What do you think of atheists

[Lord Emsworth]

So let me ask you this.... This was also another question that got me thinking... Where do you think we came from? Earth had to start somewhere.. Someone or something created it. [...] Until I was asked Where did we come from? and who created the world then......??? It all makes sense..

That is nothing but an illusion.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

i hug atheists...i gives big ol' squisssssshy huuuugz

 

[badtim]

I deal with some of the alternate opinions later in my post.

The reason I start with the assumption is to illustrate my reasoning. We all start with one assumption or another, whether we want to or not. But a common way people tackle these assumptions is by taking one at a time.

You do realize that he was addressing your specific point, in which you were obviously begging the question?

You're would probably start with the assumption that the world was not created, though you'd probably try to tell me that wouldn't be an assumption. If there are alternate possibilities, it is an assumption. This is true no matter how valuable you perceive that assumption to be.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the actual fact is, there is zero evidence that the universe is an artifact of any sort. Saying that it was created through an intelligent agency -- that may turn out to be true. Who knows? But the fact is that there is no actual evidence for this, regardless of how many people say silly things like "But it's so beautiful!" or "How could there not be?"

Take the example of the Greek gods. Zeus and the others are not much different from people. They can be killed, they multiply, they wage wars, etc.. But the problem with these gods is that you cannot point to a specific point in time and say, "This is where it starts." There is no logical starting point with a god, or multiple gods, who change with time.

And if they're not completely infinite, even in respect to time, then they cannot exist in the period before time began.

Actually, you'd be wrong. According to Greek myths, Chaos existed first (not disorder, Chaos was the great moving nothingness before all things), and from that proceeded Gaia and the Titans, who overthrew their primal originators, and were in turn overthrown by Zeus et al. And no, these gods were not infinite in anything, which is hardly surprising since the whole concept of infinity itself was a Greek advance -- and their mythology undoubtedly predated this.

God doesn't operate the same way we do. We live from past to present. We're finite, and so we rely on the world acting on us to make us move.

The way the Bible describes God, however, is as a being that exists from beginning to end simultaneously. Time does not flow for Him. Although He acts in respect to time, He is infinite and does not rely on the universe acting on Him to cause Him to move.

But hold on, i keep getting told that he has very specific instructions for how we should live our lives -- how does that square with a superdimensional being? Short answer, it doesn't. If what you say is in any way true, there is zero possibility of us, in any meaningful way, understanding or interacting with such an entity, which kinda makes the whole thing moot.

I deal with some of the alternate opinions later in my post.

The reason I start with the assumption is to illustrate my reasoning. We all start with one assumption or another, whether we want to or not. But a common way people tackle these assumptions is by taking one at a time.

You do realize that he was addressing your specific point, in which you were obviously begging the question?

You're would probably start with the assumption that the world was not created, though you'd probably try to tell me that wouldn't be an assumption. If there are alternate possibilities, it is an assumption. This is true no matter how valuable you perceive that assumption to be.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the actual fact is, there is zero evidence that the universe is an artifact of any sort. Saying that it was created through an intelligent agency -- that may turn out to be true. Who knows? But the fact is that there is no actual evidence for this, regardless of how many people say silly things like "But it's so beautiful!" or "How could there not be?"

Take the example of the Greek gods. Zeus and the others are not much different from people. They can be killed, they multiply, they wage wars, etc.. But the problem with these gods is that you cannot point to a specific point in time and say, "This is where it starts." There is no logical starting point with a god, or multiple gods, who change with time.

And if they're not completely infinite, even in respect to time, then they cannot exist in the period before time began.

Actually, you'd be wrong. According to Greek myths, Chaos existed first (not disorder, Chaos was the great moving nothingness before all things), and from that proceeded Gaia and the Titans, who overthrew their primal originators, and were in turn overthrown by Zeus et al. And no, these gods were not infinite in anything, which is hardly surprising since the whole concept of infinity itself was a Greek advance -- and their mythology undoubtedly predated this.

The way I figure it, we are beings which exist in the 3rd dimension, unable to see past and future, but only present. But God would be somewhere beyond that.

Three spacial dimensions, one temporal, yes. But saying "God would be somewhere beyond that" is essentially meaningless.

((I actually disagree with one point on the video it makes about "branching possibilities." I believe that the world is all cause and effect, no chance, though many of the causes are beyond our perception. But that's my opinion.))

So you're a determinst. That's problematic for the christian concept of free will, and besides that, it's a false belief. The universe does not act as a continual chain of cause and effect, that has been experimentally proven, many many times -- you cannot simply proceed back in time, to the very beginning (or even back at all) based on simple cause and effect. It doesn't work.

I honestly cannot imagine a world that could exist without those requirements. They seem absolutely necessary to me. I cannot imagine any other god being responsible for the start of the whole universe, if we cannot find a logical starting point for that god as well.

Incredulity is no argument.

And if the god is not infinite, then it would have no power or conception for being able to start the universe. A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite, partly for reasons I have trouble finding the words to describe (dealing with infinites is confusing).

There are plenty of relico-magical systems that do not posit a creator deity, the Greek example above being one. And I think you confused yourself here, you said:

A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite

I am not sure what type of "starting point" or infinity you're referring to here -- are you talking temporal, spacial, or something else? It's a bit of a garble, if something is finite (temporally) then it must have a point of first existence, if something is finite (spacially) then it must have a measurable extent, etc. I'm thinking that you are simply re-stating that your god is infinite in time, and that the universe is not, right?

Yeah, but why does the universe behave in such predictable ways? Why doesn't the universe have the ability to behave randomly, or even to not behave at all and just do nothing?

It does behave randomly, constantly. That was one of the big wow moments for quantum theory. At the quantum level, it's totally unpredictable except in terms of probability, and causality becomes quite a tricky beast

We know that electrons which are negatively charge are attracted to the nucleus, which is positively charged. We can say because we've seen it happen over and over again, that the electron will rotate around the nucleus because of this attraction. But who says it has do what it does? What prevents that electron from floating around freely?

Not "rotate" but "orbit" and even that is a misnomer. Electrons are not planets; they don't really orbit the nucleus in lovely ellipses. It's all about field probability in terms of possible position, momentum, and energy. Think of it more as a spheroid haze, defining probability plots in all three spacial dimensions, over time.

The question, "Who says it has to do what it does?" is also misleading. I may be wrong in terms of your meaning here, but this touches on something that I see quite often with western christians, the requirement that some comprehensible authority declares some rule, and therefore it is so. Universe doesn't work like that, according to all our observations and theory -- the Universe simply is.

And what prevents electrons from floating around freely are those laws of nature we have figured out. There isn't an ontological or metaphysical interpretation espoused by science here. The scientific viewpoint would be "Ok, this is how the universe works, and here is what we know, currently, about it." No metaphysics involved.

