Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kanadyets on June 18, 2007, 05:38:17 pm
-
Well, Kyronea, since you seem to be a rampaging atheist, I would offer you a quotation from Fyodor Doestoevsky that you may want to take into consideration.
"Without God, all things are possible."
Now, he didn't intend that to be taken as a good thing, but in any case it's something to consider. You seem to be a logical individual, and therefore you should well know that it's pretty much impossible to disprove anything, just as it's virtually impossible to prove anything 100%. Science is a matter of greatest probability. That being said, while it may be irrational for someone to adhere to a particular belief, value, or school of thought, they're not out of line in doing so. That being said, when you're engaging people with opposing points of view, it doesn't do any good to simply dismiss them or their position as stupid.
Now I know I'm guilty of the same, or at least thinking it when I speak to people of opposing viewpoints, but the important thing isn't to throw down the gauntlet and thrust it in their face. Might I suggest, if tolerance isn't an option for you, that you might pursue a slightly more socratic approoach? Asking people about their ideas helps you to truly get a better idea of what thier actual position is, plus it well allow them to consider many more angles regarding their initial assertion. Not to mention that if you're trying to convince somebody of a particular fact by telling them that they're stupid, they're just going to regard you as a jerk and ignore you.
Just a thought.
-
"Without God, all things are possible."
On that subject, consider this quote: "The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific."
-
Uhhh...what?
-
(http://cc.herograw.org/Zeality/picardno.jpg)
-
Man, pictures really do say a thousand words.
But mostly they just make me laugh. A lot.
-
Just a random quote somewhat on topic to the idea that you brought up.
-
Well, I don't see how it's in any way related, but never mind that.
Care to cite your sources?
-
(http://cc.herograw.org/Zeality/picardno.jpg)
You win the interweb. :lol:
-
Well, Kyronea, since you seem to be a rampaging atheist, I would offer you a quotation from Fyodor Doestoevsky that you may want to take into consideration.
"Without God, all things are possible."
Now, he didn't intend that to be taken as a good thing, but in any case it's something to consider. You seem to be a logical individual, and therefore you should well know that it's pretty much impossible to disprove anything, just as it's virtually impossible to prove anything 100%. Science is a matter of greatest probability. That being said, while it may be irrational for someone to adhere to a particular belief, value, or school of thought, they're not out of line in doing so. That being said, when you're engaging people with opposing points of view, it doesn't do any good to simply dismiss them or their position as stupid.
Now I know I'm guilty of the same, or at least thinking it when I speak to people of opposing viewpoints, but the important thing isn't to throw down the gauntlet and thrust it in their face. Might I suggest, if tolerance isn't an option for you, that you might pursue a slightly more socratic approoach? Asking people about their ideas helps you to truly get a better idea of what thier actual position is, plus it well allow them to consider many more angles regarding their initial assertion. Not to mention that if you're trying to convince somebody of a particular fact by telling them that they're stupid, they're just going to regard you as a jerk and ignore you.
Just a thought.
I know all this, and were we discussing something that is even remotely possible, I would agree with you whole-heartedly.
But what we're discussing here is that, somehow, a group of Japanese video game makers just so happened to create a video game about a world-destroying parasite that actually exists inside our planet. It's so ridiculous that I don't see why anyone would be willing to even consider it. As I said, there's a difference between being open-minded, and being stupid. The probability of a creature like Lavos actually existing is vanishingly small, and existing in our part of the universe even smaller. It's ludicrous.
And furthermore, "Without God all things are possible" is not applicable here. That quote is referring to what humans can create, not the universe.
...or at least that's how I always took it...
-
Actually, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky meant that humans would be capable of all sorts of vice and evil without a goodly God providing a guiding principle. Bear in mind it's been some time since I studied Russian Lit very closely, but I believe that's what old Fyodor had in mind. I just cited it because I've had it tossed at me by atheists in the past, so I presumed there's some schools of thought out there that adopted the line of thinking as their own, just in a different light.
Secondly, let me say that I'm not by any means trying to validate, prove, or otherwise lend any credibility to the assertion that the impact crater in question was caused by Lavos. Simply that by calling people stupid, you're not really helping to advance knowledge. In all likelihood, you'll just wind up pissing people off. Plus it gets all awkward (at least I find it does) when the conversations in internet fora take a nasty turn. I get the feeling doubly so here, since the discussions and the people involved seem to be pretty good natured. It's almost like watching a fight in the family. No one likes that.
Further, if we wanted to get really philosophical, the Nietzchean principle of infinite recurrance could allow for such a possibility. If time is infinite and the nature of the universe is cyclical (that is to say big bang followed by big crunch and then all over again, ad infinitum), then it's entirely possible that in some long forgotten universe, this very event occured infinite times. As has this conversation, and infinite other possibilites throughout infinte time.
That being said, you may think Nietzsche's a clown and don't take instruction from syphillitic madmen. And who could blame you? I'm just saying that the philosophical groundwork for pursuing these issues has been laid in the past by great minds.
Oh, one last thing. As you say, the possibility of the existence of a creature such as Lavos is "vanishingly small", but don't forget, so is the existence of a planet that is capable of sustaining life as we know it, and smaller still is the possibility of such a planet ACTUALLY sustaining life as we know it. It's easy to lose sight of the odds when we can just look around and say "Well, there you have it".
-
Actually, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky meant that humans would be capable of all sorts of vice and evil without a goodly God providing a guiding principle. Bear in mind it's been some time since I studied Russian Lit very closely, but I believe that's what old Fyodor had in mind. I just cited it because I've had it tossed at me by atheists in the past, so I presumed there's some schools of thought out there that adopted the line of thinking as their own, just in a different light.
Oh, I see. I don't see why athiests would adopt it, though, since such a statement is rather moronic if that was how he meant it. If the only thing people have stopping them from, say, going on a serial killing spree is some Sky Fairy, then they have problems, is the way I see it. (But then I've argued about this very subject so many times on NationStates--much more civilly, I should say--that I'm just plain tired of the argument, hence my flippant comments about stupidity.)
Secondly, let me say that I'm not by any means trying to validate, prove, or otherwise lend any credibility to the assertion that the impact crater in question was caused by Lavos. Simply that by calling people stupid, you're not really helping to advance knowledge. In all likelihood, you'll just wind up pissing people off. Plus it gets all awkward (at least I find it does) when the conversations in internet fora take a nasty turn. I get the feeling doubly so here, since the discussions and the people involved seem to be pretty good natured. It's almost like watching a fight in the family. No one likes that.
True. I guess what I should say is that I'm not calling people stupid, but the idea stupid, and that if they accept it they are acting stupid. Not that they are stupid...but that's a distinction that is rarely made. I probably shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Further, if we wanted to get really philosophical, the Nietzchean principle of infinite recurrance could allow for such a possibility. If time is infinite and the nature of the universe is cyclical (that is to say big bang followed by big crunch and then all over again, ad infinitum), then it's entirely possible that in some long forgotten universe, this very event occured infinite times. As has this conversation, and infinite other possibilites throughout infinte time.
I am aware of this. That does not reduce the odds that in this one instance this is a reality, though. (I know you're not trying to argue for it, but I'm just pointing out the flaw in the reasoning.)
That being said, you may think Nietzsche's a clown and don't take instruction from syphillitic madmen. And who could blame you? I'm just saying that the philosophical groundwork for pursuing these issues has been laid in the past by great minds.
He was far more interesting than most give him credit, not to mention ahead of his times by finally recognizing the reality of existance when it comes to the existance of God. That said, he was still nuts.
Oh, one last thing. As you say, the possibility of the existence of a creature such as Lavos is "vanishingly small", but don't forget, so is the existence of a planet that is capable of sustaining life as we know it, and smaller still is the possibility of such a planet ACTUALLY sustaining life as we know it. It's easy to lose sight of the odds when we can just look around and say "Well, there you have it".
Ah hah! Flaw in reasoning found!
True, the odds are small, and it is also true that the odds of our very planet existing as it does are small, but the two do not correlate. That's like saying that because some old T.V. shows are black and white and penguins are black and white, some penguins must be old T.V. shows. As such, one cannot just look at our planet of life and presume that must mean that something else with small odds--the existance of a Lavoid--must also be true.
-
Ah hah! Flaw in reasoning found!
True, the odds are small, and it is also true that the odds of our very planet existing as it does are small, but the two do not correlate. That's like saying that because some old T.V. shows are black and white and penguins are black and white, some penguins must be old T.V. shows. As such, one cannot just look at our planet of life and presume that must mean that something else with small odds--the existance of a Lavoid--must also be true.
I'll grant that your statement is correct, and that you have found a flaw in a particular line of reasoning, but you'll notice that I didn't actually make the logical leap you're suggesting. You'll note that I never made the assertion that:
Human life exists in spite of such an occurance being very unlikely.
That a Lavos type creature exists somewhere in the universe is very unlikely.
Therefore a Lavos type creature MUST exist somewhere in the universe.
Naturally, I didn't state such a thing because, as you pointed out, the reasoning is invalid. Not to mention that the statement itself is ludicrous. My point is that one cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Lavos type creature DOES NOT exist, only that it's highly unlikely and since, unlike humans, we've never seen it, we have no reason to presume that it does, even though it just might. Of course, I'm not saying it's out there. Now, when you bring infinite recurrance into the issue, then it simply becomes a matter of discussing what's going on in this reality (or universe, existence, go-round...whatever) rather than the potentiality of an infinite number of other previous and future realities. And only then if you buy into the theory in the first place.
To return to my assertion a few posts ago, what it comes down to is the issue of probability. Science isn't built on certainties, as there aren't really any. Just the prevailing theories that we can observe and repeat and call scientific law. Inductive reasoning at its finest. The problem is that just because something has happened one million, billion, or trillion times before, it's not a 100% guarantee that it will happen again the next time. Perhaps in the future, some ultra-brilliant physicist will shatter our perceptions of the universe and how it works.
Until then, we're stuck with what we've got.
Hopefully, I become the living example of the flaw in inductive reasoning when I don't die. Heh heh.
-
Okay. Nice to see something of minor value was produced from this thread, at least.
-
You mean the laughs that followed the "science is unscientific" post?
Yeesh. Nothing like trying to come to a guy's defence and then having him follow up with that one.
-
You mean the laughs that followed the "science is unscientific" post?
Yeesh. Nothing like trying to come to a guy's defence and then having him follow up with that one.
Just posting an interesting quote somewhat on topic of the quote you posted.
Regardless, no defense necessary, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously anyhow. I'm not trying to convert anyone to a new religion or anything, just theorizing.
-
Yes, but with all due respect (and I do mean that sincerely as I try to approach everybody's ideas with an open mind and give them all a fair shot) you put out a quotation that was self-contradicting and paradoxical, didn't make any effort to make any sense of it (if such a thing is possible in this instance), and didn't provide any source for the quotation. I mean, I'm sure pretty much anyone here would approach the opportunity for further discussion with fervency and zeal, but it's most difficult when logic gets tossed aside and we're left with statements to which the only reasonable response (not to mention the most humourous) was ZeaLitY's tremendous offering.
-
Oh, and on that note, I was still laughing about it when I biked to work tonight. Now the people in my neighbourhood are going to report to the authorities that there's an insane guy around and my next posts are going to be coming from the psych ward. Thanks, man.
-
Oh, and on that note, I was still laughing about it when I biked to work tonight. Now the people in my neighbourhood are going to report to the authorities that there's an insane guy around and my next posts are going to be coming from the psych ward. Thanks, man.
Good luck not getting evicted.
-
Actually, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky meant that humans would be capable of all sorts of vice and evil
without a goodly God providing a guiding principle. Bear in mind it's been some time since I studied Russian Lit very closely,
but I believe that's what old Fyodor had in mind. I just cited it because I've had it tossed at me by atheists in the past, so I
presumed there's some schools of thought out there that adopted the line of thinking as their own, just in a different light.
Oh, I see. I don't see why athiests would adopt it, though, since such a statement is rather moronic if that was how he meant it.
If the only thing people have stopping them from, say, going on a serial killing spree is some Sky Fairy, then they have problems,
is the way I see it. (But then I've argued about this very subject so many times on NationStates--much more civilly, I should say--that
I'm just plain tired of the argument, hence my flippant comments about stupidity.)
Sky Fairy? okay dude you're really pissing me off. just because you don't believe something that doesn't mean you should disrespect it.
the only people who would agree with you are people who believe like you anyway, and they aren't going to say anything cause they'll
think you look retarded for bring up such facts as "Your beliefe that Jesus is God is impossiable, and your God is a sky fairy" in a thread about some 8 bit gopher
popping out of the ground and destroying the world. now me bring a 19 year
old in collage and not some 7th grade kid who is so insecure about his beliefes that he has to attack other peoples for no reason on a
topic where its barely relivent, and later even off topic, i just dont see why you people take the time to attack God in EVERY post.
anyway i am really sick of people not believing in god just randomly attacking him and people who believe in him
"hey, i beat super mario!!!
oh, by the way got sucks and so do christianz, and they dont exist lolz!"
i am trying to enjoy this message board and people like you are making it very hard to do so.
grow up. theres a time and a place for talking about god, and here in this topic isn't one of them.
if i wanted to read about how Christians are retarded because some little 12 year old says so i would have looked
for a topic called "OMG JESUS ISNT REAL CAUSE I SAY SO AND I AM ALL KNOWING AND POWERFUL!!!"
yea, i know. I'm probably going to get in trouble by mods for this post, and they wont do anything about his. funny how that works huh? -.-|||
-
okay dude you're really pissing me off. just because you don't believe something that doesn't mean you should disrespect it.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean freedom from religion. While the Compendium is a private forum subject to United States laws, and though the admins and I have total control over speech, topics here often go off-topic in meaningful ways. This is not pedophilia or flaming, so there is no reason to curtail this expression if there's a tangible, civil discussion going on. Contrarily, off-topic posting with one word and images aren't usually allowed.
In summary, we're not going to prevent someone's sensibilities from being offended as a matter of metaphysical debate unless it descends to outright flaming and trolling. This forum has a sizable number of people with humanistic or scientific leanings. Kyronea or Kanadyets didn't launch the debate, and neither should it be met with such intolerance.
now me bring a 19 year old in collage and not some 7th grade kid who is so insecure about his beliefes
(http://www.eaglesondesign.com/images/illustr/lies.jpg)
-
okay dude you're really pissing me off. just because you don't believe something that doesn't mean you should disrespect it.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean freedom from religion. While the Compendium is a private forum subject to United States laws, and though the admins and I have total control over speech, topics here often go off-topic in meaningful ways. This is not pedophilia or flaming, so there is no reason to curtail this expression if there's a tangible, civil discussion going on. Contrarily, off-topic posting with one word and images aren't usually allowed.
In summary, we're not going to prevent someone's sensibilities from being offended as a matter of metaphysical debate unless it descends to outright flaming and trolling. This forum has a sizable number of people with humanistic or scientific leanings. Kyronea or Kanadyets didn't launch the debate, and neither should it be met with such intolerance.
now me bring a 19 year old in collage and not some 7th grade kid who is so insecure about his beliefes
(http://www.eaglesondesign.com/images/illustr/lies.jpg)
w00t! no ban. thanks ZeaLitY ^.^
the mods here really ARE nice ^.^
anyway, because i am sure that someone is going to say "if you dont like what i'm saying leave this site"
to you i have something to say.
if i went into random threads and than posted up a goatse* pic would you leave the thread, forums, or internet? no, you'd fight to have the pics removed. however, even goatse has its place on the internet, and as such trying to remove a pic of goatse on a goatse website is just stupid. however this site isnt a goastse site, so you wouldnt come here looking for goastse, and if you seen some here it would most likely offend you.
one could argue that that goatse is aginst the rules, and christan bashing is not, but the fact remains: this is a Chrono Trigger website, not a Christian bashing website, so my request to not bring it up in random threads holds a good bit of ground and as such "if you dont like what i'm saying leave this site" doesn't serve as a defense.
*Goatse is a really really nasty porn pic. DO NOT LOOK FOR IT! it will scar you.
Edit: and actually i am 19 and in collage. look www.myspace.com/soracross
-
Contrarily, off-topic posting with one word and images aren't usually allowed.
And those delightful Picard shots, then?;)
-
Contrarily, off-topic posting with one word and images aren't usually allowed.
And those delightful Picard shots, then?;)
I mean like "lol nice :)" replies to posts or total image games, like association. My Picard thread beautifully sums up paragraphs of thoughts in one glance...
-
Edit: and actually i am 19 and in collage. look www.myspace.com/soracross
That's great and all, and I like that you are trying to challenge or argue with Kyronea or whoever else. That's fine and dandy.
But for the love of god if you misspell college again, I am going to make a collage with your face!
Grammar is a tool too few use. Please be one of the few that do.
-
Contrarily, off-topic posting with one word and images aren't usually allowed.
And those delightful Picard shots, then?;)
I mean like "lol nice :)" replies to posts or total image games, like association. My Picard thread beautifully sums up paragraphs of thoughts in one glance...
Yeah, I know, and I agree. I figured I'd just put that out there.
It does some it up, though. As I said, a thousand words.
-
Well.. I was gonn asay something but now Ive thought better of it... but here is a thought.. I say this to people who say god doesnt exist and I say it to people who say he does.. even though I Think he does in one way or another..
Prove it.
-
Easy, omnipotence is impossible.
-
Well.. I was gonn asay something but now Ive thought better of it... but here is a thought.. I say this to people who say god doesnt exist and I say it to people who say he does.. even though I Think he does in one way or another..
Prove it.
You are making the claim, that of the existence of an entity like God or God Himself as defined by your religion. Thus, the burden of proof is upon you.
But as stated by Kebrel, omnipotence and omniscience are impossible. For example, could God create a rock that He Himself could not lift? If He could not create it, He is not omnipotent. If he could create it, He is not omnipotent, because He could not lift the rock.
Also, for omniscience, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle alone is enough to prove it is impossible.
-
This thread has turned into all sorts of awesomeness.
-
This thread has turned into all sorts of awesomeness.
Let's turn it back to analysis.
-
"Without God, all things are possible."
On that subject, consider this quote: "The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific."
Uhhhh, no it's not. Whoever said that is a fucktard.
-
"Without God, all things are possible."
On that subject, consider this quote: "The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific."
Uhhhh, no it's not. Whoever said that is a fucktard.
Science is trial and error which is by its own definition unscientific. Thats called learning by mistake.. which would make our children the best scientist in the world look at everything they learn by saying things wrong.. doing things wrong.....
soo..... yes The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific.
