Post your theories.

[Im_A]

Fighting oneself and living differently has never been so difficult. A judgmental man has a hard time not judging. A man stuck in his past, has a hard time living free from it and burdening others with it. Biting the upper lip to oneself and not to someone else is one of the hardest things to do. I am a man filled with pride, and you know...someone may actually like that now...but I have to remember...my ego is not always right.

 

[MehGuy]

I have some theories about certain Christians who have "gone through hardships" and are admired by others for their persistence and etc.., though my theory/suspicions is hardly original. And I've already made a friend really angry for questioning a Christian he looked up too.

I have others, but I'm not sure how to explain them, and if I really want too with the little data and information I have.

I'll try to think of something to post later I guess.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I used to have this theory: The number of calories needed to sustain the human population is constant.

In other words, if a village of 50 people needs 50 calories to survive they don't then need 100 calories to survive if the population doubles to 100. Instead, biological changes lead to them being able to metabolize food better. Therefore, 100 people are able to survive with only 50 available calories.

Malnutrition, it follows, is due to the 50 calories being unevenly distributed, not due to too many people and not enough available calories.

But then I read something in a physical anthropology textbook that made my theory collapse.

 

[acropolis]

All religion/superstition is a coping mechanism. It is a narrative which allows a person to impose order onto a fundamentally chaotic world. The problems of confronting the loss of loved ones, and one's own eventual death, are solved by believing in a narrative in which there is no real death. The anxiety related to uncertainty and doubt in life decisions, as well as the meaning of life, is removed by believing that all possible choices are meaningful and lead to the same, perfect end. By mentally replacing "I have decided..." with "God told me to..." eliminates the need to second-guess decisions, or to deal with opposing viewpoints, and all of the self-doubt that creates. Guilt is eliminated without needing to reconcile with the person wronged, since forgiveness is available cheaply by saying a few words in a person's head. Any and all mental stresses can be resolved by interpreting the world in such a way that the reasons for the stress no longer exist.

 

[Fremdin]

Big fish eat Little fish

 

[MacFall]

All religion/superstition is a coping mechanism. It is a narrative which allows a person to impose order onto a fundamentally chaotic world.

Gonna have to stop you there.

If Nature is fundamentally chaotic, then nothing within Nature can possibly impose order upon it. It would be a violation of the "nature of Nature"; like trying to extract the quantity of five from the combination of two instances of two. If Nature is chaotic, yet order exists, then order is supernatural. If Nature is chaotic and there is no supernatural, then there is, quite simply, no order at all, anywhere, in any form, or to any extent. The other possibility is that Nature is ordered. I see the ability of people to perceive order as proof of the Universe's inherent order. If there were no such thing as order, then we would be as incapable of imagining an ordered Nature as we are incapable of imagining a world in which 2+2 could equal anything but 4. It is impossible to conceptualize a non-concept; something which, in absolute terms, cannot exist. Which leads me to my reason for believing in a creator-God: order cannot be "created" by something as fundamentally chaotic as pure accident. Which demonstrates to me that Nature, which evidently is ordered, originates from a causal Agent possessing a will, reason, and intelligence; which alone would be capable of creating order, whether ex nihilo, or from something which is chaotic in itself.

TL;DR version: I can't speak for everyone else, but your theory of why I believe what I believe is factually wrong, and can be so proven axiomatically.

 

[acropolis]

Gonna have to stop you there.

If Nature is fundamentally chaotic, then nothing within Nature can possibly impose order upon it. It would be a violation of the "nature of Nature"; like trying to extract the quantity of five from the combination of two instances of two. If Nature is chaotic, yet order exists, then order is supernatural. If Nature is chaotic and there is no supernatural, then there is, quite simply, no order at all, anywhere, in any form, or to any extent. The other possibility is that Nature is ordered. I see the ability of people to perceive order as proof of the Universe's inherent order. If there were no such thing as order, then we would be as incapable of imagining an ordered Nature as we are incapable of imagining a world in which 2+2 could equal anything but 4. It is impossible to conceptualize a non-concept; something which, in absolute terms, cannot exist. Which leads me to my reason for believing in a creator-God: order cannot be "created" by something as fundamentally chaotic as pure accident. Which demonstrates to me that Nature, which evidently is ordered, originates from a causal agent possessing a will; Reason, and intelligence.

TL;DR version: I can't speak for everyone else, but your theory of why I believe what I believe is factually wrong, and can be so proven axiomatically.

There is a difference between non-deterministism and chaos. Weather, for example, is entirely deterministic but is chaotic. Even if you could measure every single initial condition, it would still be impossible to predict the weather more than about 10 days in the future. It is the same with life. Getting hit by a car, or getting cancer, or just about anything in life is entirely deterministic, obeys all the laws of nature, but due to how complex and chaotic the system is it is impossible to predict when and where these events will happen. The events which will lead to your death are part of a chaotic system which you cannot predict. So nature, as we experience it, is chaotic. It's difficult to accept this.

Nothing is proven axiomatically. Calling something axiomatic is another way of saying there is no proof, and it must instead by taken as self-evident or else not at all.

 

[MacFall]

No; something is proven axiomatically if it is self-demonstrating. You can't even make an argument against an ordered universe without using reason, which is a process that invokes the necessity of order. QED.

The only way out is determinism.

 

[Touma]

I have this theory that some people don't know what theory really means.

-.-

 

[acropolis]

No; something is proven axiomatically if it is self-demonstrating. You can't even make an argument against an ordered universe without using reason, which is a process that invokes the necessity of order. QED.