You don't need to repeat yourself. I already understand what you're trying to say. But if you're going to claim that there exists some universe-creating-machine which created our reality, as well as countless other realities with more chaotic systems, is no more scientific than to say God created it. It's hypocritical to say one is more deserving of attention than another.

One is sollipsism the other is theism. Both are baseless speculation, at their core, as both end up with "well, if you believe, you believe", which essentially means nothing besides "I have my opinion and i won't change it no matter the facts."

Logic is relative.

Definte "relative" in your use here.

Logic can lead us to make almost any conclusion, even if we approach it with as little bias as possible.

Totally, and provably false, though the "almost" you inserted there is a nice backdoor. Logic cannot lead you to "almost any conclusion" - logic can lead to logical conclusions only, and even then, not to every logical conclusion, as western logic is an axiomatic formal number system (at heart) and so is governed by Godel incompleteness.

All logic is dependent on our reactions to reality (interpretation), and the conclusions we make because of it (opinions). Even science relies on interpretation, though we have rules which prevent us from fudging the data.

Everything is dependent upon perceptions and reactions to the reality, and neither of these are interpretation. Someone kicks you in the shin, you feel the pain (perception) and you react ("Ouch!") - your interpretation is totally separate ("he must not like me" or "he is trying to get my attention" or "there was a wasp on my leg and he killed it").

An interpretation of an event can always be looked at in terms of both accuracy and utility. Accuracy: Was he trying to get my attention? Does all the rest of his behavior lead me to think he doesn't like me? Is there a squished wasp on my leg? Utility: Thanks for getting my attention, i should not be spacing out in class! I'm not hanging out with this guy anymore. I avoided getting stung!

Everything in the human world relies on interpretation. We cannot get away from it, it's core to the human mind. Not only that, but it's very, very difficult to separate actual statement of fact from this interpretation, which is a main reason why things like logic, peer review, and skepticism, exist.

But i think your statement boils down to "science is just opinion" which again, is false -- otherwise there would not be the reams of data and research on human psychology and it's influences in the investigative process, or the many levels of error-checking and peer input that are standard in scientific pursuits. As Harlan Ellison once said, "You do not have the right to your own opinion. You have the right to your informed opinion."

The difference between the two is simple to show: compare genetics, and homeopathy. One is experientially and theoretically valid, with universal acceptance and proven value, the other is wishful thinking from the late 1800s, that makes no sense.

 

[brinny]

how ya been?

 

[GrayAngel]

You do realize that he was addressing your specific point, in which you were obviously begging the question?

Speaking of annoying things atheists do...

Funny. Apparently, everything I say is begging the question. I quote a definition from dictionary.com, I'm begging the question. I present my own point of view, I'm begging the question. Apparently, I should just throw God out the window, because I'm begging the question by just believing He exists.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the actual fact is, there is zero evidence that the universe is an artifact of any sort. Saying that it was created through an intelligent agency -- that may turn out to be true. Who knows? But the fact is that there is no actual evidence for this, regardless of how many people say silly things like "But it's so beautiful!" or "How could there not be?"

So basically, you're going to make me prove scientifically that my God exists before you let me explain my reasoning?

I'd say that there's no proof that the universe was not created, but then you'd say that I was shifting the burden of proof. It works both ways, you know. Belief or unbelief, if you tell someone they have to provide the proof, it's called appealing to ignorance. Basically, you're telling me, I have no proof He exists, therefore we must assume that He doesn't. No one can prove one way or the other.

I understand that you don't want to believe in a God you have no reason to believe in, but that's not the way I choose to live.

Actually, you'd be wrong. According to Greek myths, Chaos existed first (not disorder, Chaos was the great moving nothingness before all things), and from that proceeded Gaia and the Titans, who overthrew their primal originators, and were in turn overthrown by Zeus et al. And no, these gods were not infinite in anything, which is hardly surprising since the whole concept of infinity itself was a Greek advance -- and their mythology undoubtedly predated this.

I've heard of this before, actually, when I studied it in philosophy class. Still not sure if I understand it. It makes as much sense to me as saying someone can draw a square circle.

Not a perfect analogy, I know. I was just trying to illustrate from example why non-infinite gods could not have a starting point, and why a creator would have to be infinite.

But hold on, i keep getting told that he has very specific instructions for how we should live our lives -- how does that square with a superdimensional being? Short answer, it doesn't. If what you say is in any way true, there is zero possibility of us, in any meaningful way, understanding or interacting with such an entity, which kinda makes the whole thing moot.

Say what?

Are you trying to say that if God is infinite, then He can't communicate with us?

Three spacial dimensions, one temporal, yes. But saying "God would be somewhere beyond that" is essentially meaningless.

What I gather is that there are multiple ways people attempt to build on the three dimensions. The two videos I presented aren't in complete agreement.

And no, you just don't want to see any meaning in it. To say that God lives beyond the three dimensions which we're limited to, is to say three things:

1. God sees the world differently than we do. He's able to be completely aware of what's going on from one end of the galaxy to the other.
2. God is aware of the flow of time from the beginning to end, knowing (I'm sure) every possible outcome.
3. If God is all-knowing, and unlimited in any way, then that means He is able to operate outside of the need for any outside influences.

So you're a determinst. That's problematic for the christian concept of free will, and besides that, it's a false belief. The universe does not act as a continual chain of cause and effect, that has been experimentally proven, many many times -- you cannot simply proceed back in time, to the very beginning (or even back at all) based on simple cause and effect. It doesn't work.

You missed my contribution to the "Does Free Will Exist?" topic. I don't believe in free will. The Bible teaches Predestination: I think that romantic thinkers made up the idea of free will later on.

Well, I'll assume you have some reason to believe that everything cannot be explain to cause and effect, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I'm not so certain it's even possible to prove something like that. Our universe is extremely big. Every bit of energy, down to its simplest of form, is constantly moving, interacting with the rest of reality. We cannot possibly observe every single variable at once.

Incredulity is no argument.

Okay, then why don't you try to explain to me why you don't think the criteria I made are reasonable?

There are plenty of relico-magical systems that do not posit a creator deity, the Greek example above being one.

Sure, but the problem is they don't tell us how things really began. If the Greek gods didn't make everything, then how did the ball get rolling?

And I think you confused yourself here, you said:

A god limited by time cannot be responsible for getting things started. Partly because they cannot have a starting point being non-infinite

I am not sure what type of "starting point" or infinity you're referring to here -- are you talking temporal, spacial, or something else? It's a bit of a garble, if something is finite (temporally) then it must have a point of first existence, if something is finite (spacially) then it must have a measurable extent, etc. I'm thinking that you are simply re-stating that your god is infinite in time, and that the universe is not, right?

That's a good point, but I don't think it quite summarizes everything perfectly.

I'm mostly concerned with time, but the kind of beginning I imagine would be one where nothing exists yet. Because there would be no energies interacting with one another, time would not exist, as time is simply the observable event of change from one point to another.