But back to what I meant. Ok He creates a rock that he can not lift then creates a way to lift it. but I never made the claim that"god" is omnipotent or omnicient. I just said he exists.. you want proof. then hows this
Anything that one person imagines exists even if in that persons head alone. Belief has a power in it. This is not to say that if everyone on earth believes that the moon is made of cheese then it wil actually be made of cheese. but if everyone on earth believes that chocolate tastes like strawberries and straberries like chocolate then by consensus alone that is how it is... If everyone believes that people are wrong and red is actully joooga then it becomes jooga.
The belief in god in and of itself makes him exist in one way or another. however I believe that the gods of the different religion are aspects of the same being. Hence the wiccans would not be going to "hell " because they themselves worship a
"holy trinity"
On top of this if you read into the post well engough I Said Prove it not just ot those disproving his existance but to those proving it as well
-
Split and moved from analysis because this thread stopped having anything to do with Chrono Trigger a while ago.
You may proceed.
-
Science is trial and error which is by its own definition unscientific. Thats called learning by mistake.. which would make our children the best scientist in the world look at everything they learn by saying things wrong.. doing things wrong.....
soo..... yes The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific.
No. No it isn't. Science cannot be unscientific because it is science. Science is all about learning from mistakes to come to the conclusion that is most likely to be correct. You are mistaking the layman's understanding of science for actual science, which, while typical, is always incorrect.
Scientists don't decide something then try to prove that their something exists and deny any evidence to the contrary. They conceive a hypothesis--what the layman for some odd reason brands a theory--then test it through experimentation. The evidence gathered in that experiment is then used to modify the hypothesis, and the sequence is repeated until the experiments continuously show the hypothesis to be the correct interpretation, at which point the hypothesis is given the term theory, which for scientists is the closest they will come to saying fact. Theory for scientists is a completely different word from that used by the layman, hence why scientists are often extremely frustrated when people use the idiotic phrase "It's just a theory!"
But back to what I meant. Ok He creates a rock that he can not lift then creates a way to lift it. but I never made the claim that"god" is omnipotent or omnicient. I just said he exists.. you want proof. then hows this
Then try defining your terms before you simply toss around a word. It really helps narrow down what we are discussing.
Anything that one person imagines exists even if in that persons head alone.
False.
Belief has a power in it.
Can you prove this?
This is not to say that if everyone on earth believes that the moon is made of cheese then it wil actually be made of cheese. but if everyone on earth believes that chocolate tastes like strawberries and straberries like chocolate then by consensus alone that is how it is... If everyone believes that people are wrong and red is actully joooga then it becomes jooga.
Nonono. See, what you are saying here does not define reality, merely how we interpret specific elements of reality. The taste of chocolate and strawberries will not change if all humans come to a consensus that one tastes like the other: we will simply define them as tasting like the other. Similarly, in basic ten mathematics 6x9 will not equal 58 no matter how many people come to the consensus that it does. We cannot change reality through belief. We can reinterpret it, and mess with semantics, but that interpretation will be incorrect, and potentially dangerous, depending on what we reinterpret. Obviously reinterpreting the taste of chocolate and strawberries probably won't harm anything, but making elementary mistakes with math can and will.
The belief in god in and of itself makes him exist in one way or another. however I believe that the gods of the different religion are aspects of the same being. Hence the wiccans would not be going to "hell " because they themselves worship a
"holy trinity"
Your statement here has done nothing to prove your claim of God's existence. You simply state that belief has a power--an assumption that I am about to prove incorrect--and then state that because humanity believes in God, He must exist.
Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way. Belief cannot possibly cause something to come into existance, because that violates all laws of physics, and we have never, NEVER had ANY evidence at ALL that such a thing occurs.
Case in point: millions of people imagine themselves to be richer. I myself am imagining that a 100 dollar bill is appearing in my hand at this very instant.
...
Nothing happened. Why? Because it is impossible.
On top of this if you read into the post well engough I Said Prove it not just ot those disproving his existance but to those proving it as well
...
Did you just tell us to do your work for you? Sorry, but no. We are arguing against the existence of God. You are arguing for the existence of God. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you. We simply must offer evidence against your claims, which is exactly what we've done.
-
If by belief you mean the power to move the masses, the power to guide your life, the power to give you hope in dark times, and to crush your them when they prove false, then yes, belief does have power in it. Belief, and faith in anything, has probably created the most warfare, the most brilliant inventions, and has changed society far more rapidly than anything we can imagine. Why? Because if you don't believe in what you are saying, or fighting for, or anything, then you have no power - not even over yourself. That is exactly why people support organized religion, and on the other hand, why people loathe it.
Or, if by power you mean *woo wee woo wee!* mind control, or in a Discworld belief-creates-things system, then no, you are wrong.
-
For me, I let people believe what they want to believe, but sometimes I question it, but most of the time just keep it to myself. But I stopped believing in "God" years ago. But there are so many things that can be possible; different universes, if there is a God, he could have been created also, and much more. We never may know the real truth.
-
If by belief you mean the power to move the masses, the power to guide your life, the power to give you hope in dark times, and to crush your them when they prove false, then yes, belief does have power in it. Belief, and faith in anything, has probably created the most warfare, the most brilliant inventions, and has changed society far more rapidly than anything we can imagine. Why? Because if you don't believe in what you are saying, or fighting for, or anything, then you have no power - not even over yourself. That is exactly why people support organized religion, and on the other hand, why people loathe it.
Oh, yes, that certainly exists, since it's an easily observable phenomenon. It's just the reflection of one's strength of will, the strength of mind--their mental and emotional state, to put it more simply--that's all, and I certainly wasn't going argue against that.
Or, if by power you mean *woo wee woo wee!* mind control, or in a Discworld belief-creates-things system, then no, you are wrong.
That's what I was arguing against.
For me, I let people believe what they want to believe, but sometimes I question it, but most of the time just keep it to myself. But I stopped believing in "God" years ago. But there are so many things that can be possible; different universes, if there is a God, he could have been created also, and much more. We never may know the real truth.
The one problem I have with your statement is the final line: "We may never know the truth."
I disagree. Given what humanity has shown itself capable of, humanity can go so much further. If we play our cards right and we avoid screw-ups and prevent cosmic problems like asteroids/comets/some other body crashing into the planet, pandemics, and whatever else might kill off our species, then I say we are more than capable of existing till the end of the universe, and perhaps beyond into the next universe...presuming of course that the theory of universal creation and destruction cycling is correct...but that's the whole point: to find out. To discover. To learn. As long as we do not make mistakes that are easily avoidable and take the time to remove the obstacles not created by ourselves, we can have enough time to find out everything, to learn every secret and bit of knowledge we can. While no individual can possibly know absolutely everything, the species can more or less gather about that amount of knowledge.
Will we learn absolutely every last little thing? No, because that is impossible, as proven by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But will we learn everything that IS possible to know? I say we will.
Call me a ridiculous optimist, because that's what I am, but it's what I say. And the best part?
The best part?
It will be all our doing. We won't have gathered that knowledge because some deity gave us/the universe life. We won't be gifted that knowledge. We will have accomplished it ourselves, through our own hard work and skill, and that, THAT my friends is far more exciting than any god existing ever will be.
-
Ah, the merry-go-round of life continues! Carry on, carry on, don't mind me.
-
Ah, the merry-go-round of life continues! Carry on, carry on, don't mind me.
Oh do please pitch in.
-
(http://www.newciv.org/pic/nl/artpic/10/1546/monkey_banana.jpg)
(http://www.usabilidoido.com.br/imagens/040927-monkey.jpg)
(http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~hosei2-band/gif/neko.jpg)
(http://www.popaganda.com/Paintings/images/painting_bananaMonkey.jpg)
(http://homepage.myeastern.com/~extsearch/Poker-Face-Monkey.jpg)
(http://www.infovisual.info/02/img_en/076%20Internal%20anatomy%20of%20a%20monkey.jpg)
(http://www.stock-monkey.com/images/bald-monkey.gif)
(http://static.tabo.aureal.com.pe/pub/keyra/pics/keyra_agustina_16_002.jpg)
(http://www.degreesofme.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/monkey.jpg)
(http://www.verborragias.blogger.com.br/monkey3.jpg)
(http://www.politicalpoop.com/Monkey_Nerd_with_Glasses.jpg)
(http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~pja/images/monkey.jpg)
I kid you not.
-
What the hell?
Cupn00dles what's with all the monkeys, and that nice ass? (I forget her name, but I've seen that video.)
-
Ramen, please do not spam threads.
-
(I forget her name, but I've seen that video.)
Everybody has.
Ramen, please do not spam threads.
Believe it or not, that post has more meaning and actual content than most other posts in this thread.
-
Ah, the merry-go-round of life continues! Carry on, carry on, don't mind me.
Of course, the merry-go-round now has us going around the sun. Hopefull, isn't it?
-
i think it says in the bible that you cant "prove" God exists 100%.
if you dont want to believe in him you're not going to think hes real.
he could come down and kick you in the nuts and you'd still say hes a fake.
anyway, you also cant prove 100% he doesnt exist.
both require faith.
this argument reminds me of gaia vs 4chan.
-
i think it says in the bible that you cant "prove" God exists 100%.
if you dont want to believe in him you're not going to think hes real.
he could come down and kick you in the nuts and you'd still say hes a fake.
anyway, you also cant prove 100% he doesnt exist.
both require faith.
this argument reminds me of gaia vs 4chan.
Actually, not true. Were God inclined to kick me in the nuts, to use your phrase, to prove His existence, I would believe he exists. I simply require proof of something that unlikely. Of course, any God that does exist would not be an interpretation seen in any Earth religion, simply because all Earth religions focus on our planet alone, and in case you haven't noticed, it's not exactly the only planet in the universe.
But that's beside the point. If God actually exists, and It(for a life form at the level of such a God, gender would probably be irrelevant, something most people on this planet seem unable to comprehend) were to prove Itself existing to me, I would not have a problem accepting Its existence, much like I would not have a problem accepting the existence of anything else, provided it is proven to me.
I just find it extremely unlikely and as there has not been a single shred of proof towards that end anywhere we have ever found...though admittedly we've only searched our planet and whatever stars we can observe from our position in the universe...and until that proof surfaces I will argue against the existence of It, much like I argue against the existence of magick or spirituality.
-
Actually, if I remember correctly, Dostoevsky meant that humans would be capable of all sorts of vice and evil
without a goodly God providing a guiding principle. Bear in mind it's been some time since I studied Russian Lit very closely,
but I believe that's what old Fyodor had in mind. I just cited it because I've had it tossed at me by atheists in the past, so I
presumed there's some schools of thought out there that adopted the line of thinking as their own, just in a different light.
Oh, I see. I don't see why athiests would adopt it, though, since such a statement is rather moronic if that was how he meant it.
If the only thing people have stopping them from, say, going on a serial killing spree is some Sky Fairy, then they have problems,
is the way I see it. (But then I've argued about this very subject so many times on NationStates--much more civilly, I should say--that
I'm just plain tired of the argument, hence my flippant comments about stupidity.)
Sky Fairy? okay dude you're really pissing me off. just because you don't believe something that doesn't mean you should disrespect it.
the only people who would agree with you are people who believe like you anyway, and they aren't going to say anything cause they'll
think you look retarded for bring up such facts as "Your beliefe that Jesus is God is impossiable, and your God is a sky fairy" in a thread about some 8 bit gopher
popping out of the ground and destroying the world. now me bring a 19 year
old in collage and not some 7th grade kid who is so insecure about his beliefes that he has to attack other peoples for no reason on a
topic where its barely relivent, and later even off topic, i just dont see why you people take the time to attack God in EVERY post.
anyway i am really sick of people not believing in god just randomly attacking him and people who believe in him
"hey, i beat super mario!!!
oh, by the way got sucks and so do christianz, and they dont exist lolz!"
i am trying to enjoy this message board and people like you are making it very hard to do so.
grow up. theres a time and a place for talking about god, and here in this topic isn't one of them.
if i wanted to read about how Christians are retarded because some little 12 year old says so i would have looked
for a topic called "OMG JESUS ISNT REAL CAUSE I SAY SO AND I AM ALL KNOWING AND POWERFUL!!!"
yea, i know. I'm probably going to get in trouble by mods for this post, and they wont do anything about his. funny how that works huh? -.-|||
I don't have to pretend that your fantasy playmate exists to make you happy.
-
But that's beside the point. If God actually exists, and It(for a life form at the level of such a God, gender would probably be irrelevant, something most people on this planet seem unable to comprehend).
Nb. that in at least the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, that has pretty much always been understood, and is in fact metaphorical. It is applied in the same way that, say, the Old Testament covenants are classified as Royal Grant and Suzeran-Vassal treaties, because of their similarities to established social contracts that people understood. The whole point is that not only most, but none, on the planet can technically comprehend the genderlessness, as it surpasses mere asexuality. As such, some form of metaphor is needed to allow us to understand the manner in which God is operating, and the manner in which God was operating in the Judeo-Christian framework was nearest a father. As such, the references are masculine, and a feminine or neuter is meaningless because it loses the effect of the appropriate metaphor. Remember, in the realm of a monotheistic god we are no longer dealing with such simplistic things as 'scientific facts'.
Those are well and good for the constraints of the universe, the kosmos (Latin and Greek; former, 'single-direction' latter 'order'... both implying the way in which what we know is constructed, basically a certain construct), but they mean nothing when attempting to understand extra-universal things. This might seem absurd to science, and for good reason: it's about as ridiculous as trying to apply the rules and study of biology to physics. One just can't be applied to the other, and to say 'B doesn't make sense because it doesn't follow the rules of A which I understand' only shows ignorance to the possibility that there CAN be things that A simply cannot explain and which exist outside of its sphere of explanation. In fact, while biology follows the rules of physics, physics exists outside of the rules of biology, though someone that would only be aware of biology (for argument, make the assumption that this were possible) could naturally not comprehend physics and would assume that anything that happens due to the influence of physics is in fact a biological phenomenon, which would be in error. In the larger scheme that I am talking about, 'A' is science. It is a handy tool, and can be used to explain the structure and working of the universe, and can probably tell us a million-fold more things that we have to this point in time discovered, but it has its limits, and those limits are the boundaries of the universe. So the irony of your statement about that relgions primarially deal with this planet is that, in fact, they DO attempt to deal with the whole universe, whatever is understood by it. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is not merely the 'Earth', but 'Creation', which means the entirety to the ends of the universe. And, more than this, deal with not just the universe, but the little glimpses of what we get from beyond it. Science, on the other hand, deals only with this one universe. Ironically, it is not the scope of religion which is limited to one sphere, but science. Shall I not say 'but science only limits itself to this one universe, when it stands to reason there might be more?' There is conjecture on other universes, true, but the realm of that is so hazy is that it is extrapolating only what we now of ours onto what might be in others, which is flawed at very best. And I'm not talking about other universes, but what exists apart from them, too.
What we get with this is that things like the Bible, indeed even literature as a whole, deals with things that can conjure up truth APART from fact. This is a fascinating point that is often overlooked, that truth can be exclusive to fact. I believe it is Aristotle who called Poetry more scientific than History, because History only tells specific facts, whereas Poetry addresses general truths. Well, what we call science does not seem to be 'scientific' as Aristotle understood it, because it only addresses specific facts, and cannot tell us things about general truths. No matter how grand our knowledge is through science, it still only amounts to a massive compilation of specific facts, that might eventually become a big specific fact, but still not be a general truth, because the rules we perceive in the universe might be effects rather than causes. As such, if you are seeking truth, do not look to the scientists, look to the poets. And they speak in metaphors and similes and can tell the greatest truths in lies (ie. Hamlet was not as Shakespeare wrote him to be, yet does not the truth of human nature he conveys outmatch anything that the real one could give to us if we were to read an exact chronicle of his life?) I don't think you quite understand this, or are not approaching it properly. You say 'a life form such as God', yet that itself is beginning awry. If you are speaking about a Monotheistic god, the term 'life' cannot be properly applied unless it is wholly symbolic - in that case, you would have had to be speaking poetically, but you were attempting to address the matter 'scientifically'. You can't. See, even the concept of a 'life form' is something that is internal to the laws of this universe. If we are speaking of a deity that is outside of the realms of this universe, you simply cannot approach the concept in scientific terms using something like 'a form of life'. Science could tell us the effects within the universe, but in addressing the nature of such a deity is rather useless, as are such labels. My apologies if I seem to be attacking semantics, but I'm not. It is rather the approach. I am seeing that you are speaking of this in matters of 'proof' and language such as this shows an approach to it that is about as useful as saying 'show me the heart of this thing called 'physics', and then I'll believe in it.' Oh, sure, you can say things to the one who only knows Biology: 'gravity is the blood of the universe'. Metaphors, eh? But to use the standard of Biology to understand Physics? Impossible, and flawed. Asking for scientific answers and proof to God falls in the same category. You're looking in the wrong province, and where you're looking you'll never ever find it. It might seem enlightened to approach things through logic and causality and science, but in fact it is no more enlightened than the arts and poets are, and what it comes down to is that you must solve the truths of things with the appropriate tools. And science is not the tool with which one can ever solve religion.
-
So, basically, you're saying that science could not describe what a deity is? I disagree completely, and I am honestly shocked that someone with your intellect could say that.
Science is not some realm that is somehow separate from reality. It is our observations of reality, of what exists. It is how we explain the real reasons behind this phenomenon or that phenomenon. As such, I see no reason for why we could not do the same with a deity. Just because you feel that it must be "beyond the realm of science" does not make it so.
Furthermore, science does not limit itself to this universe, as one can find out if they study some scientific research. It is, as I said, our way of examining and explaining all of reality, whatever said reality is, and that would include absolutely anything that can exist, including the space outside of our universe.
Basically, Dan, you're trying to use semantics and language to define science in a way that follows with your argument, and it just doesn't jive with what scientists have actually done, nor is your analogy about applying biology to physics apt, because that is something wholly different. They are different ways of looking at specific of reality, not science and "something else."
Finally, despite your long and well-written little essay, you still haven't said a single thing that could prove the existence of God or any deity. Admittedly that was probably not what you were after, but I am still letting it be said.
(Lord J, a little back-up, please. I fear his mastery of English and other languages over my amateur understanding may eventually overwhelm me.)
-
So, basically, you're saying that science could not describe what a deity is? I disagree completely, and I am honestly shocked that someone with your intellect could say that.
That is EXACTLY my problem with your argument, though. You're starting off on totally the wrong foot. Just because I question that one branch of human knowledge can give an understanding of something, you question my intellect? Why shouldn't someone of my intellect have that opinion? Indeed, there have been people of far, far greater intellect who have thought the same. Few, indeed, save in this most modern of our eras have actually thought as you do, that science can describe such a thing, and if we think we are more enlightened now just because we KNOW more we are making a gravely naive and proud mistake.
