Gingerbread Man on 13/1/2007 at 18:43
Quote Posted by Martlet
What I meant was that attacks on the religion don't prove anything against the existence of God, especially when what is believed in that religion is determined by the believers, rather than by God
No argument from me on that one.
It's tricky to separate the believers from the believed, sometimes. That's why I like fett's approach to it all. Well... that's why I like any critical exploration of faith. The FIRST question someone who thinks they have faith in something like God should ask themselves is "what is the appropriate way for me to express this belief, and are there circumstances in which I would find myself blatantly at odds with my experienced reality? Because if there ARE then I need to figure out why and where my explanations and understanding is lacking."
People believe things all the time. That's great.
Codifying and institutionalising these belief structures (and especially the rituals and rules that fall from said structures) nearly always ends in buffoonery, though.
Mugla on 13/1/2007 at 18:51
Quote Posted by paloalto
I have never bought the argument that higher levels of complexity and order can come from the bottom up from a grid of random events.Randomness and order are opposites.A house doesn't build itself from a random event it takes intention,order.planning and intelligence to build it.The patterns we see in nature must have been precast from the top down as far as patterns go.If there is nothing supernatural then the intention to pattern has to be contained in something physical.Does a molecule have it or any stuff of matter?
This is an interesting argument. Even though I won't dispute the main argument (wouldn't succeed anyway), hope this gives a though.
(
http://www.coverpop.com/whitney/whitneyStereo210.swf) Check out this animation. It takes a while to load, so patience. And look at it for a while, though I bet you'll get pretty bored of it within 3.5 seconds or so.
If you take your time understanding the mechanics of the animation, you'll soon find out, it compromises of very few elements; a line of blocks with different colours, each about the same speed (didn't check actually, if they differ), losing momentum over time. At certain positions they get a lighter hue, and as they cross the horizontal line, each plays a characteristic sound according to their location/size. At times it seems complex, and, at times, *organized*.
The word random got it's origin from the lack of attention payed by us to systems with too many variants, much as this one. Say weather, or economics and the treks of an ant, or so. You know the classical examples. But all of these work within certain laws, and each field has been studied and are currently well understood, even if the link to the larger scope is still baffling.
Weather condition compromises of evaporation, the spin of Earth around itself and the Sun, pollution (aerosols f ex.), mountains and underwater currents, the moon and butterflies.
Economics are best understood, by the individual choices of Joe and Jane, (what they saw in tv(what they know), what they crave and what their wallet can afford), even if best measured by previous data and statistics.
Ants are after smells that yield rewards when shared back home. Again, weather and genome seem to play a role, but so the forming of physiological differences, like the loss of a leg, current needs or toxins coagulated somewhere in the head.
But all these principles are already well known in chaos-theory and statistics.
We can see order on microscopic level, and know macroscopic events compromise of the microscopic. So as per the oldest form of deduction, if a = b and b = c, also a = c is true (not using the correct quantors, as you noticed).
That's why I can't understand why they persist on calling it the "chaos"-theory. It obviously is the biggest theory for order. All things are compromised from smaller parts acting within few simple laws. Randomness doesn't seem to exist. Randomness is our lack of attention-span, when looking at systems compromising of more factors than we have braincells, acting maybe faster than new thoughts can form in our mind. Also less might be enough (grats on reading it this far. When you grow up, maybe you become a weather forecaster. Or an economist. And so on.).
As you can tell, I can't dispute whether these simple laws were master-planned by a omniscient deity or not (anyone got the picture of a inter-stellar baby looking down a huge kaleidoscope, shaking it every now and then in glee?). But to call in the magic eight ball middle of the... well, ball (dancing), doesn't seem necessary at all.
...Also of interest is, *if* everything compromises of orderly and logical laws, doesn't that mean that every time two or more events collide, only *one* outcome is possible (suggesting all parts are of logical components, played in a logical field)? If so, doesn't that mean that also the previous events were the only possible outcome of the involved factors? And if so, doesn't that mean, that there's only one possible (forecastable) future? Thus, doesn't that mean, that there is no such thing as a free will, but that we are always made to choose the best course of actions by the experiences we had lived through?
Nothing more about this unfreed will for now. Ssh. *That* barrel of oiled monkeys been reeking in the cellar for far too long to be opened any wider.
SD on 13/1/2007 at 19:42
Quote Posted by Thirith
Okay, Stronts. I'm finding it difficult to take you seriously if you don't do more than just pick out single phrases.
You made two points, I addressed them both, and I felt it unnecessary to quote your entire post to do so. If there's anything you feel I missed, please feel free to draw my attention to it.
Quote:
Tell me why I'd be better off chucking the God delusion in favour of atheism, if there are positive effects I get from that delusion.
Well, first I'd need to know what it is you actually
get from belief in God that you cannot get in the absence of God.
And regardless of any consoling effect that belief in God may have, that doesn't make it real. I can believe that Jessica Alba wants to involve me in a threesome with her and Eliza Dushku, but that sadly doesn't make it any more true.
What I'm saying is that the false comfort one might derive from belief in God is entirely immaterial to the question of whather God exists or not.