Spatially, there would be nothing, as well. Space is measurable distance from one thing to another. I guess this would make the beginning a zeroth dimension.

Yes, the nature of a finite entity is that it is always moving, always changing. It leaves people asking, how did it start? How could it start? It doesn't make sense to me that anything finite could have an infinite past.

Infinity, however, cannot change. If you add one to infinity, it's still the same. (You can have negative and positive infinities, or infinities starting from a point, but I'm not sure how this would apply here.)

God is infinite in all aspects. He exists everywhere (some even describe the universe as an extension of Himself), and He is infinite in time as well. Even every thought existed in Him from the beginning.

It does behave randomly, constantly. That was one of the big wow moments for quantum theory. At the quantum level, it's totally unpredictable except in terms of probability, and causality becomes quite a tricky beast

Or maybe it just seems random, and they haven't figured it out yet. If every bit of energy that exists is really attached to every other, if each is affecting the future reactions of all of existence in some degree, then we may never have any way of knowing that.

If everything at the quantum level is random, then how could anything above it behave so predictably?

Who knows? Maybe the reason why it appears so random is because we can only observe the world in three dimensions. If there are invisible connections beyond the three dimensions, then it follows that everything cannot appear orderly to us. We would call it "random" because it would be beyond anything we could comprehend.

Not "rotate" but "orbit" and even that is a misnomer. Electrons are not planets; they don't really orbit the nucleus in lovely ellipses. It's all about field probability in terms of possible position, momentum, and energy. Think of it more as a spheroid haze, defining probability plots in all three spacial dimensions, over time.

Well, sure. I'm not ignorant enough to think that electrons move in perfect circles as illustrated on a piece of paper. Even the planets don't move in perfect circles.

The question, "Who says it has to do what it does?" is also misleading. I may be wrong in terms of your meaning here, but this touches on something that I see quite often with western christians, the requirement that some comprehensible authority declares some rule, and therefore it is so. Universe doesn't work like that, according to all our observations and theory -- the Universe simply is.

And what prevents electrons from floating around freely are those laws of nature we have figured out. There isn't an ontological or metaphysical interpretation espoused by science here. The scientific viewpoint would be "Ok, this is how the universe works, and here is what we know, currently, about it." No metaphysics involved.

I'm trying to ask this from the perspective of a naturalist, assuming that there is no deity whispering in the ear of an apple to give it the order to fall. But the laws seem like an authority to me.

What I don't understand is that if the laws are natural, why are they the way they are? They just happen to exist in a way that is convenient for us?

If the universe simple is, then the whys will forever haunt me. If there is no authority telling the universe how to move, then why does it?

One is sollipsism the other is theism. Both are baseless speculation, at their core, as both end up with "well, if you believe, you believe", which essentially means nothing besides "I have my opinion and i won't change it no matter the facts."

The alternative is to believe nothing at all, which is something I can't do.

Definte "relative" in your use here.

I mean it varies with respect to the person. There is no direct path, but many possible paths to take.

Totally, and provably false, though the "almost" you inserted there is a nice backdoor. Logic cannot lead you to "almost any conclusion" - logic can lead to logical conclusions only, and even then, not to every logical conclusion, as western logic is an axiomatic formal number system (at heart) and so is governed by Godel incompleteness.

As long as you are not aware of something, you have a varying degree of ignorance. Ignorance can lead us to different conclusion, depending on our level or type of ignorance.

Even with two people with nearly identical ignorance (no one is completely equivalent to another), they can come to different conclusions from the same data, simply because their creative minds lead different directions. They evaluate and project different meanings on the same object.

But i think your statement boils down to "science is just opinion" which again, is false -- otherwise there would not be the reams of data and research on human psychology and it's influences in the investigative process, or the many levels of error-checking and peer input that are standard in scientific pursuits. As Harlan Ellison once said, "You do not have the right to your own opinion. You have the right to your informed opinion."

I wouldn't say that science is just opinion. It's more like putting reigns on a horse. It limits creativity and opinions for the hope of gaining unbiased knowledge. After getting your data, you still have to put some meaning into it. But even if you could manage to completely remove bias, that makes the study more reliable, but not necessarily valid.

Say you have a scale, and when you step on it it says you weigh 150 pounds. Step off and on again, it still says 150 pounds. It's reliable. You know it's going to give the same response each time. But that machine could still be wrong.

Science is good, but it's not perfect. If it were perfect, scientists would always come to the right conclusions every time. But this is not the case. There are debates, and science does often reverse itself.

 

[Deserae2011]

So I have not been on in a few days, and to my suprise the last post I left started up quite intresting conversation. As I said before, I am new to the site.... After reading this entire forum, I think that I would be better off to stick to christian related forums. I am on here to grow and get answer for my own religion and thought that I might be able to help someone see what I did, with the question that got me. Wont waste anymore time....

 

[badtim]

Apparently, everything I say is begging the question. I quote a definition from dictionary.com, I'm begging the question. I present my own point of view, I'm begging the question. Apparently, I should just throw God out the window, because I'm begging the question by just believing He exists.

Maybe we got off on the wrong foot here. Wasn't trying to assault you, you don't need to be defensive. Please take any and all of my responses in the same vein -- I'm just being direct and uncompromising with my responses.

First off, do you understand what "begging the question" means? When you were discussing that which I replied to, you were doing this. You were including your conclusion in your premises, which doesn't work. You can't prove something by assuming the proof itself.

So basically, you're going to make me prove scientifically that my God exists before you let me explain my reasoning?

I was critiquing your reasoning itself. I get that you believe your god exists, all good on that front.

Belief or unbelief, if you tell someone they have to provide the proof, it's called appealing to ignorance. Basically, you're telling me, I have no proof He exists, therefore we must assume that He doesn't. No one can prove one way or the other.

No, it's not called appeal to ignorance. Appeals to ignorance go like this: "Well, it hasn't been proven false, so it's true." Telling someone that you require substantive proof is perfectly valid, in terms of logic, or really anything else. And yes, in lieu of massive, universal proof, making ultimate statements about the core and nature of all existence (i.e. deity), yeah, disbelief should be the default. You're making, effectively, an infinite (or just insanely high) value statement -- to really accept that, you would have to have proof of the same scale and nature as your assertion.

I understand that you don't want to believe in a God you have no reason to believe in, but that's not the way I choose to live.

And that's fine. Live how you live, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. But you aren't getting it -- this stuff, it isn't a choice, not for me at least. It's not "don't want to believe" it's "cannot believe".

Not a perfect analogy, I know. I was just trying to illustrate from example why non-infinite gods could not have a starting point, and why a creator would have to be infinite.

I really just didn't understand what you were getting at

Say what?

Are you trying to say that if God is infinite, then He can't communicate with us?

No. What I was saying is that you and I would have zero chance at interacting meaningfully, especially any sort of two-way communication. Best example from another myth system is Gran Maitre from voudoun. Too big, too far away.