Just please, don't resort to that tired cliche, eh? It's better not to say 'I'm surprised that someone of your intelligence...' Indeed, it is not allowing for the idea that science cannot solve everything that is unelightened, but a belief that science can explain everything without doubt (nb. without doubt... objectively, aside from my beliefs, maybe it can. But do you know that for certain? No. So the comment that someone who doesn't believe science to be the end all and be all is flawed is itself rather ignorant) is rather narrow, because it allows for nothing else but that which you know.
Science is not some realm that is somehow separate from reality. It is our observations of reality, of what exists. It is how we explain the real reasons behind this phenomenon or that phenomenon. As such, I see no reason for why we could not do the same with a deity. Just because you feel that it must be "beyond the realm of science" does not make it so.
Exactly, though. The basic supposition of a monotheistic deity is that the deity must exist not as part of creation, but behind it: not a cause of reality, but the cause of it. As such, our observations cannot neccessarially serve to explain. Science is indeed the study of the reality we can see and feel and touch by the sense, and that is precisely what limits it in this regard. Note that my argument in this case is based on the 'if' scenario in which God exists (I firmly believe that, but that's not the issue here.) Were God to exist, then the study of God, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian one, then based on His nature your approach would by neccessity not allow you to observe Him. Like turning to the left, saying 'I don't see something here, so it doesn't exist' while it's sitting on your right. If God exists, He does beyond the realm of science, so to wish for proof on scientific grounds is neccessarially amiss.
Furthermore, science does not limit itself to this universe, as one can find out if they study some scientific research. It is, as I said, our way of examining and explaining all of reality, whatever said reality is, and that would include absolutely anything that can exist, including the space outside of our universe.
Huh? You're totally off. Science is a study by observation, by hypothesis and either proof or rejection. It is based on the knowledge we can gather based on our own universe. From that all we can conjecture about other universes is based on the assumption that they are dimensionally similar to our own (ie. contain dimensions in a similar manner... the number is not neccessarially certain); we cannot quite understand it, however. And as for that which exists APART from the universe, if that can even be, that is absolutely impossible for science to explain, by its very definition. You say science is a way of explaining all reality, but that is a comment that is wrong and shows a misundersanding - and overestimation - of its purpose. Why, can you explain literature by science? If so, why do we not call it a science? Yet it is reality, and it is truth. What you think of when you are talking science is not a study of truth, but of facts. In the end, you still have to come down to what it all means, and all your facts aren't going to help you in that regard. And even if it all means nothing, that, too, will not be a thing arrived at by your mind working in scientific capacity, but poetic.
Basically, Dan, you're trying to use semantics and language to define science in a way that follows with your argument, and it just doesn't jive with what scientists have actually done, nor is your analogy about applying biology to physics apt, because that is something wholly different. They are different ways of looking at specific of reality, not science and "something else."
Absolutely not! In fact, I said 'I am not arguing semantics.' What concerned me in what you were saying wasn't the words you were using, but the very fact that you were considering science and investigation by obvservation to be the only means of arriving at truth. The fact that literature can show us truths apart from this, by making up a story that never happend, that is for all purposes a lie and in the eyes of science utterly reprehensible, shows that there are provinces in which science is blind. For science to be truly made use of in proper capacity, and not be misused, its limitations must be understood, otherwise it becomes no better than a religion that is believed in fanatically to the exclusion of reality. After all, who's to say that the reality we percieve, all that that we see and touch and can analyse by science, is the only reality? What if there were something that were to lie beyond the ability of our instruments to measure? We would not know, and science would be blind. You are starting with the assumption that science CAN tell us everything. But what qualifies us to make that assumption? Just because it is all we have seen? Can you call the world flat just because you've never circumnavigated it? So I'm questioning your reliance on science as the standard. I mean, don't you think it's arrogant of humanity to say 'if we can see it, touch it, understand it, then it's real; if we can't, it doesn't exist.' Why does that neccessarially follow? What makes that true? Reasonably, that assumption can't be made, and that is the very one you are making when you hold science as the only way of arriving at truth.
Again, though, you're missing the point. You're saying the two sciences are two ways of looking at reality, whereas what I'm talking about is 'reality and something else'. No. What I'm also talking about is two aspects of reality, whether you like that or not. Indeed, what I am talking about is 'true' reality, much like you'd see in Plato's concept of Ideals. What is truth is no possessed inherent in a thing, but what is important stands behind it in an eternal ideal. This is a valid point for me to bring up, make no mistake. There is nothing less real in talking about something philisophical and theological than there is in something scientific. That biology/physics analogy was carefully picked, because the view I'm maintaining is indeed one which has that which we cannot percieve be another part of reality. You only call it 'something else' on the grounds that YOU cannot perceive it. But what makes you, a mere creature, if you wish a mere monkey, have the right to make that sort of statement? 'Something else' is only professing your ignorance of what it is, but doesn't prove it's NOT part of reality. Look over the analogy again. It's certainly not the best, but the best I could come up with at the moment. The thing is, again you've gone into it making the baseline assumption that science is superiour and the only way. You've closed your mind to anything else, to the possibility of anything else. Basically, I'm thinking you're thinking biasedly, and as such are not giving these possibilities a fair treatment.
Finally, despite your long and well-written little essay, you still haven't said a single thing that could prove the existence of God or any deity. Admittedly that was probably not what you were after, but I am still letting it be said.
Then what's the point in saying it? Of course I wasn't arguing proof. That's a tough thing that would take the work of eternity to complete. No, that I'm not up for. Instead, I was maintaining that you have to be open to the possibility, and this includes not blinding yourself in saying 'if I don't see a god here where I want him, he doesn't exist.' I'm questioning your approach, and questioning what you believe. You're saying 'how does one know, how can one prove that God exists?' Fine, let that doubt be thrown out. But let us also stand this doubt, that science may not be able to explain everything. For if the concept of God exists, then even if that is not proof for God, then that opens the possibility, and it neccessitates the need for us to keep open the possibility. And that possibility means that we cannot say unequivocally that science can tell us these things, and indeed maintains a sobre judgement on the limitations of science. You say 'prove God to me'? Well, prove to me that science can tell us everything. It's just as impossible. How's that?
(Lord J, a little back-up, please. I fear his mastery of English and other languages over my amateur understanding may eventually overwhelm me.)
If so, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to combat you by style. This really is my natural voice, be certain of that. I'm trying to bring my ideas across, and if my style is a block to that, that's unfortunate. You don't need Lord J, here. This isn't a battle, though I've said 'combat.' I'm not trying to beat you, I'm merely questioning you and saying that you are wrong in your basic assumptions, and that you should open your mind to other possibilities. Whether or not you choose to do so is wholly up to you, and Lord J entering into this is hardly relevant. Of course, language wise, he can defeat me, but again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All I've written is not meant to get you to believe what I do, but merely open your mind to more possibilities than science alone presents. This is certainly not a rejection of science in the least, but an understanding of the place science has in the scheme of things. And even if you don't take this view, reject it not because it is contrary, but consider it and convince yourself of its fallicy, alright? If you wish to try and do that here, be my guest, but you don't have to. Not replying to me will definitely not be taken as a sign that you 'admit defeat' or anything like that, so don't worry. Indeed, I've not said very much for all my words. Again, all I've maintained is the need to question, and in this case question science's supremacy in your mind.
Whew, it's been a long time since I discussed something like this. It's a good feeling to know I'm not too rusty.
-
That is EXACTLY my problem with your argument, though. You're starting off on totally the wrong foot. Just because I question that one branch of human knowledge can give an understanding of something, you question my intellect? Why shouldn't someone of my intellect have that opinion? Indeed, there have been people of far, far greater intellect who have thought the same. Few, indeed, save in this most modern of our eras have actually thought as you do, that science can describe such a thing, and if we think we are more enlightened now just because we KNOW more we are making a gravely naive and proud mistake.
Yes, you're right. I apologize...I shouldn't have questioned your intellect. That was rather idiotic of me.
What's not idiotic of me, though, is my stance that science can explain everything.
Indeed, it is not allowing for the idea that science cannot solve everything that is unelightened, but a belief that science can explain everything without doubt (nb. without doubt... objectively, aside from my beliefs, maybe it can. But do you know that for certain? No. So the comment that someone who doesn't believe science to be the end all and be all is flawed is itself rather ignorant) is rather narrow, because it allows for nothing else but that which you know.
Not true. See, you're missing the point. It's just observations of reality and explaining the true nature behind something. Can science explain absolutely everything we have ever witnessed right now? No, but it will eventually. So far, throughout its entire history, that has always been true. Science has never run into anything it cannot EVER explain, merely phenomena it could not explain at the time but could explain later.
Exactly, though. The basic supposition of a monotheistic deity is that the deity must exist not as part of creation, but behind it: not a cause of reality, but the cause of it. As such, our observations cannot neccessarially serve to explain. Science is indeed the study of the reality we can see and feel and touch by the sense, and that is precisely what limits it in this regard. Note that my argument in this case is based on the 'if' scenario in which God exists (I firmly believe that, but that's not the issue here.) Were God to exist, then the study of God, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian one, then based on His nature your approach would by neccessity not allow you to observe Him. Like turning to the left, saying 'I don't see something here, so it doesn't exist' while it's sitting on your right. If God exists, He does beyond the realm of science, so to wish for proof on scientific grounds is neccessarially amiss.
No, no, no. You cannot exist without also being a part of reality. That is pure semantic nonsense. If He were to exist, He is observable and thus defineable. To say that mankind is incapable of eventually understanding something like that is, in my eyes, insulting. Obviously, we have limits, but we can surpass those through new technologies. Computers are edging closer and closer to matching both human brain capacity and capability, and I don't see why they could not eventually surpass our brains. I similarly do not see why we could not then place our consciousness inside these computers and utilize their greater potential, thus allowing us to understand more. You're not thinking far enough ahead, Dan.
Huh? You're totally off. Science is a study by observation, by hypothesis and either proof or rejection. It is based on the knowledge we can gather based on our own universe. From that all we can conjecture about other universes is based on the assumption that they are dimensionally similar to our own (ie. contain dimensions in a similar manner... the number is not neccessarially certain); we cannot quite understand it, however. And as for that which exists APART from the universe, if that can even be, that is absolutely impossible for science to explain, by its very definition. You say science is a way of explaining all reality, but that is a comment that is wrong and shows a misundersanding - and overestimation - of its purpose. Why, can you explain literature by science? If so, why do we not call it a science? Yet it is reality, and it is truth. What you think of when you are talking science is not a study of truth, but of facts. In the end, you still have to come down to what it all means, and all your facts aren't going to help you in that regard. And even if it all means nothing, that, too, will not be a thing arrived at by your mind working in scientific capacity, but poetic.
You're using improper analogies again, Dan. Literature has nothing to do with what is the basis of reality. Literature is simply a collection of stories created by human imagination, and easily understandable as such. It's still an observable phenomenon, one easily explained with a scientific basis. It did not just appear out of thin air from a deity: it was created by human hands, with human understanding, human intellect, and human imagination. It doesn't have to be a branch of science to be understandable by science.
Absolutely not! In fact, I said 'I am not arguing semantics.' What concerned me in what you were saying wasn't the words you were using, but the very fact that you were considering science and investigation by obvservation to be the only means of arriving at truth. The fact that literature can show us truths apart from this, by making up a story that never happend, that is for all purposes a lie and in the eyes of science utterly reprehensible, shows that there are provinces in which science is blind. For science to be truly made use of in proper capacity, and not be misused, its limitations must be understood, otherwise it becomes no better than a religion that is believed in fanatically to the exclusion of reality. After all, who's to say that the reality we percieve, all that that we see and touch and can analyse by science, is the only reality? What if there were something that were to lie beyond the ability of our instruments to measure? We would not know, and science would be blind. You are starting with the assumption that science CAN tell us everything. But what qualifies us to make that assumption? Just because it is all we have seen? Can you call the world flat just because you've never circumnavigated it? So I'm questioning your reliance on science as the standard. I mean, don't you think it's arrogant of humanity to say 'if we can see it, touch it, understand it, then it's real; if we can't, it doesn't exist.' Why does that neccessarially follow? What makes that true? Reasonably, that assumption can't be made, and that is the very one you are making when you hold science as the only way of arriving at truth.
I never said it was the only way at arriving at truth, so don't twist my words so you can attack a strawman. I said it was precisely what it was. And you're bringing up literature again. Sure, the stories are often fictional, but that does not mean that the existence of the STORY is somehow not real.
Also, just because we cannot observe something at this time does not mean it does not exist, and I'm not saying it does not. Radio waves, for instance, were not observable for most of human history, and thus they could be perceived as not existing, but they were eventually proven to exist. Similarly, it could be that God is simply unobservable at this point but could later be observable.
Your problem here, Dan, is that you're taking many base assumptions I've seen again and again and again and then applying them in a strawman argument that you can tear down and pretend to have succeeded when you're not succeeding at all, but missing the point.
Again, though, you're missing the point. You're saying the two sciences are two ways of looking at reality, whereas what I'm talking about is 'reality and something else'. No. What I'm also talking about is two aspects of reality, whether you like that or not. Indeed, what I am talking about is 'true' reality, much like you'd see in Plato's concept of Ideals. What is truth is no possessed inherent in a thing, but what is important stands behind it in an eternal ideal. This is a valid point for me to bring up, make no mistake. There is nothing less real in talking about something philisophical and theological than there is in something scientific. That biology/physics analogy was carefully picked, because the view I'm maintaining is indeed one which has that which we cannot percieve be another part of reality. You only call it 'something else' on the grounds that YOU cannot perceive it. But what makes you, a mere creature, if you wish a mere monkey, have the right to make that sort of statement? 'Something else' is only professing your ignorance of what it is, but doesn't prove it's NOT part of reality. Look over the analogy again. It's certainly not the best, but the best I could come up with at the moment. The thing is, again you've gone into it making the baseline assumption that science is superiour and the only way. You've closed your mind to anything else, to the possibility of anything else. Basically, I'm thinking you're thinking biasedly, and as such are not giving these possibilities a fair treatment.
Okay, look, you are missing the point. If there is another subset of reality, it can be explained, quantified, and observed. It can be understood. There is nothing that cannot be eventually understood, Dan.
What I don't understand is why you keep harping on about it, why you constantly say that we must never be capable of understanding something. Why must we be so--for lack of a better word--inferior? Why must we bow before something greater? WHY?
It's foolish and naive to assume that we there are things we will never be able to understand. Human ingenuity has brought us to our current point in time and can take us to the end of the universe and beyond. What limits we have in body and mind can be overcome through technology. The only thing that will hold us back, Dan, is your belief.
Then what's the point in saying it? Of course I wasn't arguing proof. That's a tough thing that would take the work of eternity to complete. No, that I'm not up for. Instead, I was maintaining that you have to be open to the possibility, and this includes not blinding yourself in saying 'if I don't see a god here where I want him, he doesn't exist.' I'm questioning your approach, and questioning what you believe. You're saying 'how does one know, how can one prove that God exists?' Fine, let that doubt be thrown out. But let us also stand this doubt, that science may not be able to explain everything. For if the concept of God exists, then even if that is not proof for God, then that opens the possibility, and it neccessitates the need for us to keep open the possibility. And that possibility means that we cannot say unequivocally that science can tell us these things, and indeed maintains a sobre judgement on the limitations of science. You say 'prove God to me'? Well, prove to me that science can tell us everything. It's just as impossible. How's that?
It's not impossible, as I've already shown again and again. The only thing that limits us is, to be succinct, us. We can rise or fall based on what we believe. If we believe there are things we can never understand, then we will never advance to the point where we could understand them.
I once again need to point out that I am not against the possibility of God existing, and I would have no problem accepting it if it were proven to me. But for something this monumental I require some proof, some evidence, some experimentation, something to show the existence of God. Can you offer that to me?
If so, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to combat you by style. This really is my natural voice, be certain of that. I'm trying to bring my ideas across, and if my style is a block to that, that's unfortunate. You don't need Lord J, here. This isn't a battle, though I've said 'combat.' I'm not trying to beat you, I'm merely questioning you and saying that you are wrong in your basic assumptions, and that you should open your mind to other possibilities. Whether or not you choose to do so is wholly up to you, and Lord J entering into this is hardly relevant. Of course, language wise, he can defeat me, but again, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. All I've written is not meant to get you to believe what I do, but merely open your mind to more possibilities than science alone presents. This is certainly not a rejection of science in the least, but an understanding of the place science has in the scheme of things. And even if you don't take this view, reject it not because it is contrary, but consider it and convince yourself of its fallicy, alright? If you wish to try and do that here, be my guest, but you don't have to. Not replying to me will definitely not be taken as a sign that you 'admit defeat' or anything like that, so don't worry. Indeed, I've not said very much for all my words. Again, all I've maintained is the need to question, and in this case question science's supremacy in your mind.
I guess you're right. Sorry...I'm just naturally defensive as well...always have been. It felt like you were trying to overwhelm me with your verbosity and superior command of the English language. (I will always bow that to you, Dan, because you are definitely a master.)
And I know what you're trying to say...I just don't see why it should make sense. I'm not holding science up on a pillar here, mind. I'm just saying that the only reason science even HAS limits is that people believe it does. Given what we've discovered, all of the knowledge we've obtained, the technologies we've created, the way that in just a few short 5000 years or so--barely the beginnings of an eyeblink on a cosmic scale--humanity has gone from being a simple hunter gatherer species like so many others on this planet to influencing its environment, affecting it on a global scale every day. We are, in short, amazing. We're wonderous.
I can see why some believe we must have been given Divine Providence or what have you, that it must be due to a God that we've been able to accomplish what we have. It's hard to comprehend, the sheer scale of it.
But doesn't the possibility that we're alone in our success, that we came about not through God but simply the random chance of the universe excite you just a bit? You say I should be open to possibilities, Dan, so I should say the same to you. Consider it, and tell me what you think.
Whew, it's been a long time since I discussed something like this. It's a good feeling to know I'm not too rusty.
You really want to practice your skills? Go to NationStates General. You'll be doing stuff like this every bloody day on a wide variety of topics.
-
Dan, the sort of god you are postulating, one that is beyond the realm of science, would have to be a diest god. That is, a creator god that does not intervene in the universe. If there is such a god, then yes, it is beyond the realm of science, because it is beyond reality. That said, in practical terms, living under a diest god is no different then living under no gods, so really, what's the point of such a belief?
If, however, you suggest a theistic god, a god that intervenes, then by affecting reality, that god makes itself a subject to science. It does things that are observable and can be studied and understood. This paradigm is problematic, for the obvious reason that things that might appear to be the act of a divinity have always turned out to be natural phenomena we have not yet understood. It's "god of the gaps" theology, and it's essentially the worship of ignorance. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a theistic god existing, or doing something that is openly and clearly an act of divine intervention.
In summary, any god whose existance matters in a practical sense is within the scope of science.