Quote:
And can I go further and ask you the following: Would you say that you lead your life solely based on empirically verifiable truths?
Umm, I think so. I have some personal beliefs (liberalism, vegetarianism, humanism) that aren't "empirically verifiable" as such, but don't run contrary to verifiable truth and aren't rooted in superstition or folklore.
fett on 13/1/2007 at 19:44
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
NJust like the Hebrew Elders projected up a load of their traits onto their cat. Except they also told everyone that their cat was invisible, everywhere, and was going to eat the Egyptians.
To some degree you're right, but this is where the Jewish God is blatantly different from any of the other early religions of man. The Hebrews from the very beginning used the name 'Elohim' to describe God - which is a horrible mutilation of the language. It essentially uses a plural word as a singular noun over and over again. There was no confusion re: polytheism vs. monotheism that we see elsewhere. They used the term purposely to imply what theologians call a 'triunity' that was later explained in the teachings of Jesus. They stated right from the beginning that God was 'other' or alien even in his essence and being - outside of time, space, and the observable laws of the universe. Miamonades did a great job of showing this from the Torah a few centuries ago, though the language of the Torah is seemingly crude - there's a striking awareness of the authors that they are guilty of over using anthropomorphisms to describe God. Phrases like 'it grieved the Lord' or 'God repented' are a grammatic mess in the Hebrew - and the authors knew it.
Even their concept of redemption was far away from surrounding cultures, based not on sacrifice (though it was a feature) but rather on the grace of the diety, God reaching out to man (as opposed to man trying to find God), a God willing, yet unable to fully reveal himself due to his 'otherness' etc.
Chimpy Chompy on 13/1/2007 at 20:18
Quote Posted by GBM1546578
The trouble with it then becomes conceptual: What is there that can exist outside of the universe and all things in it (which includes pesky things like physics, cause-and-effect, time, dimensions, and everything else -- "universe" doesn't just mean stars and planets) or, failing that, how could there be a thing outside of it all and what conceptual mechanisms do we need to even begin to address this possibility?
This is something that occasionally troubles me - I'm driven to believe in some kind of God, but if we put him outside the universe we pretty much put him outside anything we can wrap our little monkey brains around. So I end up with some kind of very remote, vague concept, first cause, state of existence, who knows?
It's a bit of a crummy faith, but it works for me right now. :p
Kaleid on 13/1/2007 at 20:28
Haven't read through this topic but I have read the book, and yes, it's excellent, much better than Sam Harris "Letter to a christian nation", although some pieces from it are quoted by Dawkins.
Ko0K on 13/1/2007 at 20:53
I tend to agree with George Carlin on his observation that god seems to be in need of a lot of money, all the time. Why is that, hm? Can't religion sustain itself without passing the collection basket? Anyway, I don't really think I need to read Dawkin's book to be cured. I used to have faith, but eventually I cured myself through reason and rationality.
fett on 13/1/2007 at 21:42
Quote Posted by Ko0K
I tend to agree with George Carlin on his observation that god seems to be in need of a lot of money, all the time. Why is that, hm? Can't religion sustain itself without passing the collection basket? Anyway, I don't really think I need to read Dawkin's book to be cured. I used to have faith, but eventually I cured myself through reason and rationality.
That's an overgeneralization. I pastored a church for 5 years and paid off a $150,000 building without ever passing a collection plate. Even once.
Josh68 on 13/1/2007 at 22:01
Until we have a physical theory that can account for self-awareness (yes that's right) we can't reasonably debate the exdistence of God. Why? Well if our conception of the universe doesn't include the reason we care about this debate then we can't reach a logical conclusion on it.
I submit, however, that even when we finally have a physical theory that accounts for self-awareness we will still be clueless about the reality of the existence of God. Even then we will have to wonder whether he designed it this way or not.
Also. If there is a God, I somewhat think he even planned this debate on the internets about whether he exists or not, and the conclusion of it (which will be 'no conclusion')
Dr Sneak on 13/1/2007 at 22:19
Quote:
Because it's WAY too fucking tiring to bang your head against the wall of "proof denies faith" and at some point the rest of us just kinda abandon the faithful to their blissful simplicity and give them that little smile and head-pat that we give to the severely retarded who, despite their soft brains, try so goddamned hard it's adorable.
Great-a mass insult to quite a few intelligent people out there who have a differing view of God and the nature of reality that you do-bravo GBM.:rolleyes: :thumb:
Quote:
I tend to agree with George Carlin on his observation that god seems to be in need of a lot of money, all the time. Why is that, hm? Can't religion sustain itself without passing the collection basket? Anyway, I don't really think I need to read Dawkin's book to be cured. I used to have faith, but eventually I cured myself through reason and rationality.
Giving is part of worship, some ministries may have abused it and made a mockery of the act-but it is still a legitimate act of worship. You have to toss what people twist for their own ends out of the way and look at what the Bible actually says on the subject. As for 'reason and rationality'-from what I've seen here, I easily score in the top ten in terms of intelligence.:laff:
And the rational conclusion of the nature of this thread is that the whole thing was created to stir up a mess in the first place-which it has successfully done. ;)