And no, you just don't want to see any meaning in it. To say that God lives beyond the three dimensions which we're limited to, is to say three things:

1. God sees the world differently than we do. He's able to be completely aware of what's going on from one end of the galaxy to the other.
2. God is aware of the flow of time from the beginning to end, knowing (I'm sure) every possible outcome.
3. If God is all-knowing, and unlimited in any way, then that means He is able to operate outside of the need for any outside influences.

No, what I meant was, statements like "my god is outside time and beyond dimensions" really boil down to very little for humans, since that kind of thing is totally impossible for us to actually grok. Conceptually play with, do computational modeling of, yes. Really deal with, in any sort of fullness, no. As soon as you start to progress, in terms of dimensionality, past your native set of dimensions, you end up with infinity quite quickly. Considered from a N-dimensional point of view, anything with an N+1 extension is functionally infinite, from your point of view. From a strictly practical point of view, all you're saying is "my god is big", and big to an extent that isn't really conceptually possible to most people in any sort of useful sense. Anybody can say "endless" or "infinite" but it's another thing when you're talking about infinities like Cantor dealt with (who, by the way, personally considered his work in set theory, especially transfinite number theory, as inexplicably linked with God himself.)

You missed my contribution to the "Does Free Will Exist?" topic. I don't believe in free will. The Bible teaches Predestination: I think that romantic thinkers made up the idea of free will later on.

Wow, really? I'd be interested in hearing more about that, honestly. The Bible teaches Free Will also, and unless Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Clement, or Tertullian were "romantic thinkers"... predestination has never been prevailing doctrine, either in Christianity, or in Judaism.

Well, I'll assume you have some reason to believe that everything cannot be explain to cause and effect, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I'm not so certain it's even possible to prove something like that. Our universe is extremely big. Every bit of energy, down to its simplest of form, is constantly moving, interacting with the rest of reality. We cannot possibly observe every single variable at once.

Don't have much of a problem with cause and effect, actually. What I was referring to was linear progression of events, in a reductionist manner. The idea, centuries ago, was that if one was present at the right hand of god for creation, intimately knowledgeable about the exact starting conditions, etc., then one could trace a linear path, backwards and forwards in time. This is not true. There are tons of examples of phenomenon that are determinist, but cannot be accurately predicted, replicated, or reversed -- the earth's atmosphere, for one.

Okay, then why don't you try to explain to me why you don't think the criteria I made are reasonable?

My comment was directed towards your statement, that you "...honestly cannot imagine a world that could exist without those requirements" -- i was simply pointing out that this doesn't make anything so, or not so.

Sure, but the problem is they don't tell us how things really began. If the Greek gods didn't make everything, then how did the ball get rolling?

Not all cosmogonies require a creator god. And really, looking at the two stories (greek creation myth vs. christian creation myth), they're roughly equivalent in terms of the actual explanatory value, from the viewpoint of someone who hasn't bought into either system.

I'm mostly concerned with time, but the kind of beginning I imagine would be one where nothing exists yet. Because there would be no energies interacting with one another, time would not exist, as time is simply the observable event of change from one point to another.

Yeah, time is a tricky thing. I'm honestly not sure if I subscribe more to the Newtonian concept of it, as an actual dimension (which does work both in terms of the math and physics, as well as practical considerations), or in the more Leibniz school where it is neither an event or thing. In some big bang cosmogonies, time is compressed into a physical dimension during the period before planck time.

Spatially, there would be nothing, as well. Space is measurable distance from one thing to another. I guess this would make the beginning a zeroth dimension.

Well depends, philosophically there wouldn't even be "nothing". In your terms, there would not even be dimensionality; the flip-side would be infinite mass/energy in a zero point state (call it "god" call it the "primaeval atom", etc)

Yes, the nature of a finite entity is that it is always moving, always changing. It leaves people asking, how did it start? How could it start? It doesn't make sense to me that anything finite could have an infinite past.

Why? Plus, when you're talking about the universe, we don't know that it is finite. It may just be really big, but really the math and the astrophysics at that point is very far beyond me! One of the things that really makes be doubt all human creation myths, none of them are weird enough to be in any way accurate. They all, each and every one, have way too much humanity in them.

Infinity, however, cannot change. If you add one to infinity, it's still the same. (You can have negative and positive infinities, or infinities starting from a point, but I'm not sure how this would apply here.)

Whoa, hold on, i'm not sure we are speaking of the same concept when we're saying "infinite". Infinity, and infinite sets, are a lot more complex than that. All infinite sets are not equal; take the set of all even integers. It's an unbounded set, it includes an infinity of numbers, in fact all even integers. But then you have the set of all odd integers -- also infinite, and totally exclusive of the first set. Add them together and you get a new infinite set -- the set of all odd integers with values higher than 1. Infinities can change.

God is infinite in all aspects. He exists everywhere (some even describe the universe as an extension of Himself), and He is infinite in time as well. Even every thought existed in Him from the beginning.

Those statements bring up a ton of conflicts, both in and out of christian theology, and I think you need to qualify what you said also, as "God is infinite in all aspects" means that he has an infinite thirst for human blood

Or maybe it just seems random, and they haven't figured it out yet. If every bit of energy that exists is really attached to every other, if each is affecting the future reactions of all of existence in some degree, then we may never have any way of knowing that.

Ah, well what we know, experientially, theoretically, and mathematically, is that we cannot accurately predict, or measure, all states in any quantum system. You can only deal with that stuff in terms of probability. Randomness is everywhere in nature; so is order. I'm not sure that everything is really attached to everything else, can you explain?

If everything at the quantum level is random, then how could anything above it behave so predictably?

That's one of the big conceptual problems with quantum stuff. IANAP (I am not a physicist) so really, can only speculate. For me, the answer is "I don't know."

If there are invisible connections beyond the three dimensions, then it follows that everything cannot appear orderly to us. We would call it "random" because it would be beyond anything we could comprehend.

There may well be an underlying logic or metalaw that controls this stuff, that we haven't yet discovered (or may never discover). Real smart guys are working on questions like that right now. All we can know is what we learn, and what we can test, and use.

Well, sure. I'm not ignorant enough to think that electrons move in perfect circles as illustrated on a piece of paper. Even the planets don't move in perfect circles.

I had that come up in two conversations in the last week, with nice, bright folks, and neither of them knew that

I'm trying to ask this from the perspective of a naturalist, assuming that there is no deity whispering in the ear of an apple to give it the order to fall. But the laws seem like an authority to me.

No, laws are simply descriptions of what happens, of fact; there is no authority.

What I don't understand is that if the laws are natural, why are they the way they are? They just happen to exist in a way that is convenient for us?

I would say that the perception that the laws of the universe are the way they are, "in a way that is convenient for us" is a reversal -- that they more appear that way since we a direct products of them. If the laws of the universe were different, then if it was a universe capable of sustaining life of some sort, those lifeforms would be making the same observation about their universe. The thing is though, the universe really isn't all that convenient for us. The vast, vast majority of it would be instant death to a human.