-
Dan, the sort of god you are postulating, one that is beyond the realm of science, would have to be a diest god. That is, a creator god that does not intervene in the universe. If there is such a god, then yes, it is beyond the realm of science, because it is beyond reality. That said, in practical terms, living under a diest god is no different then living under no gods, so really, what's the point of such a belief?
If, however, you suggest a theistic god, a god that intervenes, then by affecting reality, that god makes itself a subject to science. It does things that are observable and can be studied and understood. This paradigm is problematic, for the obvious reason that things that might appear to be the act of a divinity have always turned out to be natural phenomena we have not yet understood. It's "god of the gaps" theology, and it's essentially the worship of ignorance. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a theistic god existing, or doing something that is openly and clearly an act of divine intervention.
In summary, any god whose existance matters in a practical sense is within the scope of science.
Not quite. I do indeed consider a God who intervenes, and the intervention appears mostly as what we know as science - science itself being the act of God, the rules of Creation. However, that is not who God is, but only what He has done. As such, there is only so much that can be said via science. I have not said that science cannot tell us anything, but only that there is a limit to what can be said, the limitation being what the creator has put into His creation. When you look at a painter's painting, you can't say that there is nothing about the artist that you can tell, or a writer in literature. Of course you can! There is style evident, there is forms of expression... things are evident, and it is that sort of thing that science can indeed tell us. However, because we are PART of the writing, or part of the story, we being constructed to understand what is real as only that which is in the art itself makes this work, which is the work of another extra to it, to be natural in itself. Even as the artist continues to work on it, it seems to be only the natural progression of the art, so long as it stays internally consistent, and that there even is an artist is visible only to an exterior eye, which is something we lack. And the true nature of the artist, the internal spirit and heart and all, cannot be exactly known from the artwork, but only guessed at. Science will tell you what is there in the artwork; poetry and literature will guess at why and how it's coming together, and what lies beyond it.
This is why I don't look for miracles as proof of God. Miracles are a useless thing, because usually they are natural. This doesn't mean that they AREN'T an act of God, but merely God acting within the confines of His laws. You've said rightly that it wouldn't appear any different than something natural, but the thing is, 'natural' is God himself. God is not nature, mind you, but Nature the arm of God. Anyway, this is precisely what I was trying to say: because you cannot thus understand God as He acts by His own rules of nature and science, science is impotent to understand. That is then the limitation of science. However, it is also ignorance to say 'because science cannot understand it, and to believe in the possibility of anything else is irrational and backward.' Quite the opposite, because an open mind must accept the possibility that our understanding just doesn't go far enough. And furthermore, there is a measure of proof to the limitation of science in that literature and that sort of study stands outside of the realms of science, but still present us with truth. From that alone it is evident that science is not all things, and to limit oneself to that study of natural science (because, truthfully, it's only natural science, not science as a whole you're talking about, for true Science as the ancients would have understood it includes philosophy and theology) is to limit one's ability to examine the world. This does not advocate beliving here and there in all sorts of supernatural things, but instead is in the realm of the philisophical. I'll probably have to go on way longer to fully expand this, and likely as not I'll not have the energy, but merely take what you will from this.
One more thing I will say is that no, I'm not talking about a Deist God. After all, if God is extra-temporal, which we believe, then even if He set up an event to trigger now when he created the universe, it is still and act of God. To say 'God set up the universe then let it be' as the Deist belief is is not accounting for the belief in an extra temporal God, for whom the very comment 'set up and THEN let it be' is meaningless, because it implies being bound under time's constraints. If God wishes to change something now, he need only change something at the start of the universe, eh? Anyway, to say that a god whose existence matters falls within the scope of science is to have things the wrong way about. You're constraining a creator to the created, which is something that might have been pertient to the ancient beliefs in the Olympian gods, but is irrelevant to a monotheist.
And Kyronea, I'll reply to you later, but it's a bit too lengthy at the moment. I might forget, though, but sufficed to say it's a good point to bring up. I just wish you'd question your own stance a bit more, and be open to more than one way of looking at the universe.
-
(http://cc.herograw.org/Zeality/picardno.jpg)
-
Not quite. I do indeed consider a God who intervenes, and the intervention appears mostly as what we know as science - science itself being the act of God, the rules of Creation. However, that is not who God is, but only what He has done. As such, there is only so much that can be said via science. I have not said that science cannot tell us anything, but only that there is a limit to what can be said, the limitation being what the creator has put into His creation. When you look at a painter's painting, you can't say that there is nothing about the artist that you can tell, or a writer in literature. Of course you can! There is style evident, there is forms of expression... things are evident, and it is that sort of thing that science can indeed tell us. However, because we are PART of the writing, or part of the story, we being constructed to understand what is real as only that which is in the art itself makes this work, which is the work of another extra to it, to be natural in itself. Even as the artist continues to work on it, it seems to be only the natural progression of the art, so long as it stays internally consistent, and that there even is an artist is visible only to an exterior eye, which is something we lack. And the true nature of the artist, the internal spirit and heart and all, cannot be exactly known from the artwork, but only guessed at. Science will tell you what is there in the artwork; poetry and literature will guess at why and how it's coming together, and what lies beyond it.
Then the god you speak of is as Einstein's god, one of the poet's truths you speak about. That is, a metaphor, and not an actual entity. The god you describe is simply shorthand for the workings of the universe. At this point, I must clarify the sorts of gods of which we can speak. This god is not a supernatural god, in the sense that it does not violate nature or nature's laws. I assert that this natural god, being as it is a metaphor, doesn't result in a universe that is noticably different from one with no god at all. Even if you assert that this god is an entity and not strictly a metaphor, it is impossible to infer such a being from here on the inside of the story.
This is why I don't look for miracles as proof of God. Miracles are a useless thing, because usually they are natural. This doesn't mean that they AREN'T an act of God, but merely God acting within the confines of His laws. You've said rightly that it wouldn't appear any different than something natural, but the thing is, 'natural' is God himself. God is not nature, mind you, but Nature the arm of God. Anyway, this is precisely what I was trying to say: because you cannot thus understand God as He acts by His own rules of nature and science, science is impotent to understand. That is then the limitation of science. However, it is also ignorance to say 'because science cannot understand it, and to believe in the possibility of anything else is irrational and backward.' Quite the opposite, because an open mind must accept the possibility that our understanding just doesn't go far enough. And furthermore, there is a measure of proof to the limitation of science in that literature and that sort of study stands outside of the realms of science, but still present us with truth. From that alone it is evident that science is not all things, and to limit oneself to that study of natural science (because, truthfully, it's only natural science, not science as a whole you're talking about, for true Science as the ancients would have understood it includes philosophy and theology) is to limit one's ability to examine the world. This does not advocate beliving here and there in all sorts of supernatural things, but instead is in the realm of the philisophical. I'll probably have to go on way longer to fully expand this, and likely as not I'll not have the energy, but merely take what you will from this.
Miracles of the natural sort then are simply events that are unlikely. We can't infer such a god from these things. Is it a miracle when someone wins the lottery? No, of course not. Though very improbable, such a thing is possible, and while we may be surprised when it happens because it is unlikely, it is not meaningful to say, in that surprise, "This must be the hand of the divine." That's simply adding something into the equation that isn't needed there. It is every bit as true to say of a natural miracle that it is an unlikely event which happened. The point isn't "Science can't describe it, so it is backward to believe", the point is "The world would not be different if this were true, and we have no evidence that this is the case, so why introduce it?" To say that asserting this sort of god doing this sort of miracles is ignorant would be merely to say that it does not add to our knowledge. What can we explain, what more can we learn if we say that every unlikely event, or even every event, is the invisible hand of the embodiment of observable natural laws? It is the same as saying that there is no god at all.
Miracles of the supernatural sort are a worse than useless thing, but that is another discussion.
One more thing I will say is that no, I'm not talking about a Deist God. After all, if God is extra-temporal, which we believe, then even if He set up an event to trigger now when he created the universe, it is still and act of God. To say 'God set up the universe then let it be' as the Deist belief is is not accounting for the belief in an extra temporal God, for whom the very comment 'set up and THEN let it be' is meaningless, because it implies being bound under time's constraints. If God wishes to change something now, he need only change something at the start of the universe, eh? Anyway, to say that a god whose existence matters falls within the scope of science is to have things the wrong way about. You're constraining a creator to the created, which is something that might have been pertient to the ancient beliefs in the Olympian gods, but is irrelevant to a monotheist.
It is good that we've narrowed down the sort of god we're talking about, as men have speculated many different gods. You bring up a good point, that the notion of a before and after is meaningless in the face of a being that is beyond the flow of time. What I am saying, and I believe that I have made this clear in this post, is that a universe run by a natural god, whether it is an actual entity or a poet's metaphor, is indistinguishable from one run by no god at all. So yes, it would fall out of the scope of science, because it would fall out of the scope of that which is knowable. This should be relevant to a monothiest, as it begs the question of why one should consider theism at all, if the postulated god is in no way knowable or distinguishable from it's own absence?
-
@TwilightSkies: Was that necessary?
A simple solution to the proof of God debate - seeing as how Kyronea is saying you can't prove God because science disproves it, while Krispin is saying you can't disprove God because he is outside the realms of science - brought to you by the boys from Boston Legal!
Alan Shore: Do you believe in God?
Denny Crane: Of course I do. You know I do.
Alan Shore: Why?
Denny Crane: Why? Why? B—because if you believe in God, and it turns out there’s no God, there’s no harm, no foul. But if you don’t believe in God, and it turns out there is one, you’re screwed.
-
That's Pascal's Wager, and it's a very old, very stupid set of quotes that makes a seriously flawed assumption: that God will care if you deny His existence. It's based on a harshly conservative interpretation of Christianity and other religions that damn you to some sort of eternal damnation if you do not believe in their God. (Basically a way of instilling fear in the masses.)
The way I see it, any God that creates the universe is not going to care if you're denying His existence since you're such a tiny and insignificant person. Here's how it would really go:
Atheist: What the hell? I'm dead?
God: Yep.
Atheist: And you exist?
God: Yep.
Atheist: Oh...ehehehehe...sorry about that?
God: It's okay.
Besides, if God created us with the ability to think, wouldn't He rather we question his existence and come to our own conclusions rather than just accept Him based on faith? If He wanted us to accept him based purely on faith, why give us the ability to think critically and abstractly in the first place?
That's why Pascal's Wager is so stupid.
-
Well, I think here we are talking about the Judeo-Christian religions, religions where God actually cares whether you believe in him or not. And think about it, if you were the almighty creator who created us and gave us means to live and shit, I think you'd be pretty pissed off he people denied you even existed. Also, it is stupid to believe that "oh no, if there was a God, he wouldn't care whether or not we believed in him, because obviously I know exactly what he'll think". If God did indeed create us with the intention for us to worship him, then he would care if we didn't worship him. And I think it's pretty certain by now that if the Monotheistic God does exist, and you deny his existence, you're screwed.
And what do you mean purely based on faith? I'm quite sure no religion says "believe because you can". If you blindly believe without thinking about it once, I doubt you'd get into Heaven or Hell - you'd just be thrown in Dumbass.
Sorry I can't make a Krispin style pwnage txt. =]
-
If such a God created us to worship Him while still giving us the ability to think for ourselves, I say He is not worthy of our worship.
But the problem with the Judeo-Christian model is its limitations. It looks at things from a human perspective rather than the perspective such a being would have. Such a being would not care because something as simple as worship from what are basically amoeba in comparison would be meaningless. Think about it.
-
If such a God created us to worship Him while still giving us the ability to think for ourselves, I say He is not worthy of our worship.
But the problem with the Judeo-Christian model is its limitations. It looks at things from a human perspective rather than the perspective such a being would have. Such a being would not care because something as simple as worship from what are basically amoeba in comparison would be meaningless. Think about it.
It's been thought about, and you are about 3000 years too late in theological thought. It actually betrays a complete misunderstanding of Judeo Christian religions, and though I'm sure you think you're seeing some grand flaw in the whole works, it actually has very little to do with the precepts of these religions. See, you're working under the assumption that what God desires is worship from the masses, as though he were some Zeus or Marduk of the old polytheistic religions. Alright, so it's good to worship God, but this isn't some sort of appeasement - God did NOT create us to worship Him. God created people because he wanted creatures that were able to think for themselves ('in our own image'... is this physical image? Doubt it. But 'like us' meaning 'the ability to think and reason.') Anyway, 'worship' is not the central point of either Judaism or Christianity, but rather Justice is, in a very real way. The concept is rather that God created a world not just with physical laws, gravity and light and all that, but with moral laws including Justice. This Justice and Law is such that, for a willing crime, something must die. That is a basic law, and is effect of free well. You want to do evil? Fine, but you'll have to suffer the consequences. Unfortunately, free will also makes the avoidance of evil rather difficult, and indeed impossible, and this is understood by God. Herein is the rather clever solution to free will. Like I said, the law is that something must die, not in particular the sinner. The old Hebrews had their animal sacrifies, the death of something to atone for sin - a religion of atonement, as opposed to appeasement, I call it (note you've taken it for the latter, which figures in most ancient religions, but in fact which is different in the Judeo-Christian scheme.) It is based on the justice of punishing crime... and if the criminal cannot afford to pay, have something else to pay. The final Christian solution to this is that God Himself dies to pay for sin. But since it is an eternal and limitless God dying, it doesn't just atone for this person or that, but for every single person. Belief in God, then, is neccessary not because of God acting like a tyrant, because belief itself is a willingness to be put under the protection of that atoneing sacrifice, which is neccessary to satisfy the demands of universal justice. If you don't believe in God, then you're saying you don't want that sacrifice to protect you, in which case you are just put at the mercy of justice. So much for that.
Furthermore, you're making another grave mistake in calling people 'amoeba' next to God. Unfortuately, the irony is that, once again, it's your view that's too limited. Yes, for a greater being the smaller the thing the more insignificant. But for an infinite being? Nothing is too small, and nothing is 'meaningless by comparison.' Think about THAT. So, in fact, people do NOT become meaningless, and it is not the Judeo-Christian model that limits, but rather the scientific one, by what you yourself have proven. You right away assumed that a deity would be limited to such a trite thing as relative comparisons of importance such as exist in the animal kingdom. You say that it's only looking at it from a human perspective, but quite the opposite, it always takes the eternal perspctive; you, on the other hand, have only looked at things from the perspective of natural science, and once again underestimated God.
This is why I've been saying what I have. Science is good and fine, but it can't be used to look at God. That is not its purpose, and when one tries you get such statements as 'people being as meaningless as an amoeba in comparison', which are totally off the mark. That is the very reason you cannot use it.
Oh, well, this wasn't a particularly good argument today. Take what you will from it. I just hope you understand you're sticking far too much to your dogma of natural sciences. You must open your mind.
PS
You say that a God that is universal would be rather irrelevent, but that's an utterly unscientific statement. Kyronea, we are affected by Physics whether we undersand it or not. If we jump off a high cliff, we'll die because of physics. It doesn't matter whether we know it or not and, to a very real extent, it doesn't matter if we understand it. As creatures, we can live quite fine in ignorance. Physics as an understood science isn't any different in its workings than when we were ignorant of it, because it is an 'invisible' force. Then why the heck do we care about it? Because we as humans are curious. We wish to learn. More than this, we need to learn. However, think about it, what are we learning about physics? It's effect, right? And from its effects, we hypothesise about its nature. God and the universe is very much like that. We can only see the effects. Just like physics, it all seems natural. But does this make God irrelivant? If physics isn't, why should God be? Hmm... not coming across as clearly as I'd like it to. Okay, how's this. Think about the people before Newton and the study of physics. If they were to fall, say, 10ft, what would they say? What cause it? What a stupid question! You fell because you fell. People fall when they drop off a height. How the heck could you 'investigate' that. That's just a rule of the world, and there is nothing behind it. But then you've got Newton and the other physicists start to think 'wait, maybe there are understandable rules and things BEHIND these effects.' Indeed, what is different than this concept, and thinking 'these effects in the world that seem natural... what if God stands behind these?' To ask 'why then is God neccessary if they are natural' is about as absurd as saying 'why is it neccessary to study the laws of physics.'
-
Hang on, hang on. Are you not examing and listening to yourself here, Daniel? Basically, your entire religion comes up with this wacky excuse to force you to worship. It creates this idea of free will requiring that you must be sinful and thus in order to save yourself, you must worship. It's still worship. It's also still God damning those who would not worship, which is ridiculous.
Once again, I point out the human perspective in all of this. Our lives are finite...naturally they are around forty-five or so in years, and about ninety with our current medicine and nutritional knowledge(presumed fully applied, mind, as this is not meant to be an average, which tends closer to seventy five.) Furthermore, we exist on one planet in a vast universe that is at the very least 27 billion light years across(presuming, possibly incorrectly, that we are able to see 13.5 billion light years in both directions.) Hell, one Hubble image taken of a postage stamp size portion of the sky alone can reveal hundreds of galaxies, with hundreds of thousands of stars, each one with the possibility of having planets, with each planet possibly possessing life.
So how could anything we mere humans do qualify for eternal damnation? The scale is ridiculous! Even the absolute worst we could do--destroy the entire species--means absolutely NOTHING on a universal scale. Earth would recover from the resulting devastation. Life--not human life, but other life--would continue to exist. Sure, our own species would be gone, but so what? On the scale of the universe, right now, our loss is--while tragic--irrelevant to the universe.
So why would we face eternal damnation for that? Why should I be forced to worship a God just because my free will means I automatically somehow sin?
For that matter, what is sin? Why should acts like sex before marriage be considered somehow evil? Why should having lusty thoughts about someone without acting upon them be evil? Why should our very bloody nature--caused, I might add, mostly by base instincts involved in the preservation of the species and self coupled with our higher thinking ability--damn us? It's insane. Why can't you see it?
Also, um...where did I say that God would be irrelevant? I'm looking back over my words to check, and I'm not seeing it. I certainly wouldn't rule God irrelevant if He exists. But, as I've repeatedly said, if God does exist He/It/whatever will not be the Judeo-Christian God, or the Islamic God, or Buddha, or the Shinto kami spirits, or the Norse pantheon, or any other bloody human invented god, because they all focus on Earth. You can claim they are universal, but they're not, unless you define the universe as only being Earth.
Frankly, I would love for humanity--once we reach the necessary technological requirements--to find out whether a God actually exists or not, or whether God is just another in a long line of humanity coming up with a reason for something humans can otherwise not explain.
Finally, I say that you're being limited by your constant use of this metaphorical God that somehow is able to affect the universe without being observed. As Radical Dreamer said: if your God is not observable, he must be Deistic and thus WOULD be irrelevant apart from the initial universal creation(which may very well render a Deistic god according to Radical Dreamer's definition impossible anyway.) If He affects the universe, he can be observed. You can't have it both ways. That's how reality works, and that's how God would work.
Oh, I actually haven't thought of asking you about this, but can you describe how a Heaven or Hell could exist?