The only way out is determinism.

Axioms cannot be proven by definition. If it can be proven it isn't an axiom.

You didn't read my post: I'm not arguing against determinism, but rather pointing out that life as we experience it is necessarily unpredictable and chaotic.

 

[MacFall]

Axioms cannot be proven by definition.

Looks like nobody told the folks who record definitions:

ax·i·om

   /ˈæk

si

əm/ Show Spelled[ak-see-uh

m]
–noun 1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

Nothing in there about it being unprovable. Just that it is so freaking obvious that proof is not needed. Such as, when the action of making an argument proves the very thing the argument is meant to refute, then that thing is self-evident - self-proving; axiomatic.

You didn't read my post: I'm not arguing against determinism

I know you're not. Neither am I (since there's really no way to argue against it). What I am saying is that the only alternative to determinism - the only way to believe in free will and independent reason in a rationally consistent way - is to believe in a self-existent source of those things. In other words, theism. If you're a determinist, if you believe that nothing has any real deontological value whatsoever, then fine; but unless you're prepared to say that the only reason for theism is that the Universe wound us (theists) up that way billions of years ago and we are merely cogs turning as the great, all-encompassing and mindless system of Nature requires us to turn, then you probably should stop issuing theories about why we believe, especially since those theories contradict the plain facts of why at least some of us do.

 

[SweetDee]

I have a theory that when it's all said and done the only thing left standing will be Walmart and the Olsen twins.

 

[Im_A]

There is no bridge between conservatives and liberals. There is no bridge between religious and non-religious.
The closest bridge there is, is sexual attraction which boils down to one thing...sex.

 

[puffca]

Big fish eat Little fish

Little fish eat little shrimp.

 

[Touma]

I have a theory that when it's all said and done the only thing left standing will be Walmart and the Olsen twins.

Not if Miley Cyrus has her way. Unless of course...wait....it can't be...no way....

What if Miley Cyrus, the only thing capable of taking down the Olsens, was actually just a puppet created by the Olsens AND Walmart....

I....can't believe I missed this! It was in front of my eyes the whole time!

 

[MacFall]

I have a theory that when it's all said and done the only thing left standing will be Walmart and the Olsen twins.

The Olsen twins? Yeah, I can see that. Global warming will melt them in place, but it will be a long time before they get brittle enough to crumble apart.

 

[MacFall]

Little fish eat little shrimp.

Little shrimp eat mutagen, turn into big shrimp, eat aquatic mammals and absorb their powers.

 

[freezerman2000]

The lack of spiritual exploration leads to spiritual stagnation, which leads to apathy, which leads to spiritual atrophy, which ultimately leads to spiritual death.

 

[Zoness]

I forgot to add something along the lines of what Alex said:

The occult is feared or outlawed in many religions because it offers a direct, unadulterated connection to the divine and therefore strips the oligarchs of many religions of their authority and relevance.

 

[acropolis]

Looks like nobody told the folks who record definitions:

Nothing in there about it being unprovable. Just that it is so freaking obvious that proof is not needed. Such, when the action of making an argument proves the very thing the argument is meant to refute, then that thing is self-evident - self-proving; axiomatic.

Self-evidence is a matter of faith. They are accepted or rejected, but are firmly outside the realm of deductive logic. Logically speaking there can exist no proof for axioms, any instance of self-proof is an instance of circular logic. You have decided to create an axiom which says that an argument implies order and order implies god which implies a christian god. Which I guess is more of a set of axioms, since you aren't combining any previous truths to assemble the further truths, but rather just declaring them. What reason is there to assume that a particular order requires a particular god? What is self-evident is that the universe exists, the meaning of that existence is a matter of assumption.

I know you're not. Neither am I (since there's really no way to argue against it). What I am saying is that the only alternative to determinism - the only way to believe in free will and independent reason in a rationally consistent way - is to believe in a self-existent source of those things. In other words, theism. If you're a determinist, if you believe that nothing has any real deontological value whatsoever, then fine; but unless you're prepared to say that the only reason for theism is that the Universe wound us (theists) up that way billions of years ago and we are merely cogs turning as the great, all-encompassing and mindless system of Nature requires us to turn, then you probably should stop issuing theories about why we believe, especially since those theories contradict the plain facts of why at least some of us do.

So god gives meaning to your life? Right, that is exactly what I was saying: people use the narrative of a god to contextualize their lives in such a way that their emotions agree with their vision of the universe in order to escape the psychological distress of feeling meaning but not intellectually substantiating it.

Most people feel that life is important, and doing good is worthwhile, etc. Personally, I require no other reason to want to do good. There is no proof, no greater metaphysical purpose, nothing more than what I feel and experience. Intellectually I believe that I am a primarily a social animal. I am built in such a way that I absorb abstract social concepts like good, evil, appropriate, etc. from my surrounding society. The vast majority of things I do are part of my bodies desire to fit in with my society as a social animal. That is the narrative I use to make sense of life. Life is really just a series of events in time: at this time you're sitting in a chair reading words on a screen, later you'll be sitting somewhere else eating, later still you'll drive to some building to work etc., it is only the story we tell which connects these events and bestows meaning upon them. But the story is not, in any tangible sense, true or even existent outside our own minds.

Realizing all of this doesn't, however, change the subjective experience of living; even if you believe that free will is illusory, that won't change the experience of having control over what your body is doing. The experience is largely invariant, but the story is whatever we want, or, more often, need it to be.