If the universe simple is, then the whys will forever haunt me. If there is no authority telling the universe how to move, then why does it?

If the universe simply is, then there is no why. I really don't see any reason for there to be a why. I think you're asking the wrong questions.

The alternative is to believe nothing at all, which is something I can't do.

Why should that be the only alternative, and why do you think you can't do that?

I mean it varies with respect to the person. There is no direct path, but many possible paths to take.

No, not really. Logic is a formal system, there are rules, and you can reduce it to math. While there are things you can do within it, there are also things that you cannot do within it -- and you can do with it, but can never know you can do.

continued...

 

[badtim]

Even with two people with nearly identical ignorance (no one is completely equivalent to another), they can come to different conclusions from the same data, simply because their creative minds lead different directions. They evaluate and project different meanings on the same object.

Are you just talking about decision making, when you're referring to logic? I'm talking about formal logic, not personal decision making. If you're talking about decision making in general, yeah it's totally relative to each person.

I wouldn't say that science is just opinion. It's more like putting reigns on a horse. It limits creativity and opinions for the hope of gaining unbiased knowledge. After getting your data, you still have to put some meaning into it. But even if you could manage to completely remove bias, that makes the study more reliable, but not necessarily valid.

I have to disagree with you here. Science is more like giving that horse wings. What makes anything valid is if it works in the real world. Studies are just that -- studies -- and their job is to test ideas, concepts, inventions, etc. for their fitness in the real world. I'm not sure what you refer to by "put some meaning into it" but science doesn't deal in meaning, not in the terms that I think you're working with. That's for philosophers, poets, musicians, artists, and yes, prophets.

Science is good, but it's not perfect. If it were perfect, scientists would always come to the right conclusions every time. But this is not the case. There are debates, and science does often reverse itself.

haha whoever said it was? anyone who believes that isn't a scientist. Scientists love to prove things wrong -- oftentimes over the kicking and screaming of those invested in previous theories. That's my favorite thing about science, and it lies at the core of it. the scientific method is the best tool, however imperfect, that humans have ever developed for investigating the universe, and acting upon the knowledge gained.

In any case, the scientific method, "science" itself, doesn't make statements about gods and religion and such things. Anyone who thinks that the two are incompatible is most likely one of those guys, kicking and screaming, with their old theories clenched in their hands.

 

[badtim]

definitely have to apologize for that wall of text

 

[GrayAngel]

First off, do you understand what "begging the question" means? When you were discussing that which I replied to, you were doing this. You were including your conclusion in your premises, which doesn't work. You can't prove something by assuming the proof itself.

Yeah, I know what begging the question is. It's basically answering a question without really answering it.

The thing about logical fallacies is that they have a gray area. Knowing whether someone is violating a logical fallacy or giving a legitimate argument is not always clear.

In the case of my argument, I saw no way to avoid it. I could have started with my understanding of the naturalist point of view first, but that would have done nothing but change the order it was presented.

No, it's not called appeal to ignorance. Appeals to ignorance go like this: "Well, it hasn't been proven false, so it's true." Telling someone that you require substantive proof is perfectly valid, in terms of logic, or really anything else. And yes, in lieu of massive, universal proof, making ultimate statements about the core and nature of all existence (i.e. deity), yeah, disbelief should be the default. You're making, effectively, an infinite (or just insanely high) value statement -- to really accept that, you would have to have proof of the same scale and nature as your assertion.

In the American legal system, we have a system that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. A violation would be if the accuser says, "The defendant has no proof that he didn't kill the victim."

When it comes to the existence of God, though, who can say who has the right to be comfortable where they're at without proof. Does someone have to prove that God exists, or do they have to prove that He doesn't? Some would say that disbelief should be the default, but I could argue the opposite.

How many ancient cultures do we know of that do not believe in some deity? I read about a people called the Ba'buti (or something like that; it was an odd name) who were one of the few tribal societies still in existence. Their people were believed to have existed around, and most likely before, the time of the ancient Egyptians.

They believed that the forest was literally a living thing. To them, it wasn't just trees and some animals, but a loving fatherly figure who provided for them.

It seems, then, that belief in some kind of deity is the default. Atheism is more common in more advanced societies, where people suddenly begin to question the legends of their cultures. Even the word "atheism" means "not theism," implying that it came after, as something opposed to the earlier notion of theism.

If theism came first, then how could disbelief be default? If we already believed, shouldn't it be the atheist's job to prove us wrong?

Honestly, though, when it comes to God, I think it's really up to the individual to choose what position they want to take. If they want to believe, they should. If they don't, they shouldn't.

And that's fine. Live how you live, as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. But you aren't getting it -- this stuff, it isn't a choice, not for me at least. It's not "don't want to believe" it's "cannot believe".

*Pulls out a shotgun*

Believe now!

No. What I was saying is that you and I would have zero chance at interacting meaningfully, especially any sort of two-way communication. Best example from another myth system is Gran Maitre from voudoun. Too big, too far away.

I'm familiar with Vodouisant dieties, but I don't see why God could interact with us. The Christian God isn't a distant god. When He wants to get our attention, He'll use objects are means that we can understand. The burning bush, for example, caught Moses' eye. Then He heard a voice coming from the fire.

Nowadays, Christians have the Holy Spirit available to them. I don't know if you've heard my story before already, but I was given some insight from a picture in my mind, and one word which stuck in my head. This happened while I was praying, and I believe it was God's way of telling me He's available to me.

Wow, really? I'd be interested in hearing more about that, honestly. The Bible teaches Free Will also, and unless Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Clement, or Tertullian were "romantic thinkers"... predestination has never been prevailing doctrine, either in Christianity, or in Judaism.

The early Catholic church really screwed up a lot of the original ideas of Christianity. Ever since then, many of us have been trying to fix what's been broken.

Since there's already a thread on this topic, I'll send you a link to one of my posts, and we can continue from there.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7524477-18/#post56511590

Why? Plus, when you're talking about the universe, we don't know that it is finite. It may just be really big, but really the math and the astrophysics at that point is very far beyond me! One of the things that really makes be doubt all human creation myths, none of them are weird enough to be in any way accurate. They all, each and every one, have way too much humanity in them.

I keep hearing arguments back and forth on this. I'm not sure what's true. Some say that we have an idea of how many stars exist in the universe (between 10^22 to 10^24).

Most seem to agree, however, that the universe in finite. If it wasn't, that would raise a ton of new questions.

I remember trying to figure this out years before. If the universe is not infinite, then what happens if you reach the end of it? But if it is infinite, how could it just go on forever and ever?

Finally, I came up with something (though I'm sure someone else must have thought of it before me) that allowed my mind to rest. That is, the universe is finite, as in it has limited energy filling up space. However, there is no invisible wall at the end. Rather, the universe has infinite room to expand outward. If a spaceship could reach a point where all of the stars are behind it, then however far it travels, that point would be the "end."