-
Kyronea, I believe that Daniel's post-script was actually regarding my post, as I did assert something similar to the a universal god being irrelevent. I shall address the post script.
You say that a God that is universal would be rather irrelevent, but that's an utterly unscientific statement. Kyronea, we are affected by Physics whether we undersand it or not. If we jump off a high cliff, we'll die because of physics. It doesn't matter whether we know it or not and, to a very real extent, it doesn't matter if we understand it. As creatures, we can live quite fine in ignorance. Physics as an understood science isn't any different in its workings than when we were ignorant of it, because it is an 'invisible' force.
It is certainly true that the laws of physics work just as well whether we know of them or not. However, if we assert a god that is a metaphor for, or can only operate through, natural laws, how is this in practice different from no god at all? Not in the sense of falling or not falling off of a cliff, but in the sense of how does our understanding of the universe become more accurate when we postulate a nature-as-god diety?
Then why the heck do we care about it? Because we as humans are curious. We wish to learn. More than this, we need to learn. However, think about it, what are we learning about physics? It's effect, right? And from its effects, we hypothesise about its nature. God and the universe is very much like that. We can only see the effects. Just like physics, it all seems natural. But does this make God irrelivant? If physics isn't, why should God be?
If god is natural law, or can only act through natural law, then that is the only way we can learn about god. Any other assertion about god would be wild speculation. There cannot be any other sort of evidence for this kind of god, as that would require supernatural intervention, and we'd then have a different sort of god. To say that this god is as relevant to our knowledge as the laws of physics is tautological, and we have no reason to suspect that such a god is anything more than a metaphor. I don't see how it adds anything to our understanding of the universe.
Hmm... not coming across as clearly as I'd like it to. Okay, how's this. Think about the people before Newton and the study of physics. If they were to fall, say, 10ft, what would they say? What cause it? What a stupid question! You fell because you fell. People fall when they drop off a height. How the heck could you 'investigate' that. That's just a rule of the world, and there is nothing behind it. But then you've got Newton and the other physicists start to think 'wait, maybe there are understandable rules and things BEHIND these effects.' Indeed, what is different than this concept, and thinking 'these effects in the world that seem natural... what if God stands behind these?' To ask 'why then is God neccessary if they are natural' is about as absurd as saying 'why is it neccessary to study the laws of physics.'
I sort of see what you're getting it, so I'll try to put foward as simple a question as possible to get to the heart of the matter. Assuming a god as a metaphor, or that can only act in a manner indistinguishable from natural law, (a) how is such a god knowable and (b) how can the postulation of such a god enhance our knowledge and/or understanding of the universe?
-
(Lord J, a little back-up, please. I fear his mastery of English and other languages over my amateur understanding may eventually overwhelm me.)
Now why would I want to spoil everybody's good time by imposing myself here? I'm content to sit this one out and watch. And if you lose to Krispin, you probably deserved it. He's good. He's still wrong, but he's good... =)
-
I sort of see what you're getting it, so I'll try to put foward as simple a question as possible to get to the heart of the matter. Assuming a god as a metaphor, or that can only act in a manner indistinguishable from natural law, (a) how is such a god knowable and (b) how can the postulation of such a god enhance our knowledge and/or understanding of the universe?
Well, this is the problem with being mostly the only one arguing this stance. I don't think I can answer everything as is neccessary. I'll just deal with this for now.
a.) Not by science, but by poetry and theology and the like. Basically, via the arts and philosophy. It is in that area that science is blind. You see, just because something falls into natural law doesn't mean it can't be observed. There is a tendancy these days to rationalise everything into natural law, and yet there are still aspects of poetry and literature and all this which fall into a category which, though they do indeed exist as part of natural law, nevertheless are outside the boundaries of natural science. And that's how one can understand God, or at least a part. However, in some small part even a God indistinguishable from the natural world is knowable via natural science. Considering that the natural world is God's creation, it is logical to assume that God is in some measure knowable through it. We, of course, cannot distinguish exactly what we are looking at because we are a part of it, but if we work under the assumption that all this is the work of God, we can understand something of God through it. Of course, from the scientific viewpoint, to begin under such an assumption is flawed. Technically, if we WERE to prove God through other means, and to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that He does exist, then the natural world and natural science could tell us quite a bit about Him, because being indistinguishable from it it would be an aspect of him. Thus it doesn't work as a proof, but can work as a way of knowing God, if the existence of God is otherwise proven. This is because the nature of science is to provide information, and not reasons and meaning - even the 'reasons' it does provide are in fact only causality, which is a system of information but not reasons in and of itself. God, however, is not something that can be proven via information but only via reasons, because information, based on the whats and whens and wheres, are by their very nature things that are constrained by the dimensions of the universe. God, whose nature is outside the universe, cannot be defined by these, and only a small aspect of Him can be known through them via creation.
b.) Because God himself is at the very core of the universe. To understand God is to understand the universe. The study of theology is, in fact, understanding one branch of the universe. Basically... think about it this way. The who/what/when/where/why of the universe. Well, the Natural Sciences tell us three of those. They can tell us the What, and the When, and the Where. But they cannot tell us the Who or the Why, or rather their 'instruments' come up null, with a zero. But inability to register anything doesn't imply non-existence. Just because science cannot tell us the Who or Why doesn't mean there isn't any meaning to those questions. Instead, what you require is another form of instrument, that which is supplied by the Arts: by poetries and literature, and by theology and philosophy. While the Natural Sciences try and tell us those first three, the others look for the answers to the last two.
And this is just what I've been trying to tell Kyronea all along here is mistaken with an entirely Natural Scientific approach to the world. You'll only ever get 3/5ths of it! The only way you can ever begin to try and understand the world as a whole is to address all aspects of it. Now, let's make the assumption there is no God, and no purpose, and indeed the Who and the Why are meaningless. The only way we CAN come to that conclusion is through those things that can study it. To say that the Natural Sciences aren't proving God is merely stating the obvious; if you wish to really make a statement about that, you have to apply the pertinent 'instruments.' To apply Natural Science to the Who and Why is like trying to measure lumens with a microphone - of course you're going to find nothing! That is why I find it rather mistaken to bring science into this question. On the same note, however, to application of things Philosophy and Theology to the What, When, or Where causes problems as surely as the other way around does. Oh, you can use the When to create a basis for Philosophy, but only in so far as you are trying to explain the Why or Who - it will tell you nothing about the When. This is why you need both the Natural Sciences and the Arts, and that one without the other will always yield an incomplete picture. And why using Natural Sciences to address God, the Who, is about like measuring light with a microphone. I'm not surprised the answers are inconclusive. But that doesn't mean it's not sunny out.
So this is why it enhances our understanding of the universe, because the universe is more than just the simple What, When, Where that the Natural Sciences investigate. The 'Who' is important,
Now Kyronea, again you say 'on the universal scale.' Your scale is still too small. Don't think so limited. Think on the infinite scale. At that point NOTHING is too small or irrelivant. That's the nature of God.
Furthermore, you just made a rather large mistake. You said 'The scale is ridiculous! Even the absolute worst we could do--destroy the entire species--means absolutely NOTHING on a universal scale. Earth would recover from the resulting devastation. Life--not human life, but other life--would continue to exist. Sure, our own species would be gone, but so what? On the scale of the universe, right now, our loss is--while tragic--irrelevant to the universe.' What qualifies you to say this? Nothing. You are assuming that mere grandeur of scale is the measure of importance, which is a flawed assumption. Yes, we might just be one sentient race amongst many (or we might be alone, it doesn't matter), but how exactly does that lessen worth? Tell me, does it lessen the worth of a child when there are two rather than one? Is a country like Russia worth more than... oh, Guatemala, based solely on its size and population? Certainly not. But this is the argument you are bringing forward. The is even more poignant when you consider things from a less human scale (you're still thinking in very human terms to say that things have measures of importance... that assumption alone is based upon an artificial scale); Tell me, relative to infinity, which is the bigger number, one or one million? Relatively speak, both are equally the same. To an infinite God, all these things you're talking about don't matter, and indeed what the result is that we DO end up mattering. Whilst, I think, you are priding yourself on taking the 'big picture' approach and looking at humanity as miniscule, in fact you are still only looking at the small picture. In the real big picture, humanity really does matter.
Secondly, you probably should study your world religions more. It's rather useless to say 'all these religions focus on earth.' Oh yeah? Well guess what: pretty much all literature focus on humanity! Whoop-dee-doo. Why do you think that is? Maybe because literature examines humanity's place in the world? Same thing with religion. Like literature, it examines what our place is. Little wonder that it's focussed solely on earth, because that's where, to this point in time, we've been. It actually makes no sense to critizise it from that standpoint. The only other thing that could be said about the universe in terms of religion is how the universe relates to us and God, and that it DOES do. After all, the sentence 'God created the heavens and the earth' does not focus solely here.
You're not forced to worship God. You can choose to be seperate. Up to you. It's just choosing your sides, I guess. Or, actually, not even that, because you can't choose God. God chooses you, and chooses everyone. All you can do is step away. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. How can God damn you for not worshiping him? Uh, if you have just died for someone to keep them from falling off a cliff, and they say 'I don't want to believe you did that for me', and walks willingly toward a cliff again, is it exactly damning the person to say at that point 'alrighty, if that's the way you want it, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. I tried.' God damns you because that's what free will demands. If he just saves everyone, well, that would annull free will, now wouldn't it? Now as for those things that you mentioned being sins, they are sins because they break order. It might not seem like it to you, but they cause one to fall prey to oneself, turn one inward, etc. Even non-Christian groups like Stoics would say the exact same thing and argue against those things, not for the cause that they're contrary to God, but because they are a lack of self-control and ultimately detrimental to oneself and society. It's not a thought unique to the religious. 'Sins' are usually things that are harmful to oneself or society, and there's nothing surprising about that. The other sorts are ones that deal with focus on the self, like pride, and those are considered sins because they are essentially the same as walking away from God and trying to do things one's own way. That might seem a bit harsh, but if you were a ruler overseeing some construction or project, would you really like the people that are doing this labour do things however they like? In the end, it's going to be ruin for everyone involved.
'once we reach the necessary technological requirements' - Kyronea, this is the very sort of thinking I have taken issue with from the first. See what I've written in reply to RD. Your very basis to your question is flawed in that you are going into this assuming that you can analyse God with technology, given it is good enough. What sense does that make? Imagine a group that's hearingless building better and better light sensors saying to themselves 'well, eventually we'll really figure out whether this thing 'sound' exists.' Not going to happen, because they've gone into the investigation in the wrong direction with the wrong set of assumptions. If you really wish to examine the issue of God, you have to do it through poetic, theological, philisophical means. This is why I've said that Natural Science is limiting you. You're looking for your answer in a place that you'll never find it, not because it absolutely doesn't exist, because even if it does you're looking in the wrong place.
Hmmm... can't be observed, eh? Well, what do you call observation? Can you recognise it? That is a tough question, and at the moment I've been writing way too long to get into this particular one. Of course I do not believe in a Deist God, but one that does actively interfere, but those interferences, of course, are difficult to judge. Bah, miracles are useless for that very reason, because a genuine miracle would at once be dismissed as something that must in some way be natural. We couldn't recognise it because we'd ascribe it to something natural. It's the way our minds are natually structured. Except for, of course, divine revalation, but this all is a very long topic that requires a post by itself.
Heaven or Hell? Oh, yes, quite well. Heaven is where God is; Hell is where God isn't. Maybe then you want to be in Hell, if you don't want anything to do with God, though. It's not this 'place of fire' thingy. Good grief, that's just borrowing of the Roman version of the Greek Tartaros, the place where sinners are punished. All metaphorical, and really not believed (or shouldn't be.) In the end, it's just that distinction that I set out. Now, of course, in our beliefs, existence itself is due to the will of God, so in some sense Hell is really non-existence, and utter seperation from that which makes life possible. Heaven is, well, a state of reconciliation and grace with God, I suppose. Sort of a return to Eden, but where it is impossible to sin. Because there is no more conflict with God, because we are no longer under the Law, the punishments that this causal world inflicts on us don't exist anymore, and as such what we say to be suffering wouldn't exist. It's not exactly a 'reward' as one would think of it, but in fact a return to what it really means to be human in the truest form, unencumbered by everything else. Now you asked 'how' it could exist, and that is pretty much the natural result of the sorts of things I've mentioned before. They can exist because the Law draws a line between people and God. I mean, think about God like a perfectly just king who obeys all His own edicts. His law: punish anyone who breaks the peace, who breaks his word. The punishment is something must die and be sent away from his city forever. In Christian thought, Jesus is a great high prince who stands before God and basically, by His own death, fulfils the requirements of the law and allows us to remain in the grace of the king. This is heaven. Hell is outside the city, we left to our own devices. I'm not sure how else to explain this, but I suppose it depends on exactly how your question was meant. What exactly did you mean by 'how?'
Keep in mind, though, that my original argument was not one particularly arguing for God, but was merely pointing out the fallicy of your own position. To bring up the analogy I was talking out before, I was critisising you for merely looking at the What, When and Where, and closing yourself to the possibility of Who and Why simply because your mindset doesn't allow for it. I was admonishing you to keep the possibilities of Who and Why open, not particularly arguing for anything in particular but saying that you've limited yourself to 3/5 of understanding. Even if you don't at all find anything in the rest that I've written, this at least is still pertinant. It's not an argument for God, but merely that you mustn't, and indeed absolutely cannot, use Natural Science for or against God. If you choose to examine the issue, you have to be prepared to use other tools to examine it. Don't leave the Natural Sciences be, of course, but leave them at the doorstep. Better yet, intigrate it all together... but that's a tough thing to do.
Oh, and heya Lord J. I was wondering when you were going to show up. Honestly, I don't mind if you speak your mind here. To be honest, I'm rather overwhelmed with the volume of what's being said, and as such am not able to address it all, or even half of it, so it won't make much of a difference if you say your bit. It's not going to compel me to go onto some massive writing spree to try and answer everything. Indeed, I'm not sure yet whether all these points are answerable or, even if they are, if I alone am capable of answering them. I don't know everything, after all.
-
J: Okay then. We'll see how it goes.
a.) Not by science, but by poetry and theology and the like. Basically, via the arts and philosophy. It is in that area that science is blind. You see, just because something falls into natural law doesn't mean it can't be observed. There is a tendancy these days to rationalise everything into natural law, and yet there are still aspects of poetry and literature and all this which fall into a category which, though they do indeed exist as part of natural law, nevertheless are outside the boundaries of natural science. And that's how one can understand God, or at least a part. However, in some small part even a God indistinguishable from the natural world is knowable via natural science. Considering that the natural world is God's creation, it is logical to assume that God is in some measure knowable through it. We, of course, cannot distinguish exactly what we are looking at because we are a part of it, but if we work under the assumption that all this is the work of God, we can understand something of God through it. Of course, from the scientific viewpoint, to begin under such an assumption is flawed. Technically, if we WERE to prove God through other means, and to find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that He does exist, then the natural world and natural science could tell us quite a bit about Him, because being indistinguishable from it it would be an aspect of him. Thus it doesn't work as a proof, but can work as a way of knowing God, if the existence of God is otherwise proven. This is because the nature of science is to provide information, and not reasons and meaning - even the 'reasons' it does provide are in fact only causality, which is a system of information but not reasons in and of itself. God, however, is not something that can be proven via information but only via reasons, because information, based on the whats and whens and wheres, are by their very nature things that are constrained by the dimensions of the universe. God, whose nature is outside the universe, cannot be defined by these, and only a small aspect of Him can be known through them via creation.
Now hang on a second. You keep harping on about how poetry and literature is beyond understanding by science, but you're missing the point. You acknowledge that was is contained within poetry and literature is fictional, correct? It doesn't exist?
Yet you also consider God to be part of poetry, a metaphor so to speak. So is God the poetry book, or is God in the poetry?
Because science can understand the existence of the poetry itself. It can understand why it came to be, describe it. The contents are irrelevant from this viewpoint because they do not describe something that actually exists. What matters is that the poetry itself exists, as a written set of words. So if God is in the poetry, is described by the poetry, then you're saying that God is fictional.
But if God is the poetry book, then He can be observed and explained.
b.) Because God himself is at the very core of the universe. To understand God is to understand the universe. The study of theology is, in fact, understanding one branch of the universe. Basically... think about it this way. The who/what/when/where/why of the universe. Well, the Natural Sciences tell us three of those. They can tell us the What, and the When, and the Where. But they cannot tell us the Who or the Why, or rather their 'instruments' come up null, with a zero. But inability to register anything doesn't imply non-existence. Just because science cannot tell us the Who or Why doesn't mean there isn't any meaning to those questions. Instead, what you require is another form of instrument, that which is supplied by the Arts: by poetries and literature, and by theology and philosophy. While the Natural Sciences try and tell us those first three, the others look for the answers to the last two.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that science does not try to answer questions like why...indeed, that's the whole bloody point.
Also, you once again try to define this part of the universe that is somehow unexplainable or unobservable by science as though science was separate from reality, when it isn't. It's the observation of everything that exists, everything that we can perceive, be it through our own natural senses or the various tools we've created to measure that we cannot by our own selves.
So I'm not understanding why you can keep saying there must be something that is completely unobservable yet still affects reality. If it can affect reality, it can be measured, quantified, and eventually understood! Science is not separate from reality: it IS reality.
And so far as I am aware, we haven't run across anything that completely defeats all of our senses, our equipment, and ability to understand. We've come across quite a few things that are hard to observe, but nothing that is completely impossible to observe, because something like that would be extremely huge news indeed.
And this is just what I've been trying to tell Kyronea all along here is mistaken with an entirely Natural Scientific approach to the world. You'll only ever get 3/5ths of it! The only way you can ever begin to try and understand the world as a whole is to address all aspects of it. Now, let's make the assumption there is no God, and no purpose, and indeed the Who and the Why are meaningless. The only way we CAN come to that conclusion is through those things that can study it. To say that the Natural Sciences aren't proving God is merely stating the obvious; if you wish to really make a statement about that, you have to apply the pertinent 'instruments.' To apply Natural Science to the Who and Why is like trying to measure lumens with a microphone - of course you're going to find nothing! That is why I find it rather mistaken to bring science into this question. On the same note, however, to application of things Philosophy and Theology to the What, When, or Where causes problems as surely as the other way around does. Oh, you can use the When to create a basis for Philosophy, but only in so far as you are trying to explain the Why or Who - it will tell you nothing about the When. This is why you need both the Natural Sciences and the Arts, and that one without the other will always yield an incomplete picture. And why using Natural Sciences to address God, the Who, is about like measuring light with a microphone. I'm not surprised the answers are inconclusive. But that doesn't mean it's not sunny out.
