are hardcoded in religion is because early humans did not have the capability to explain the world around them so they resorted to developing a divine figure to explain it all for them.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.