Whoa, hold on, i'm not sure we are speaking of the same concept when we're saying "infinite". Infinity, and infinite sets, are a lot more complex than that. All infinite sets are not equal; take the set of all even integers. It's an unbounded set, it includes an infinity of numbers, in fact all even integers. But then you have the set of all odd integers -- also infinite, and totally exclusive of the first set. Add them together and you get a new infinite set -- the set of all odd integers with values higher than 1. Infinities can change.

Yeah, I knew that. But I'm not too sure how it applies to real life. Infinities are difficult to understand. If you add one, or take away one from infinity in a formula, infinite is unaffected. But if you're talking sets of infinite numbers, you can limit infinity.

Mathematically, it makes sense, but I'm not sure if there is anything in natural that remotely resembles an infinite set of positive integers.

Now that I think about it, though, it may offer some insight on how God works. God is described as completely limitless, yet we see Him sometimes "depart" from someone or someplace. He seems to limit Himself to only places He could tolerate to be. Maybe in this sense, He's like an infinite set of positive integers.

Those statements bring up a ton of conflicts, both in and out of christian theology, and I think you need to qualify what you said also, as "God is infinite in all aspects" means that he has an infinite thirst for human blood

Well, there are some things that God is not. He has limitless power, but I don't believe He can create a boulder big enough that He couldn't lift it. That's just illogical, because doing so would conflict with His limited power.

He doesn't have a thirst for human blood (I don't think), but He's different from people, though we share a lot in common. God has shows love and hate, mercy and wrath, happiness and anger. These things tend to make us think that God changes, but that's not true. He feels and acts in respect to time, but He's not changing.

The people He loves, He loves forever. Same with hate, because He sees people in all their history, not just the present.

Ah, well what we know, experientially, theoretically, and mathematically, is that we cannot accurately predict, or measure, all states in any quantum system. You can only deal with that stuff in terms of probability. Randomness is everywhere in nature; so is order. I'm not sure that everything is really attached to everything else, can you explain?

I'm not exactly an expert in quantum stuff, but I've heard some theories. In one of the videos I provided earlier (the one with the kid and the chalkboard), he mentioned something about a theory that every single unit of energy has a "string" attaching it to every other unit of energy, like a web.

I haven't looked into it, but it seems to have to do with energy behaving in ways outside of the three dimensions. Also, if this were true, then every action, even me sitting at my desk, would have some degree of an affect on something seemingly unrelated, like the US President's speech writer. Maybe if I could go back in time and do something else, then the President's next speech would be different.

I've heard something else recently (though this may be a little off topic). One of my professors (he's a psychology professor, not a physics expert) said that it's been proven that time doesn't only flow from past to future, but also from future to past. Would you know anything about that?

I had that come up in two conversations in the last week, with nice, bright folks, and neither of them knew that

I guess I've just had the benefit of having heard it before, then. I've also heard that the closeness portrayed on the paper representations are wrong, and that electrons actually give the nucleus quite a large gap of space. But I've always wandered how we are supposed to know this stuff. We can't even look at an electron without altering its position.

I would say that the perception that the laws of the universe are the way they are, "in a way that is convenient for us" is a reversal -- that they more appear that way since we a direct products of them. If the laws of the universe were different, then if it was a universe capable of sustaining life of some sort, those lifeforms would be making the same observation about their universe. The thing is though, the universe really isn't all that convenient for us. The vast, vast majority of it would be instant death to a human.

I'm not sure there is any other possible reality where life could exist. While our planet is the only known life-sustaining planet in existence, our universe was able to form this one planet. A universe with a different set of rules probably couldn't have.

Why should that be the only alternative, and why do you think you can't do that?

What other choice is there? Either I believe in something, or a believe in nothing.

If we choose not to believe in anything that couldn't be proven, then we would have to hold no opinions on the origin of the universe. The local science museum would have to stop telling us that the Big Bang started everything, because that's just one of multiple possibilities (though creation might have looked something like the Big Bang. I don't know.).

No, not really. Logic is a formal system, there are rules, and you can reduce it to math. While there are things you can do within it, there are also things that you cannot do within it -- and you can do with it, but can never know you can do.

continued...

Are you just talking about decision making, when you're referring to logic? I'm talking about formal logic, not personal decision making. If you're talking about decision making in general, yeah it's totally relative to each person.

I'm not sure there's much of a distinction.

I have to disagree with you here. Science is more like giving that horse wings. What makes anything valid is if it works in the real world. Studies are just that -- studies -- and their job is to test ideas, concepts, inventions, etc. for their fitness in the real world. I'm not sure what you refer to by "put some meaning into it" but science doesn't deal in meaning, not in the terms that I think you're working with. That's for philosophers, poets, musicians, artists, and yes, prophets.

When someone writes a journal for their research, they present their hypothesis in the introduction, then they present the data. After that, they have a discussion on the relevance of the data, sharing the conclusions they made. At least, that's the way they do it in APA style journals.

The researcher is supposed to keep an open mind, letting the data speak for itself. But that doesn't always happen. And sometimes the data is misleading.

haha whoever said it was? anyone who believes that isn't a scientist. Scientists love to prove things wrong -- oftentimes over the kicking and screaming of those invested in previous theories. That's my favorite thing about science, and it lies at the core of it. the scientific method is the best tool, however imperfect, that humans have ever developed for investigating the universe, and acting upon the knowledge gained.

In any case, the scientific method, "science" itself, doesn't make statements about gods and religion and such things. Anyone who thinks that the two are incompatible is most likely one of those guys, kicking and screaming, with their old theories clenched in their hands.

I agree that science is a useful tool, but too many people seem to trust it blindly, as if when something is proven scientifically, there's no way they could be wrong.

Scientists themselves often hold strong opinions. At least with a lot of the famous contributers, they tend to have a very narrow view of things. Sometimes the scientific community resembles a political battlefield, with two or more sides screaming at each other. Other times, it seems to resemble a dictatorship, where only some ideas are accepted, and some are "excommunicated" for presenting ideas that are too threatening to them.

 

[AlexBP]

I won't for a second pretend I studied philosophy or logic beyond watching a few episodes of the atheist experience on youtube so you will have to excuse me if i am a bit slow on the uptake but what exactly were you asking if your answer was going to be "Logic isnt everything"?

All I was saying is that I'm not impressed by those who claim that their use of logic allows them to prove Christian doctrine incorrect.

On another note though I am not sure why poetry, art and music should be considered illogical?

In western philosophy there has traditionally been a dichotomy that places logical thought on one side and artistic, mystical, and so forth on the other side. It's clear enough when you consider a good example such as this one:

Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd truly like to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener,
Then everyone would be in love with me.

Oh, I'm glad I'm not an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd never want to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Then soon there would be nothing left of me!