So this is why it enhances our understanding of the universe, because the universe is more than just the simple What, When, Where that the Natural Sciences investigate. The 'Who' is important,
Oh, I see. You're not utilizing Why as meaning "Why does this particular event happen in this particular way" but "Why do we exist?"
Thing is, science can answer that question just as easily: we exist because we have evolved from a prior species. We exist because our parents had sexual intercourse that resulted in reproduction. We exist because that's what life does: it propagates itself.
Now, if you're asking why life itself exists, science hasn't really answered the question fully yet. It certainly has yet to answer the question of abiogenesis: that is, how life first began. Evolution, of course, does not concern itself with such questions(despite the vast amounts of misinformation coming from those who promote literal creationism and "Intelligent Design" and all that garbage) but simply what happened with life once it was already started.
As for the Who...what exactly do you mean? If you mean "Who created the universe?" then that is an invalid question because no one created the universe: it just came to be through the process of the Big Bang, which may very well have been part of a cycle of expanding and contracting universes, but we're straying off topic if we go in that direction.
Now Kyronea, again you say 'on the universal scale.' Your scale is still too small. Don't think so limited. Think on the infinite scale. At that point NOTHING is too small or irrelivant. That's the nature of God.
Wait, what? What the bloody hell does that mean? Do you even understand what scale is? Placed on an infinite scale, we are even MORE meaningless--if that's possible--because we're still finite. We don't become infinite by virtue of being on an infinite scale.
Furthermore, you just made a rather large mistake.
Speak for yourself, lad, not me.
You said 'The scale is ridiculous! Even the absolute worst we could do--destroy the entire species--means absolutely NOTHING on a universal scale. Earth would recover from the resulting devastation. Life--not human life, but other life--would continue to exist. Sure, our own species would be gone, but so what? On the scale of the universe, right now, our loss is--while tragic--irrelevant to the universe.'
Yes, that's what I said. I'm glad we can agree on that.
What qualifies you to say this? Nothing. You are assuming that mere grandeur of scale is the measure of importance, which is a flawed assumption. Yes, we might just be one sentient race amongst many (or we might be alone, it doesn't matter), but how exactly does that lessen worth? Tell me, does it lessen the worth of a child when there are two rather than one? Is a country like Russia worth more than... oh, Guatemala, based solely on its size and population? Certainly not. But this is the argument you are bringing forward. The is even more poignant when you consider things from a less human scale (you're still thinking in very human terms to say that things have measures of importance... that assumption alone is based upon an artificial scale); Tell me, relative to infinity, which is the bigger number, one or one million? Relatively speak, both are equally the same. To an infinite God, all these things you're talking about don't matter, and indeed what the result is that we DO end up mattering. Whilst, I think, you are priding yourself on taking the 'big picture' approach and looking at humanity as miniscule, in fact you are still only looking at the small picture. In the real big picture, humanity really does matter.
Bull bull bull bull bull, and you once again twist my words into your strawman.
I was speaking of the potential evils a human could do(using it in the sense of assigning specific values to an act from a particular perspective, not that a specific act is always evil, because as I've said before, good and evil do not truly exist), not assigning worth. Philosophically, from the simple standpoint of life's rarity, I am all for protecting sentient life. Sentient life is, in my eyes, priceless, because I recognize that once it is dead, it is completely and totally GONE. There is nothing afterwards for it...it's just gone.
But from a purely logical standpoint--especially considering that, though we have not interacted with it, there is bound to be much more sentient life out there in the universe--the loss of the human species means nothing to the universe. We're one tiny species on one tiny planet orbiting one tiny star in one tiny quadrant of one tiny galaxy in one tiny cluster of galaxies in one tiny supercluster in one tiny corner of the universe. We are extremely tiny, and with our current capabilities, we simply don't matter. The rest of the universe will not be affected by our loss at this point.
Now, if we had the technology to, say, build galaxies, we'd certainly be far more valuable. But we can't exactly do that yet, can we?
Also, your logic is rather flawed. To an infinite God, as you said, one and one million look the same, and both are equally SMALL. They are both equally tiny and undeserving of such attention. Yet some how, because they're equally small, that somehow makes them worthy of attention from an infinite being? Are you even listening to yourself? Your logic goes against everything it says! "It's ridiculously small and unimportant, so it must be important." How does that work?
Plus, you misinterpreted why I said all of this to begin with. I was speaking specifically of the acts a human could do in such a tiny amount of time on such a tiny scale to influence what would happen to them after they are dead. You still haven't answered that. Why does anything we do on such a scale cause us to be punished eternally? Do you not understand what eternity is? The entire life span of the human species is barely a beginning of a cosmic blink of an eye, yet religions would damn humans for eternity. Eternity is eternal...it's a pretty damned long time, and far too long for any sort of punishment for some act a human does on such a scale.
Secondly, you probably should study your world religions more. It's rather useless to say 'all these religions focus on earth.' Oh yeah? Well guess what: pretty much all literature focus on humanity! Whoop-dee-doo. Why do you think that is? Maybe because literature examines humanity's place in the world? Same thing with religion. Like literature, it examines what our place is. Little wonder that it's focussed solely on earth, because that's where, to this point in time, we've been. It actually makes no sense to critizise it from that standpoint.
Ooooh yes it does. Yes it does, and it's rather hilarious that you're not seeing it. You're trying to justfy God's existence based on human religions, on human attempts at explaining that which they could not explain at the time. You are focusing only on US! You are missing the fact that in the big picture we don't matter! You then try to weasel out of understanding this by some convulted logic that says "Because we don't matter, we matter" and you ignore the fact that because religions focus on only humanity, on only Earth, they cannot possibly describe the truth! They focus far too small.
To use some of the examples you've been tossing about in ways that actually don't justify your argument, it'd be like medical scientists only studying how AIDS affects, say, New York City and ignoring the entire rest of humanity. It'd be like vulcanologists only studying the Hawaiian island chain, or geologists only studying the Grand Canyon. It's taking a few minor little things and trying to make them into the whole of the picture. It's like taking twenty pieces from a three hundred piece jigsaw puzzle and trying to assemble the entire picture from that.
You're still arguing from the basis of human religions, specifically your interpretation of Christianity. You are still missing the big picture, and that is why I am criticizing you from this point of view, because it is valid, no matter your attempts to weasel out of it.
The only other thing that could be said about the universe in terms of religion is how the universe relates to us and God, and that it DOES do. After all, the sentence 'God created the heavens and the earth' does not focus solely here.
Really? Looks to me like you're trying to reinterpret the words written in the Bible, which is what people have done all the time. That's another reason that humanity's religions are bogus: they're never consistent. The religious texts are constantly changed and altered based on what is convenient at the time. Can't convert pagans who "practice witchcraft"? Write a passage saying that witches are evil and must be burned. Can't stand the Roman Catholic Church? Create Greek Orthodox, or Russian Orthodox, or the various Protestant sects.
And that's just Christianity. How about the various Muslims sects, like the basic Shia and Sunnis? Or how about the various Hindu sects, the Tao sects, the Shinto sects, the Buddhist sects, the Jewish sects...I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
What makes it even more hilarious is the fact that though they're not consistent, they ARE consistent on not being willing to change when new evidence is given to them in the form of science. See, science changes as more information is introduced. They do not make an assumption---as you are by saying that God MUST exist--then gather evidence to try to prove that assumption and ignore everything to the contrary. As I've explained previously, they create a hypothesis, test it through experimentation, use the information gathered to alter the hypothesis and repeat until the hypothesis is born out again and again through the evidence, at which point it becomes a theory.
Meanwhile, religions don't pay attention to contradictory evidence. They simply state a "truth" and declare that it MUST be true.
That's why I keep saying that even if God exists, It cannot be any human God we have ever defined, because they all focus purely on Earth and ignore the rest of the universe.
You're not forced to worship God. You can choose to be seperate. Up to you.
Right, just like if you're poor and unskilled you can choose not to take that janitorial job, or you can choose not to take that migrant farmer job. But the thing is, the choice to not do so is a really bad one, because it damns you to something absolutely horrendous. In my examples, it would prevent the poor person from being able to purchase food, clothing, shelter, and so on. In your example, it means eternal damnation of my soul.
So it's not really a choice, is it?
It's just choosing your sides, I guess. Or, actually, not even that, because you can't choose God.
Make up your mind. Which is it? Is it that we choose sides? Is it that we have a choice to make? Or is it that God chooses us?
God chooses you, and chooses everyone. All you can do is step away. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. How can God damn you for not worshiping him? Uh, if you have just died for someone to keep them from falling off a cliff, and they say 'I don't want to believe you did that for me', and walks willingly toward a cliff again, is it exactly damning the person to say at that point 'alrighty, if that's the way you want it, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you. I tried.'
Bull. That's a wacky excuse to justify the worship made by those who created Christianity--not God, but men, like Constantine--the Roman Emperor who ruled the practice of Christianity legal in the Roman Empire because he saw it as advantageous to his own position--, who saw it a way to control the masses--for those who bother to try thinking about it. They think "Hey, wait...why SHOULD we worship God?" then you create this excuse of "Oh, wait, he did something that can absolve of us of our "sins" so that's why" and it placates those who don't bother to think further.
God damns you because that's what free will demands.
Uh huh. Sure. Okay. That's fair.
If he just saves everyone, well, that would annull free will, now wouldn't it?
...what? Again, are you listening to yourself?
According to you, free will means we must be sinful and thus we must worship your God in order to absolve us of these sins. We could choose not to, but to choose that would be to damn us eternally, which isn't exactly a pleasant option. Sounds fine if you believe it's all real.
But to me it sounds like a method of control, because that's exactly what it is. The Church and Church authorities use to to placate and control the masses, a "Bread and Circuses" plan so to speak. They tell them if they don't worship they'll burn eternally, so they keep the masses in the church where they can spout whatever propaganda they wish to keep them under control and keep them doing what they want. The Crusades are a great example. "God orders us to cleanse the Holy Land of the evil Muslims!" was the excuse justified for what was really just a land grab and resource grab for the wealthy and the controlling rich.
Why do you think various Kings, Emperors, Shahs, and so on have altered the current religion to suit their purposes? England's Anglican church is a classic example of the King at that time(and I'm probably remembering the specific one incorrectly, so do please correct me if I am). King Henry VIII perverted Catholicism and altered it for his own purposes.
Now as for those things that you mentioned being sins, they are sins because they break order.
Whose order? Who defines it? You? Me? The ruling body?
It might not seem like it to you, but they cause one to fall prey to oneself, turn one inward, etc. Even non-Christian groups like Stoics would say the exact same thing and argue against those things, not for the cause that they're contrary to God, but because they are a lack of self-control and ultimately detrimental to oneself and society.
Oh? I think not.
As I've explained before, things that people would see as "sinful" like sex before marriage, greed, lusty thoughts, and so on are not going against order or unnatural. They are natural, because they're extensions of the base instincts of every life form: survive. Propagate yourself, your specific genetics to the rest of the species. Hoard resources so you can keep surviving. Make yourself look as good as possible through accumulation of resources so you attract better and more mates so you can continue to propagate. Please yourself and keep yourself happy, because a happy life form is a healthier life form, and the healthier you are, the more you can survive.
That's why we're greedy. That's why we're lustful. That's why we enjoy sex and so on and so forth. It's instinct. It's not against order. It's how we bloody evolved.
Furthermore, the idea of "sex before marriage" or homosexual relations being sinful is absolutely ludicrous, especially since marriage is not religious but simply a secular ceremony humans have invented--due to our sentience--to give more meaning to mating, as a way of making clear to others that "this one is MY mate and is not available to you!"
As for homosexual relations(I actually don't know if you consider this sinful...given you being you, you probably don't) as we can see in nature it's just as natural. We still haven't fully explained it...there are ideas ranging from embryos not being fully masculinized in the womb(since they're all female at first) to brain chemistry being affected just after birth, to a purely genetic cause...all have merit, though they haven't had enough research--mainly due to religious people interfering with the research because homosexuals are all "mentally ill, sinful beasts" or whatever other justification they used---but we do know it's certainly natural, and not a choice. (Besides, the idea of it being a choice is rather idiotic. "Hey, I know! I'm going to choose to be gay despite the fact that most people on the planet would hate me for it! I'm going to choose to ostracize myself from the rest of society! I'm going to choose to have years and years of hate, ridicule, and vitriol spit upon me by everyone!")
The other sorts are ones that deal with focus on the self, like pride, and those are considered sins because they are essentially the same as walking away from God and trying to do things one's own way. That might seem a bit harsh, but if you were a ruler overseeing some construction or project, would you really like the people that are doing this labour do things however they like? In the end, it's going to be ruin for everyone involved.
Pride I'm not going to say anything on, because pride can definitely harm a person if too much of it is had. (Though a little is not a problem, and is indeed beneficial because a lack of pride means a lack of self-esteem, a lack of self-confidence, and a worsened emotional state.)
It's not a thought unique to the religious. 'Sins' are usually things that are harmful to oneself or society, and there's nothing surprising about that.
You begin to have a point here in some ways when it comes to society. Murder is detrimental to society. That's why we have guilt and morality--which, by the way, are both evolutionary instinctual traits for the purpose of keeping the species alive--and why we have laws. But the question becomes, what is truly detrimental society? Sex before marriage doesn't harm society unless those having sex don't take the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy(presuming heterosexual couple here, of course) and are unable to care for the resulting child, but being married doesn't change this one bit.
Now, non consensual sex would harm society, because rape has a serious affect on the person raped as well as those near them from an emotional standpoint and can harm productivity, because an unhappy person is an unproductive person. (That's look at it from a purely logical standpoint, mind.)
But you're confusing the "sins" of religions--usually chosen to try and control the populace's actions--with laws, which, thankfully, do not usually follow religious beliefs in these modern times.
'once we reach the necessary technological requirements' - Kyronea, this is the very sort of thinking I have taken issue with from the first. See what I've written in reply to RD. Your very basis to your question is flawed in that you are going into this assuming that you can analyse God with technology, given it is good enough. What sense does that make? Imagine a group that's hearingless building better and better light sensors saying to themselves 'well, eventually we'll really figure out whether this thing 'sound' exists.' Not going to happen, because they've gone into the investigation in the wrong direction with the wrong set of assumptions. If you really wish to examine the issue of God, you have to do it through poetic, theological, philisophical means. This is why I've said that Natural Science is limiting you. You're looking for your answer in a place that you'll never find it, not because it absolutely doesn't exist, because even if it does you're looking in the wrong place.
Incorrect analogies and misunderstandings again!
Bull. If God exists and affects the universe, It can be observed and quantified, researched and understood. God being the deity that it would be, with the powers It is capable of, we would require much more technological progress to be able to observe It, but I do not see why it couldn't be done unless you're trying, once again, to define science as being separate from reality, which as I've said many times, is ridiculous.
The question here is not whether science could do it or not, but what part of science and what technologies would be required. As you said, beings incapable of perceiving/understanding sound would accomplish nothing if they focused on light sensing devices. But if they focused on sound sensing devices, they would be able to understand sound more and more. The same is true here. We would simply have to figure out what we need to use to pursue our goals, then once we've found what we need, we use it.
Hmmm... can't be observed, eh? Well, what do you call observation? Can you recognise it? That is a tough question, and at the moment I've been writing way too long to get into this particular one. Of course I do not believe in a Deist God, but one that does actively interfere, but those interferences, of course, are difficult to judge. Bah, miracles are useless for that very reason, because a genuine miracle would at once be dismissed as something that must in some way be natural. We couldn't recognise it because we'd ascribe it to something natural. It's the way our minds are natually structured. Except for, of course, divine revalation, but this all is a very long topic that requires a post by itself.
You know what observation is. It's the study of anything that exists, through whatever method you have available. You could observe a source of light with your eyes, or a source of sound with your ears, and so on and so forth.
Therefore, if you do not believe in a Deistic God per Radical Dreamer's definition, your God can be measured. As you said, it's DIFFICULT to judge and observe, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
By the way, something I missed before, but you said something along the lines of science in the days of old having religion and theology as part of it? Has it occurred to you to consider why that is no longer true? It's no longer true because we no longer blame God for something we cannot understand. Instead, we do whatever it is necessary to understand that which we cannot understand yet. We build radio telescopes to study the stars. We build computers to use to analyze our findings in any number of fields. We use chemical testing to see if a certain pollutant is in a certain body of water, and so on and so forth. We don't need theology in science anymore because it no longer has a purpose.
Heaven or Hell? Oh, yes, quite well. Heaven is where God is; Hell is where God isn't.
Simple, precise...but it wasn't what I was after, and I suppose I should have explained more clearly. I was asking how Heaven and Hell could exist if we have been unable to measure from any dying person something like the soul leaving their body. We've never seen any evidence of it. (Now, mind, it's quite possible we simply have been unable to measure the energy or whatever it would be, but I find that unlikely, as by now we can detect any form of energy, even if we don't understand what the energy is. Lord J, a bit of clarification here, in case I am incorrect.)
Maybe then you want to be in Hell, if you don't want anything to do with God, though.
Now that's just insulting. If God exists, I would want something to do with Him, because as I said, any real God would not be the Judeo-Christian God or any other interpretation, and would most likely not be something that would damn me for eternity because I questioned His existence.
It's not this 'place of fire' thingy. Good grief, that's just borrowing of the Roman version of the Greek Tartaros, the place where sinners are punished. All metaphorical, and really not believed (or shouldn't be.)
Well, you might want to explain that to your fellow Christians then, because so many of them seem to believe this. As for why? Simple, really...it was part of the controlling tool for the masses as I explained earlier.
In the end, it's just that distinction that I set out. Now, of course, in our beliefs, existence itself is due to the will of God, so in some sense Hell is really non-existence, and utter seperation from that which makes life possible. Heaven is, well, a state of reconciliation and grace with God, I suppose. Sort of a return to Eden, but where it is impossible to sin. Because there is no more conflict with God, because we are no longer under the Law, the punishments that this causal world inflicts on us don't exist anymore, and as such what we say to be suffering wouldn't exist. It's not exactly a 'reward' as one would think of it, but in fact a return to what it really means to be human in the truest form, unencumbered by everything else.
Uh huh.
Now you asked 'how' it could exist, and that is pretty much the natural result of the sorts of things
Sure, if such things exist, even though we've never seen a shred of evidence towards it, despite the research that has surely been conducted.
I've mentioned before. They can exist because the Law draws a line between people and God. I mean, think about God like a perfectly just king who obeys all His own edicts. His law: punish anyone who breaks the peace, who breaks his word. The punishment is something must die and be sent away from his city forever. In Christian thought, Jesus is a great high prince who stands before God and basically, by His own death, fulfils the requirements of the law and allows us to remain in the grace of the king. This is heaven. Hell is outside the city, we left to our own devices. I'm not sure how else to explain this, but I suppose it depends on exactly how your question was meant.