That captures in poetic form a truth that can't be expressed in logic, specifically the simultaneous longing for and against being reduced to the purely material. It tells us that on the one hand, if we were material objects we'd have none of the mess of contradictions, complications, and exceptions that make human relations so difficult and often make humans dislike each other. On the other hand, we would also become purely temporal (and temporary!) and lose our chance and immortality. So it's an illogical statement when the singer asserts that he simultaneously does and doesn't want to be an Oscar Mayer wiener, but also a true one.

 

[badtim]

Yeah, I know what begging the question is. It's basically answering a question without really answering it. The thing about logical fallacies is that they have a gray area. Knowing whether someone is violating a logical fallacy or giving a legitimate argument is not always clear.

No, it's when you assume the conclusion in the premises, not just avoiding the question. It's a specific material fallacy, (Aristotle, ~350BG). if you're arguing for something (in this case the existence of a deity), you can't pre-suppose that thing. Applies to all arguments. This is begging the question: "badtim is an atheist. how do you know? because he doesn't believe in god." Fallacious logic doesn't really have grey areas, only bad usage.

In the American legal system, we have a system that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. A violation would be if the accuser says, "The defendant has no proof that he didn't kill the victim."
When it comes to the existence of God, though, who can say who has the right to be comfortable where they're at without proof. Does someone have to prove that God exists, or do they have to prove that He doesn't? Some would say that disbelief should be the default, but I could argue the opposite.

the null hypothesis is always the default. the claim, the positive statement, is always that which requires proof.

How many ancient cultures do we know of that do not believe in some deity?

Lots, actually. Animists generally don't believe in any sort of deity, in the same terms that a monotheist would. It's pretty complicated though (and i'm trying to avoid writing another giant TL;DR here)

It seems, then, that belief in some kind of deity is the default. Atheism is more common in more advanced societies, where people suddenly begin to question the legends of their cultures. Even the word "atheism" means "not theism," implying that it came after, as something opposed to the earlier notion of theism.

There's really no "default" so to speak. There are ancient atheistic groups, Buddhism is generally atheistic. And no, if you want to get all semantic, atheism means "without gods", which is generally what us godless heathens believe. Chronological precedence has no impact on true / false values anyway, only actual proof. Astrology (not the modern newspaper mishmash) came before astronomy, and it has absolutely zero practical value.

If theism came first, then how could disbelief be default? If we already believed, shouldn't it be the atheist's job to prove us wrong?

No, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it right, see your legal example above. And anyway, one of the main advances we have made in the last several hundred years has been consistently proving superstition and religion wrong. That's a huge part of the history of science, and a main reason why some religious people are scared of it.

Honestly, though, when it comes to God, I think it's really up to the individual to choose what position they want to take. If they want to believe, they should. If they don't, they shouldn't.

totally agreed, as long as it affects no one else.

*Pulls out a shotgun*

Believe now!

EXACTLY the problem!

I don't see why God could interact with us. The Christian God isn't a distant god. When He wants to get our attention, He'll use objects are means that we can understand. The burning bush, for example, caught Moses' eye. Then He heard a voice coming from the fire.

for the reasons i said in the post before. and Moses is ahistorical, in a way that Jesus is not.

Nowadays, Christians have the Holy Spirit available to them. I don't know if you've heard my story before already, but I was given some insight from a picture in my mind, and one word which stuck in my head. This happened while I was praying, and I believe it was God's way of telling me He's available to me.

Ok, so unless you can devise a solid methodology for testing this, that is both rational and repeatable, i will stick to my guns and say that was your own mind. If you can devise a truly solid experiment to prove what you have just said, then i will change my tune and convert immediately back to christianity -- if you can prove it was YHVH who told you this, and not Ahura Mazda, Odin, Athena, or Baron Samedi.

The early Catholic church really screwed up a lot of the original ideas of Christianity. Ever since then, many of us have been trying to fix what's been broken.

You do realize there was no such thing as the "Catholic Church" as we know it today until into the middle ages right? I'll check out the thread, but if you're referring to the predestination thing, it was heretical from the beginning in the early church, does not occur in Judaism, and still is an extreme minority view (basically only some types of american protestantism). The vast majority of christians, worldwide, reject it and always have. It also brings up serious logical issues with core tenets of christian belief (salvation being one).

Yeah, I knew that. But I'm not too sure how it applies to real life. Infinities are difficult to understand. If you add one, or take away one from infinity in a formula, infinite is unaffected. But if you're talking sets of infinite numbers, you can limit infinity.

yep, tricky business. read up on Georg Cantor.

Mathematically, it makes sense, but I'm not sure if there is anything in natural that remotely resembles an infinite set of positive integers.

There's nothing in nature that resembles numbers.

Now that I think about it, though, it may offer some insight on how God works. God is described as completely limitless, yet we see Him sometimes "depart" from someone or someplace. He seems to limit Himself to only places He could tolerate to be. Maybe in this sense, He's like an infinite set of positive integers.

Spinoza

Well, there are some things that God is not. He has limitless power, but I don't believe He can create a boulder big enough that He couldn't lift it. That's just illogical, because doing so would conflict with His limited power.

that's because christian ideas of god are couched in contradictory infinities. that's not his fault, it's the fault of the people that made him up.

He doesn't have a thirst for human blood (I don't think), but He's different from people, though we share a lot in common. God has shows love and hate, mercy and wrath, happiness and anger. These things tend to make us think that God changes, but that's not true. He feels and acts in respect to time, but He's not changing.

he also makes mistakes, and shows regret, and must change, because otherwise why did jesus come and fiddle with the law, which was originally eternal and unchanging?

The people He loves, He loves forever. Same with hate, because He sees people in all their history, not just the present.

Hold on, God, a perfect being, hates? Hates that which he created? Don't you see a problem there?

I'm not exactly an expert in quantum stuff, but I've heard some theories. In one of the videos I provided earlier (the one with the kid and the chalkboard), he mentioned something about a theory that every single unit of energy has a "string" attaching it to every other unit of energy, like a web.

Sounds like a chopra/huffpo/what the bleep psuedoscience version of m-theory, except strings (in the String Theory / M-Theory sense) are actually supposed to be 1-dimensional oscillating lines which make up all elementary particles, and not some "we are all connected" magic happy-sauce. Ill go watch the videos now though

I haven't looked into it, but it seems to have to do with energy behaving in ways outside of the three dimensions. Also, if this were true, then every action, even me sitting at my desk, would have some degree of an affect on something seemingly unrelated, like the US President's speech writer. Maybe if I could go back in time and do something else, then the President's next speech would be different.

Yes, but i was speaking of straight causality and not that kind of stuff. If you want to learn about 4+ dimensional constructs, study differential geometry. I'd ask my fiancee to explain it, but i think i will need a few years (or decades) for her to explain it to me!

I've heard something else recently (though this may be a little off topic). One of my professors (he's a psychology professor, not a physics expert) said that it's been proven that time doesn't only flow from past to future, but also from future to past. Would you know anything about that?

If he said "proven" he's making stuff up. Then again he's a psychology guy, that's one step removed from literary criticism

I guess I've just had the benefit of having heard it before, then. I've also heard that the closeness portrayed on the paper representations are wrong, and that electrons actually give the nucleus quite a large gap of space. But I've always wandered how we are supposed to know this stuff. We can't even look at an electron without altering its position.

True. Scale-wise, the average distance between a minimum energy state electron and the nucleus is huge. We can observe particle behavior in a number of ways -- and what heisenberg discovered was actually that for certain pairs of physical measurements, such as position and momentum, we cannot discern both at the same time, to very high degrees of accuracy. In this case, if you measured position to 10^10 decimal places, your measurement of momentum would be limited to 10^2 decimal places, and vice versa (not real numbers, just for illustration).

I'm not sure there is any other possible reality where life could exist. While our planet is the only known life-sustaining planet in existence, our universe was able to form this one planet. A universe with a different set of rules probably couldn't have.

We aren't sure if there are any more realities at all. If another universe had dramatically different physical constants, then if there was life it wouldn't be anything like us.

What other choice is there? Either I believe in something, or a believe in nothing.

False dichotomy, because "something" includes everything not "nothing". You have an infinite number of things to believe it.

If we choose not to believe in anything that couldn't be proven, then we would have to hold no opinions on the origin of the universe. The local science museum would have to stop telling us that the Big Bang started everything, because that's just one of multiple possibilities (though creation might have looked something like the Big Bang. I don't know.).

I never said not to dream or theorize; only not to believe, as proven fact, extreme statements with no backup. Hell, I'm a poet! Creativity, dreaming up explanations and meanings, is a core part of what makes us human. Without that, we are nothing. For me, it's the difference between fiction and non-fiction -- the dreams and desires of humanity, whatever they are, end as soon as they contradict reality. Here's a great example:

GOP’s Beard wants more coal plants because God will fix global warming | Twin Cities Daily Planet

this guy is NUTS. he is deranged. he is a dangerous ideologue who seems to actually believe that his own odd reading of an ancient book trumps the entire history of mankind, the entire body of science, as well as obvious limitations like the VOLUME OF THE EARTH. that is what i have huge problems with, because when cultures get like that, they tend to die.

There's requiring proof for extreme statements, and then there's taking it a bit too far -- look up the Piraha (Pirahã people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) -- i think they take it too far. They're total atheists btw, though do believe in forest spirits and the like. They seem to have backed themselves into a corner -- total mastery of their ecological niche, but zero possibility for expansion. No number concepts past 2 or 3 even. Oh and they're also 100% immune to conversion -- in fact, they tend to convert missionaries that are sent to them, to atheism.

The researcher is supposed to keep an open mind, letting the data speak for itself. But that doesn't always happen. And sometimes the data is misleading.

yep, even with peer review and all that, bad science abounds. go read ben goldacre, he writes about it every week in the Guardian: Bad Science. we possess a good understanding of the psychology behind this type of thing.

I agree that science is a useful tool, but too many people seem to trust it blindly, as if when something is proven scientifically, there's no way they could be wrong.

I have never met a single scientist who has held this view, out of the hundreds i have known. If you're talking about adherence to pet theories in the face of contradictory evidence, sure. That's another human trait, and one that is widely studied, and constantly corrected for (sometimes effectively, sometimes not).

Scientists themselves often hold strong opinions. At least with a lot of the famous contributers, they tend to have a very narrow view of things. Sometimes the scientific community resembles a political battlefield, with two or more sides screaming at each other.

Usually more than two sides! You have never seen a more vociferous debate than a room full of physicists with different ideas on things, it's actually hilarious, since you have a bunch of ultra-sharp dudes, writing in the air, and yelling about esoteric topics that nobody else understands. It's pretty awesome!

Other times, it seems to resemble a dictatorship, where only some ideas are accepted, and some are "excommunicated" for presenting ideas that are too threatening to them.

Ah, so you've experienced corporate research programs then. Or post-modernist sociology.

 

[brinny]

i wuv's atheists...and they answers me quirky questions

 

[whitebeaches]

i wuv dem to brinny :^)

 

[Eudaimonist]

We need more wuv in da world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brinny]

LOL

i soooooooooooooo agree

 

[Tinker Grey]

Any body got a shot of bourbon to rinse all that stuff down with?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

All I was saying is that I'm not impressed by those who claim that their use of logic allows them to prove Christian doctrine incorrect.

Right you essentially argue that reason and logic can take a hike if they conflict with your religious believes. You're not the first one but really then what is the point?

I'm fairly sure you do not take the same attitude when deciding anything else in life like say you are told your child cannot survive without a certain surgery you do not disregard logic in that case.

In western philosophy there has traditionally been a dichotomy that places logical thought on one side and artistic, mystical, and so forth on the other side. It's clear enough when you consider a good example such as this one:

Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd truly like to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener,
Then everyone would be in love with me.

Oh, I'm glad I'm not an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Yes that is what I'd never want to be.
'Cause if I were an Oscar Mayer wiener.
Then soon there would be nothing left of me!

That captures in poetic form a truth that can't be expressed in logic, specifically the simultaneous longing for and against being reduced to the purely material. It tells us that on the one hand, if we were material objects we'd have none of the mess of contradictions, complications, and exceptions that make human relations so difficult and often make humans dislike each other. On the other hand, we would also become purely temporal (and temporary!) and lose our chance and immortality. So it's an illogical statement when the singer asserts that he simultaneously does and doesn't want to be an Oscar Mayer wiener, but also a true one.

I see the song as about somebody that wanted to be a wiener cause then he'd be popular then changes his mind when he realises he will be eaten.

If its impossible to expression in logic how come you just explained it using logic?

The prime difference as I see it is that on one side of the fence people will say what they mean clearly and without as much chance of being missunderstood or needing every word studied in order to work out what the author might have meant.

And on the other side the more vague you can make it and more open to interpretation the better.

 

[GrayAngel]

^^^ I think he was trying to say that the logical side of the brain (left) is on the opposite side of the emotional and creative side (right) are on opposite ends, so they are contrary to one another. But communication is on the left side too, so they really do have to work together.

I saw a video once of the silhouette of a ballerina spinning. If you looked at it and your mind was left-brain focused, you would see her spinning one way. But if you started concentrating on something creative, you'd see her spin the other way. Kind of interesting.

@badtim: I'm using my cell phone, so I'll get to yours later.

 

[AlexBP]

Right you essentially argue that reason and logic can take a hike if they conflict with your religious believes.

I've never said that nor anything that can plausibly be interpreted as meaning that. I think your post declares the discussion portion of the thread dead and I'll leave lest it become an insult-hurling match. Good day.