But who says what God's word is?! Humans have. Humans have always claimed to be speaking for God as justification for everyone listening to what they say. There has not been a single bit of evidence to show that such interpretation and claims are true, no matter what people claim, because--surprise surprise--all of the "evidence" is written by the same people making the claims.
What exactly did you mean by 'how?'
I explained up above. Basically, how can they exist if we've never been able to measure something like a soul leaving the body? (Unless you want to say that the soul stays in the body and that Heaven and Hell are states of the soul's mind or what have you, which would actually be quite the interesting interpretation.)
Keep in mind, though, that my original argument was not one particularly arguing for God, but was merely pointing out the fallicy of your own position. To bring up the analogy I was talking out before, I was critisising you for merely looking at the What, When and Where, and closing yourself to the possibility of Who and Why simply because your mindset doesn't allow for it. I was admonishing you to keep the possibilities of Who and Why open, not particularly arguing for anything in particular but saying that you've limited yourself to 3/5 of understanding. Even if you don't at all find anything in the rest that I've written, this at least is still pertinant. It's not an argument for God, but merely that you mustn't, and indeed absolutely cannot, use Natural Science for or against God. If you choose to examine the issue, you have to be prepared to use other tools to examine it. Don't leave the Natural Sciences be, of course, but leave them at the doorstep. Better yet, intigrate it all together... but that's a tough thing to do.
And I am criticizing your interpretation that science is separate from reality, when it IS reality. I am criticizing you for assuming that the question of "Who?" is relevant and your interpretation of "Why?".
Oh, and heya Lord J. I was wondering when you were going to show up. Honestly, I don't mind if you speak your mind here. To be honest, I'm rather overwhelmed with the volume of what's being said, and as such am not able to address it all, or even half of it, so it won't make much of a difference if you say your bit. It's not going to compel me to go onto some massive writing spree to try and answer everything. Indeed, I'm not sure yet whether all these points are answerable or, even if they are, if I alone am capable of answering them. I don't know everything, after all.
I think he's staying out because he knows that if he enters the argument everyone will stop paying attention to anyone else arguing his side, and he wants to give the rest of us a chance to let our own voices be heard. Besides, I need the challenge anyway, and you definitely provide it!
-
Holy shit. That is the longest post in the Compendium's history.
Congratulations, you creeps have finally managed to turn the forums into a Blog.
-
If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, please do not post.
-
If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, please do not post.
And what makes you think there is any value in any of those enormous posts? Ego?
-
Have you considered actually reading the contents? Or would you rather just insult them wholesale?
Look, if you don't think it's worth discussing, fine. Don't discuss it. We will, however, and I'll thank you to not be an ass and interfere anyway.
-
Have you considered actually reading the contents?
I did. In fact, I read each post to the point it was able to keep my interest, which, to tell you the truth, went hardly past the first or second paragraphs, with the exception of Radical Dreamer's.
Or would you rather just insult them wholesale?
To tell you the truth, it wasn't an insult at all -- it was something called a 'remark'.
And to tell you another truth, objectively, the insult exists only in the side of the receiver.
Look, if you don't think it's worth discussing, fine. Don't discuss it.
In fact, I'm unable to see most of this as a discussion at all. It looks to me more like an allegory of the blabbering children used to make in Religion classes back at school.
We will, however
I guess that's rather implicit in this thread, anyways.
and I'll thank you to not be an ass and interfere anyway
You're welcome.
Then again, going from the premise that people are utterly unable to read between the lines, I'll say this:
Holy shit. That is the longest post in the Compendium's history.
Congratulations, you creeps have finally managed to turn the forums into a Blog.
And this:
And what makes you think there is any value in any of those enormous posts? Ego?
Are perfectly plausible positions to be had in the subject of Theism.
-
Fine. Say what you will. I don't give a damn.
-
If you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, please do not post.
Have you considered actually reading the contents? Or would you rather just insult them wholesale?
Look, if you don't think it's worth discussing, fine. Don't discuss it. We will, however, and I'll thank you to not be an ass and interfere anyway.
Fine. Say what you will. I don't give a damn.
Heh. That looks bizarrely self-contradictory.
-
No, it means I've given up because I know anything I say will just fuel your little fun, which you seem to enjoy having at my expense far too often.
-
Which doesn't change the fact that it all looks terribly self-contradictory.
-
On "Why" and "Who" questions:
Science can certainly answer such questions, provided that they are meaningful. If you hear a rushing waterfall, it is not meaningful to ask "Who is making that noise"? It'd be trying to discover light with a microphone. It is meaningful to ask "Why does it make that noise?" and then you get to learn about how soundwaves work and such. "Why is x the way it is and not some other way?" is a perfectly valid question for scientists to asks. The problem is that you are assuming that there must be a "Who" behind all things. This is fallacious, as shown by my waterfall example. It has been suggested that the trend for personification of phenomena even when there is no reason, upon closer inspection, to believe tha there is a concious entity at work, has evolutionary roots. It was a sort of survival of the fittest Pascal's wager: Sure, that snapping twig might not be a hungry leopord, but what if it is? To apply that now, to all things however, is akin to a moth mistaking a candle for the moon as it navigates by the flame.
But you have suggested a reason for suggesting that your natural god is an entity of itself. You have suggested that it is revealed through literature and poetry, through the arts. However, the world doesn't work this way. I will use as an example Moby Dick, as it is the last great literary work I have read. In the context of the story, as long as I am inbetween the two covers of the book, there is a monomaniacal captain named Ahab, on quest for revenge against an massive albino sperm whale known as Moby Dick. Now, when I reach that last cover, what can I take away from the experience? One can take the book to say, even without asserting a literal Ahab, that the idea of seeking revenge against an animal that has acted on instinct is at best, silly, and at worst, deadly. And if that idea fits in with the observable world (which at the present, I believe it does) then we can take this literary truth and use it in our lives. However, Ahab* doesn't get to ride on the coat-tails of that idea and into reality. And it seems to me, that you have come to your god through such means. It seems that you have looked at the Bible, and found parts of it to be true, and have attempted to usher a nonmetaphorical god into reality, along with whatever philosophical truths you have found. But that's just simply not not reasonable. That someone can concieve of a thing does not make it real. Furthermore, this method of attempting to actualize the fictional is fundamentally broken. How do you know what art contains literal as well as literary truth, and which of the concepts and characters of these works is actually real? God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...one can equally attempt to shoehorn any of them (or any other god for that matter) into a reality that they do not exist in with this sort of literary search for truth.
Now, are there mechanisms that can allow us to determine what things found in art are real? Yes. They're called natural sciences.
*The leviathan Moby Dick was partially based on a sperm whale called Mocha Dick, which several whalers failed to capture. This whale had a white forehead and hump. This does not mean Moby Dick is real, or that an albino sperm whale magically appeared in the oceans once the book Moby Dick was published.
-
On "Why" and "Who" questions:
Science can certainly answer such questions, provided that they are meaningful. If you hear a rushing waterfall, it is not meaningful to ask "Who is making that noise"? It'd be trying to discover light with a microphone. It is meaningful to ask "Why does it make that noise?" and then you get to learn about how soundwaves work and such. "Why is x the way it is and not some other way?" is a perfectly valid question for scientists to asks. The problem is that you are assuming that there must be a "Who" behind all things. This is fallacious, as shown by my waterfall example. It has been suggested that the trend for personification of phenomena even when there is no reason, upon closer inspection, to believe tha there is a concious entity at work, has evolutionary roots. It was a sort of survival of the fittest Pascal's wager: Sure, that snapping twig might not be a hungry leopord, but what if it is? To apply that now, to all things however, is akin to a moth mistaking a candle for the moon as it navigates by the flame.
But you have suggested a reason for suggesting that your natural god is an entity of itself. You have suggested that it is revealed through literature and poetry, through the arts. However, the world doesn't work this way. I will use as an example Moby Dick, as it is the last great literary work I have read. In the context of the story, as long as I am inbetween the two covers of the book, there is a monomaniacal captain named Ahab, on quest for revenge against an massive albino sperm whale known as Moby Dick. Now, when I reach that last cover, what can I take away from the experience? One can take the book to say, even without asserting a literal Ahab, that the idea of seeking revenge against an animal that has acted on instinct is at best, silly, and at worst, deadly. And if that idea fits in with the observable world (which at the present, I believe it does) then we can take this literary truth and use it in our lives. However, Ahab* doesn't get to ride on the coat-tails of that idea and into reality. And it seems to me, that you have come to your god through such means. It seems that you have looked at the Bible, and found parts of it to be true, and have attempted to usher a nonmetaphorical god into reality, along with whatever philosophical truths you have found. But that's just simply not not reasonable. That someone can concieve of a thing does not make it real. Furthermore, this method of attempting to actualize the fictional is fundamentally broken. How do you know what art contains literal as well as literary truth, and which of the concepts and characters of these works is actually real? God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...one can equally attempt to shoehorn any of them (or any other god for that matter) into a reality that they do not exist in with this sort of literary search for truth.
Now, are there mechanisms that can allow us to determine what things found in art are real? Yes. They're called natural sciences.
*The leviathan Moby Dick was partially based on a sperm whale called Mocha Dick, which several whalers failed to capture. This whale had a white forehead and hump. This does not mean Moby Dick is real, or that an albino sperm whale magically appeared in the oceans once the book Moby Dick was published.
I'll reply a bit more later; I was busy replying to Kyronea and go overwhelmed. I'd just like to quickly reply in regards to your second paragraph that I believe what I belive by Faith. But that's seperate from what I was talking about. My argument in the 'who,what,when,where,why' wasn't why I believe what I do, or that it's right, but that taking a stance based purely on the natural scienes only shows part of the answer. As I think I said before, this isn't a proof for God, and was never meant to be the case. In fact, I said 'if God were proven not to exist, the proof would come through philosphy and theology, not the natural sciences.' In fact, what I believe is largely irrelivant to the argument, and I only delved a bit into it at the end there because that's the way it was going. My real point, especially with that 'why and who' this was only to show the blindness of science in certain regards. You say 'that someone can conceive of a thing does not make it real.' Absolutely! But I didn't say that. What I said was that we can conceive of it means we must leave the option open until it is proven otherwise. And that proof won't be coming through science, as much as Kyronea wants it to.
By the way, Kyronea, I was replying to you, but I'm forwarning you. I'll wait to reply, but unless you want me to come down harshly on your history, go back and fix it, okay? Caligula was NOT a Christian emperor, and I don't think it's King James you're thinking of there; those are the two I caught. I don't know, there might be more. But it doesn't lend much strength to your argument to show an ignorance of history. At the very least you can Wiki it. A few mistakes here and there are alright, but those are pretty major ones, especially when you're being so religiously vehement in your stance.
-
I'm getting specific names wrong (My first instinct was King Henry, not King James, but I chose King James because of the "King James Bible" and Caligula was an incorrect rememberance at best) but that does not invalidate what I'm saying, because the examples still exist...I just have the names incorrect.
But yes, I'll look them up and fix them.
EDIT: Yep, I'm an idiot. It was Constantine and King Henry VIII, not Caligula and King James. Idiot me.
Errors fixed.
-
You know, I've been thinking. In the end, who fucking cares? I used to be radical left, became centre-right, became centre-left - and it kept on going. I thought about which party I should vote for when I grow up, and if I should contribute to politics. I thought about religion, about other people's religion, about God and whether or not he exists, about what happens in the world, why, and how. And I came to the conclusion - who cares, we die anyway. Kyronea, who cares if Krispin does not look at the universe like you do, because to you, once he is is dead, he is dead. He hasn't killed anyone for his beliefs, he isn't threatening you to join his religion, so why does it matter whether or not he dies believing what he does - if he is wrong, oh well, if he right, well, good for him. Same to you Krispin. If you are right, Kyronea obviously deserves what he gets, but if you are wrong, no harm done, because Kyronea won't be able to gloat from beyond the grave.
People can live how they please. Lesbians to nuns, they all have the ability, and right, to be who they want to be. I know why some would be cross if we were living under a religious state, but we're not, so quit ya bitchin'.
Does it really matter if we see the universe in different ways? As you said, the universe is basically an infinity to us - how we see the universe has no effect on other people, or how the universe itself runs. We do not have this "belief-creates" system as one Compendiumite brought up. Our life is, as Kyronea says, just a cosmic blink of an eye. Though we might be having an impact on the Earth at the moment, I will bet my soul that we will not have a major impact on the universe, no matter how we percieve it.
@Kyronea: Just to clear things up, Sunni and Shi'ite is stupid, everyone knows that. It is a blatant contradiction of what God said, so yeah, fuck.
Oh, forgot one thing Kyronea. Jesus motherfucking Christ. That was one massive post.
-
It's not that massive. You guys need to go to NationStates and see some real debates. THOSE are massive. This? This is kid's stuff by comparison. (In that it's shorter with only a couple people on each side debating.)
To be honest, I agree with you. People should live how they want, and let each other be. So long as religious folks don't attempt to press their beliefs onto me or anyone else either via direct confrontational conversion or through laws, I'm fine with them.
But it's a debate. We're enjoying it, or at least I am. It's not to truly try to convince one another, because I doubt we will, even if one of us eventually concedes. It's for fun, and we're having it.
-
It's not that massive. You guys need to go to NationStates and see some real debates. THOSE are massive. This? This is kid's stuff by comparison. (In that it's shorter with only a couple people on each side debating.)
To be honest, I agree with you. People should live how they want, and let each other be. So long as religious folks don't attempt to press their beliefs onto me or anyone else either via direct confrontational conversion or through laws, I'm fine with them.
But it's a debate. We're enjoying it, or at least I am. It's not to truly try to convince one another, because I doubt we will, even if one of us eventually concedes. It's for fun, and we're having it.
Oh. Then why are you trying to impress your beliefs on the religious? Because yours makes sense, and theirs doesn't? Uh... don't you see the irony of that?
Anyway, I've got a reply coming up, but not quite after the format that you're expecting. In fact, I'm rather annoyed that you devolved the argument into one of religion. I was not talking religion, I was talking about the philisophical concept of god, and how that concept is to be approached. You assumed it was religion, and took that as the opportunity to rant about the perceived evils of religion. As such, I'm going to reply to the pertinent levels of your post (essentially the first bit) and leave the last bit entirely be. I'm not going to reply to the rest, because it's the exact same thing I've heard a hundred times from a hundred mouths, and sounds more like a dogmatic belief system and thought control than any religion I've ever seen. You don't think that the scientific hierarchy is used as a method of controlling the masses? That it might be a system built on the facts means nothing; even the facts can be used to further propoganda, and that is just the case here. After all, if it weren't the case, you wouldn't be speaking essentially the identical words to so many others. That sort of herd mentality is just the thing you'd associate with organized religion that, supposedly, is meant to control the masses. And just like arguing against a religious fanatic, it is impossible to take a contrary argument anywhere. Note: no matter how much you wish to deny it, you treat your beliefs as a religion does. I can understand and respect this, but only if you understand how much of what you believe is indeed just that. If you take it to be the truth, yet at the same time take it for being more accurate for some kind of factualism, you're just deceiving yourself. Fact is, as far as Natural Science goes, I know and believe just about the same things about the natural world as you do; as I've said, I wager I know a few things you don't as well. It's not our knowledge of the facts that defines us, then, it is how we treat those facts. And that, sir, is a religion. Because if it was merely the facts that seperates us, by all reason I should be more securely in the Natural Sciences than you. What it is is that what you think for being pure reason is being influenced by the complexity of your human mind, and being affected by it. It affects mine one way, yours in the other, and it is in the analysis of the facts that we become distinct, and as such it is the analysis itself which warrants the examination. And that analysis of our methodology of thinking is not the province of science, but philosophy. Scientifically, there is nothing different between us. So to even bring religion into this is a red herring, though I'm sure it was unintentional.
By the way, another post is forthcoming, similar in tone to this. I'm unwilling to directly argue my religion against yours.
First, though, a bit to RD. He was actually replying in regards to what I was talking about.
On "Why" and "Who" questions:
Science can certainly answer such questions, provided that they are meaningful. If you hear a rushing waterfall, it is not meaningful to ask "Who is making that noise"? It'd be trying to discover light with a microphone. It is meaningful to ask "Why does it make that noise?" and then you get to learn about how soundwaves work and such. "Why is x the way it is and not some other way?" is a perfectly valid question for scientists to asks. The problem is that you are assuming that there must be a "Who" behind all things. This is fallacious, as shown by my waterfall example. It has been suggested that the trend for personification of phenomena even when there is no reason, upon closer inspection, to believe tha there is a concious entity at work, has evolutionary roots. It was a sort of survival of the fittest Pascal's wager: Sure, that snapping twig might not be a hungry leopord, but what if it is? To apply that now, to all things however, is akin to a moth mistaking a candle for the moon as it navigates by the flame.
Like I've said, my assumption that there is a 'who' is based on a Faith belief. That is my own personal thing, and is not something that can be reconciled with rationality. I understand the distinction, and I was not bringing that thought of my own into it. I never admonished that one must assume this from the start (an initial assumption that there must be a Who might well be flawed - I won't dispute that), but rather that the possibility that there is a who. To dismiss it simply because it has not yet been observed would not be prudent. And in some sense one might argue that philisophical obvservations can carry some weight.
About that waterfall, however, to ask 'why' does it make that noise cannot be answered by an explanation of the mechanism. Okay, it can, but only because in English the word 'why' has a synomonous meaning with 'how'. I didn't mean that sort of 'why'. I meant purely 'for what philisophical cause.' What you said there is the 'how', which is a union of 'what, when, and where.'
But you have suggested a reason for suggesting that your natural god is an entity of itself. You have suggested that it is revealed through literature and poetry, through the arts. However, the world doesn't work this way. I will use as an example Moby Dick, as it is the last great literary work I have read. In the context of the story, as long as I am inbetween the two covers of the book, there is a monomaniacal captain named Ahab, on quest for revenge against an massive albino sperm whale known as Moby Dick. Now, when I reach that last cover, what can I take away from the experience? One can take the book to say, even without asserting a literal Ahab, that the idea of seeking revenge against an animal that has acted on instinct is at best, silly, and at worst, deadly. And if that idea fits in with the observable world (which at the present, I believe it does) then we can take this literary truth and use it in our lives. However, Ahab* doesn't get to ride on the coat-tails of that idea and into reality. And it seems to me, that you have come to your god through such means. It seems that you have looked at the Bible, and found parts of it to be true, and have attempted to usher a nonmetaphorical god into reality, along with whatever philosophical truths you have found. But that's just simply not not reasonable. That someone can concieve of a thing does not make it real. Furthermore, this method of attempting to actualize the fictional is fundamentally broken. How do you know what art contains literal as well as literary truth, and which of the concepts and characters of these works is actually real?
It is difficult to say, I wasn't disputing that. But difficulty to discern does not mean that there isn't truth. Just because Democritus or Rutherford had incomplete ideas of what the atom was doesn't mean they were entirely wrong. In literature, too, discerning is difficult, but this doesn't mean that it isn't echoing the divine. I have found the Bible to be true because of Faith, and have taken that as part of a threepart Mind, Heart, and Spirit (Reason, Emotion, and Faith), but that's only myself. I cannot use that in a philosophical way. You can call into question my own beliefs in this manner - my only defense is Faith itself, which is understandably inexplicable - but in regards to my more general argument... no, you can't quite pinpoint God out of literature. But if ones does wish to examine God, that is the way to do it. I'm just saying that's the proper tool. I'm not saying how to use it.
I must further say that I am wholly talking about literary truth, as opposed to literal. Literary truth, simply because it is literary, isn’t any less truthful simply for what it is. I think that’s what must be maintained. How do I know which contains literal truth? Doesn’t matter, so long as it contains literary truth. That’s what I’m trying to say.
God, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...one can equally attempt to shoehorn any of them (or any other god for that matter) into a reality that they do not exist in with this sort of literary search for truth.
Ah, but here is something interesting, something that might seem a bit more dangerous is fundamentalist circles, but which I think I'd say bears some weight: there might be some aspects of Zeus that do echo the truth of God. Surprised? Well, by my dogmatic belief (and I am very dogmatic, I must admit), I must say that the Bible is the only sure place to find truth. That’s a statement of Faith, which I cannot defend any other way (call it irrational, that’s alright.) However, that doesn’t mean that other writings cannot also contain truth. Indeed, look at the development of Zeus in Greek thought (and I’ll have to say, I might well know the Greek mythological corpus better than the Bible due to the nature of my studies), and you see a strong trend to the monotheistic, focused on Zeus, this all in about 450BC. Here I’m talking Aeschylus and Sophocles and Euripides. Statements like ‘I think there is a god unlike any of the others in body or form’ and ‘Zeus, if that name please you,’ show a change in their understanding. Paul, in the New Testament, so much as tells the Athenians their poets were understanding this truth in their writing. As such, it isn’t shoehorning as a continual examination of the nature of god. Why, one of the most brilliant examinations of God, in particular in regards to creation, is in Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Though it is not something that can be considered dogmatic canon, by virtue of beauty and clarity it might well outmatch even the Biblical account. So in essence one doesn’t take these things and create reality out of them, but seeks to see which aspects of them ring true in reality. It’s like sonar, really. And that’s the literary endeavour. One can force reality out of them, but one can do that with anything, including natural sciences if they are misused (ie. The person who pinned moths to the trees to prove his hypothesis about adaption.) But this does not invalidate the concept as a whole.
Now, are there mechanisms that can allow us to determine what things found in art are real? Yes. They're called natural sciences.
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. As an ambivalent Engineer and Humanities student, I strongly disagree with this statement. This is making the assumption that only those things which are literally true are real, which has yet to be proven, and in fact discounts much of the human worth in literature. It relegates it to only holding worth in what the natural sciences can prove to be true. However, the natural sciences simply should not be used in this way. There is reality in art beyond what the natural sciences can tell us. The natural sciences might be able to tell us what’s factual in art, but not what’s real.
*The leviathan Moby Dick was partially based on a sperm whale called Mocha Dick, which several whalers failed to capture. This whale had a white forehead and hump. This does not mean Moby Dick is real, or that an albino sperm whale magically appeared in the oceans once the book Moby Dick was published.
Heh. True. But this can be used to my benefit as well. For if you say ‘Moby Dick’ is not real, yet can say there is literary truth in it in what it says about humanity and as a personification of revenge (which, though natural, is not a study of the natural sciences), then that means that, as I’ve been trying to maintain, literary truth can exist apart from empirical truth. If you don’t agree, then you must by nature consider all literature only to hold value as explanatory texts about facts… basically textbooks written in a more useless style (because they are not as clear.) And then what is the point of literature at all, and why do we not dismiss it in favour of books of psychology and texts of human behavior?
Kyronea, post still coming.
-
Don't bother. I'm dropping out of the debate, since according to you I obviously can't keep on subject at all.
-
Don't bother. I'm dropping out of the debate, since according to you I obviously can't keep on subject at all.
Hmph. Alright, give in that easily. But it was a valid statement. Look how much different in tone my discussion with RD is. I disagree with him no less, but it is taking different turns. Remain in, because I'd hope you'll at least consider that a 100% empirical stance seems illogical.
You were calling my statements 'bull' and dismissing them quite rudely, and I didn't drop out. You shouldn't either. If you don't like what I say, just don't reply to it. I won't care. But don't wholly drop out unless you are seriously weary of the discussion. If that's the case, by all means do so. I'll do the same. When I don't feel like it anymore, I'll leave it be. Nothing is compelling us to it. But if it's merely for confrontation, don't let that daunt you.
Oh, also, I didn't say you are incapable of it. I said you deviated in part. Remember: in the beginning you did address the issue.
-
See, the problem I had, Dan, is that you were outright stating you were ignoring my argument. I addressed your points. I did so a bit rudely, and for that I do apologize, but I still addressed everything.
In fact, I'm going to edit and clarify this: I should not have answered your points the way I did. I basically said "Bull, and here's why" and that is the wrong way to reply to your opponent's argument. It is, in fact, the best way to make yourself look like an ass and hand the win over to your opponent. Again, I apologize.
In a debate, you have to respond to all of your opponent's statements. You can't win a debate if you just ignore your opponent.
I should also apologize for acting a bit ruder there when I said I was dropping out...I was just suddenly angry that you were getting huffy(from my point of view) and outright stating you were going to ignore what I had said, when I was just trying to have a fun debate.
I'm more than willing to leap back in if you promise that from now on, we won't ignore anything either one of us says.
-
See, the problem I had, Dan, is that you were outright stating you were ignoring my argument. I addressed your points. I did so a bit rudely, and for that I do apologize, but I still addressed everything.
In fact, I'm going to edit and clarify this: I should not have answered your points the way I did. I basically said "Bull, and here's why" and that is the wrong way to reply to your opponent's argument. It is, in fact, the best way to make yourself look like an ass and hand the win over to your opponent. Again, I apologize.
In a debate, you have to respond to all of your opponent's statements. You can't win a debate if you just ignore your opponent.
I should also apologize for acting a bit ruder there when I said I was dropping out...I was just suddenly angry that you were getting huffy(from my point of view) and outright stating you were going to ignore what I had said, when I was just trying to have a fun debate.
I'm more than willing to leap back in if you promise that from now on, we won't ignore anything either one of us says.
I can't guarentee it, of course, but I'll try not to. However, due to the volume, some picking and choosing is neccessary. My argument against your stance with religion can mostly be summed up in the following, though, and indeed it is an all encompassing thing.
Think about it this way. What makes empirical science so overpowering? Of course, you might say to yourself and to others ‘well, at least what I believe is logical and reasonable.’ Hm. The thing is, when it comes right down to it, everything is in our heads. Everything is synaptic electrical signals, and so a thought conceived of the mind’s ability to think, and one that has been born out of observations through electrically based sensory organs, have very little inherent difference in logic. Philosophy, then, isn’t any less logical than empirical science based on observation, because the observation itself is produced by the very same organ that produces philosophical thought. That means that an observation born out of specific observation isn’t inherently more logical than one conceived by the mind based on assumption of general circumstance (also a form of observation.) In fact, they are merely two parts to the whole of the human mind, so if you wish they are not exactly as distinct as they might seem. That’s one of the reasons I’d strongly admonish the study of both. Anyway, it’d just be a mistake to think yourself more right than the religious just because your perception, something that comes from your head and ability to think, tells you that it’s right. After all, how do you know atoms exist? You’ve never seen them. You’ve never touched them singly. But because others have told you, and the reasoning of your mind tells you this is a good thought. The very facts you consider for facts are only so because your mind, an assumptive machine, has looked at it and held it to be true. Your mind. What objective proof is there for the natural sciences over and above religion? What, then, makes that any different than philosophy, which merely deals with generalities rather than specific facts?
Honestly, though, I've not willingly ignored anything, save for the reason that I don't have the time to answer everything. Fact is, though, in rhetoric there tends to be a bit of that sort of thing that happens, and you have to understand that when I appear to ignore or skirt around the issue it's usually not intential. I've seen many timse where you tend to do something similar, but I undersand it's hardly something intentional. Indeed, in my view you've barely begun to address anything I've said. But that's not because you're trying to ignore it. It's just how things appear... not neccessarally as they are. Heh. Anyway, truth be told, when I said that 'weariness' bit, I was foreshadowing myself a bit. I might be bowing out of this soon myself.
Unfortunately, you're in the tough position, not me. And by that I mean what this is really about from the start isn't me trying to defend religion, but rather me questioning the entirely empirical viewpoint. I am on the offense, you on the defense. You've turned that around a bit, but that's not what I intended when I first brought the issue up. As such, ignoring that is because from my view it is, in fact, irrelevant to the point I was trying to bring across. Not to mention the fact that I know I'm prone to lose my temper in such opinionated arguments, so I figured I'd best stay away from them for fear of lacking self control.
-
Oh. I suppose that's fair enough, then. My only reasoning for focusing on religion was that I was questioning your own assumptions, your own beliefs since they tended to focus squarely on a specific religion and thus I had to fight back, as it were, in the way I knew how.
Errr...full reply coming at some point.
-
Oh. I suppose that's fair enough, then. My only reasoning for focusing on religion was that I was questioning your own assumptions, your own beliefs since they tended to focus squarely on a specific religion and thus I had to fight back, as it were, in the way I knew how.
Errr...full reply coming at some point.
Heh. Well, I keep saying that, too. I've thought better of sending what I wrote down before, because you can probably guess what I'd say anyway. The thing is, there are two reasons I post on here. One is to bring across my ideas, in the hope that it'll be beneficial to someone else. The second, and probably more driving, is to better understand myself and my own ideas. In no place does one understand one's ideas so well as when they are challenged, so if I'm forced to reassert myself and what I believe, it's to my own benefit. I'm sorry if I seem to ignore some of your arguments, but I'd prefer not to engage in the battle about whether or not religion has misled people... that one gets way too heated, and I know from experience arguing that resolves nothing. I'm not going to accept your hypothoses, and you're not going to accept mine. Let's just stick to something that has the chance of benefitting us. Do understand it's not ignoring you just because, as I'm actually quite fiered up to give you a whole long spiel complete with examples and what not, but seriously, would that really change anything? So pardon me if we let religion be. And, hmm... but you know, actually, the beliefs shown in my answers WEREN'T specific to a single relgion. Actually, I was speaking more like the old Greek and Roman philosophers than anything else. I'm not sure where, in my original argument, I came across any differently. If I mentioned what I believed, it was always a side-note saying that 'this cannot be used as proof, because it is my own belief'. Never was it an intrinsic part, because my desire was to write something philisophical, not theological.
Anyway, it is admissible to fight back, although I'd wished you'd fought back on the same field. The thing is, though you can challenge my personal beliefs and assumptions exterior to the original argument, you can't question my assumptions in the original argument, because I actually had none. I was acting like a Socrates, saying 'hey, wait, how do you know that?' I was saying things like 'the possibility of God must be left open', not saying 'God exists.' My entire purpose was not to prove something to you, but to question you. As such, I came into things from an almost unassailable position. Obviously there were things to be questioned about it, and furthermore my own pride in addressing the issue led me to take it further than I should have. But really, all I meant to say was 'how do you know this?' There isn't really any way you can question someone's assumptions in that.
The question in this case was specifically in regards to a reliance on empiricle science. I've been trying to make you question that stance. From this I went further to try and propose the solution - ie. that one needs the arts to study the concept of God - and that was the portion of my argument that is open to assualt, because it was the only portion that was a statement rather than question. However, it was never my intent to be specifically religious in this. My questioning and thinking would not have been foreign to Socrates or Seneca. Indeed, my assumptions that I had were NOT based on my religion. I so much as said 'let's make the assumption that God doesn't exist; if that were so, it could only be examined via arts.' How is this a particularly Christian position? I very much wanted to avoid speaking theology, and prefer to remain in philosophy in this.
However, in the end I must just really ask shortly 'who says that only natural science can tell us truth, and that only it is logical? Where is the proof?' And be careful not to make an internal argument, justifying science by science. That would be like justifying Christianity via the Bible. An internal justification means nothing.
Anyway, that question posed, I present my answer, that the empirical sciences can tell us the matter and the fact of the universe, each indivisible point, the full 'what, when, and where.' But as much as one might try to apply them to the 'who and why', they cannot do it. By this I do not mean that this MEANS that there is a who, or a why, but merely that science alone cannot answer these questions and will always answer 'no one and nothing' to them, not because that is neccessarially the answer but because it is impotent to answer. You might try and strain an answer it, but that is in fact contrary to the very nature of what science is meant to achieve, contrary to what it is! Science is meant to tell us everything physical and temporal about the universe. How then can it address the possibility of things apart from that? The very nature of the question is directed to 'that which lies outside the natural sciences.' It is utterly impossible then to apply them there by defenition. However, we do have a human faculty within the mind to address the issue, and this is shown in various forms variably philosophy, literature, theology, and many others. These things are very much natural, and are that sublime gift of humanity, the ability to ask the 'what if' questions. Indeed, that's at the heart of what's being asked there: how do we address the 'what ifs'. To simply say 'we can't observe it so it's not' is sticking one's head in the sand. Well, what if it is? The possibility must be left open. This is not done because of the chance that it might be, but because our investigation of our world would not be complete without that question. Nor is it unobvservable, but only unobvservable to empiricism. As such, I've advocated the use of both the Arts and the Empiricle Sciences as not different ways to arrive at truth, but two inseperable and neccessary entities in the pursuit.
There. That is my thesis on this matter.
-
As for how do I know this? I don't. I don't know God does not exist, and I do leave the possibility open. But I do close the door on it for the most part because so far I haven't been able to see how a God could exist. Call it a case of my natural skepticism showing through: on huge issues like the existence of God, I will be skeptical until proof is shown. Note skeptical, not completely closed. As I've explained many times, if proof IS shown, then I am more than willing to accept it.
But the reason I focus on emperical science is that philosophy when it comes to explaining the universe is essentially a glorified hypothesis, as are books and the like. Sure, they can show truth. They can tell us about human nature, but it's not like they are the ONLY way to reveal that part of human nature, and while they can show us part of it, they cannot explain everything about it. A book can give us a story that reveals human greed and how foolish it can be in circumstances, but it can't tell us why we're greedy. It can't explain the underlying survival instincts we have evolved with like every other life form.
And sure, I can't know everything from my own experience. I haven't done the experiments that scientists have to discover facts. But just because I perceive this as factual versus seeing the explanations in philosophy as nonfactual with the same exact kind of process that I would if I were to believe the opposite does not somehow render it the opposite. That doesn't mean there is fully hidden truth behind the philosophy or the art, because we can test the truth of what I believe as a fact. We can test the existence of, as you said, atoms. Sure, I haven't, but others have, and if I were to ask them, they could run the experiment to prove it.
Meanwhile, the philosophers simply debate without experimentation. Sure, it's critical thinking, but on its own it doesn't answer any question. Even if they postulate on the Who and the Why using your definitions, they can't actually find the answer. They can only suggest, imply, give possibilities.
I encourage critical thinking by the way. I don't want people to just accept what they're told, because you're right about one thing: people can take science and treat it like a religion in that they will defend it just as savagely with groupthink. I'd like to think I don't do that, but sometimes I know I do.
But as I said, I encourage critical thought. I encourage people to think for themselves, to find out if that fact told you by someone is really a fact or if it was just nonsense. I encourage people to examine everything, to do research, to find out. In essence, I encourage them to learn, as I always strive to do.
I've thought about philosophy and God for a long time, and I've come to the conclusion that due to the evidence shown that so far every single event, every single phenomenon, from lightning to earthquakes, from diseases to food growth, from the seemingly miraculous ocurances such as a timely storm taking out a fleet of ships bearing down upon your city, and so on and so forth are all explainable by science that God most probably does not exist.
I still leave the possibility open, though, just as I leave the possibility open for so much else. We don't know everything about the universe. Far from it...we know very little.
But that's why we need to keep asking, as you say, the question of "What if?" We need to ask, but we also need to investigate. We can't settle ourselves for just proposing a question in literature or in art. After all, in the end, literature and art are created by human minds. Sure, some people are brilliant with them, but that's just their talent. They offer questions, but not answers. We can ponder and ask and seek and consider, but without testing those questions, without testing to see what the answer really is, what's the point? Why ask Who and Why if we don't try investigating to truly answer them?
That's what I've been trying to get at this whole time. Science is all about solving the answers to the questions proposed by philosophers, artists, literature, and so on. It's all about finding out the true truth from the lies or the mistakes. It's about discovering what the answers are. It doesn't invalidate philosophy or art. It can CONFIRM it!
-
Like I've said, my assumption that there is a 'who' is based on a Faith belief. That is my own personal thing, and is not something that can be reconciled with rationality. I understand the distinction, and I was not bringing that thought of my own into it. I never admonished that one must assume this from the start (an initial assumption that there must be a Who might well be flawed - I won't dispute that), but rather that the possibility that there is a who. To dismiss it simply because it has not yet been observed would not be prudent. And in some sense one might argue that philisophical obvservations can carry some weight.
I'm not suggesting that the 'who' hypothesis should be ruled out right off the bat. As I have mentioned, it is an instinct with adaptive benefits. I am suggesting that we go where the evidence takes us. Now this takes us back to the issue of scientific versus literary truths. As natural science searches in more and more for a hypothetical 'who', wherever it might reside, using whatever implements are available, and consistently fails, the 'who' hypothesis in that case becomes decreasingly likely. Now, you may say "That's all fine and well for dealing with earthly causes, R_D, but you'll of course fail to find divine causes since you aren't using the right tools". However, consider the history of divinity. Think of all of the phenomena previously ascribed to the divine, and what has happened to those beliefs over time. We reject, with out present data, the existence of Apollo. We reject him driving the sun across the sky. We further reject Phaeton's bruised ego as being the indirect cause of skin tones in Ethiopia. We reject these beliefs because they contradict what is observable.
So what then, as natural sciences continue to rule out observable gods, should we do? Do we adopt a "God of the gaps" theology? Of course not; to do so would be to worship ignorance. Each time a gap shrinks, the likelihood for a literal, observable god shrinks with it. Eventually, we're either going to find such a god, or we're going to find that, given the current evidence, belief in such a being, while still possible, is so unlikely that it needn't be considered unless there is particular evidence for it (which is not the same of lack of evidence within the present scope of natural explanations. Just ask Apollo) to be the case. Some people already have come to this conclusion. Broadly, they are known as nonthiests. So that's what I'm suggesting. Not that there is never a 'who', or that there most assuredly isn't a cosmic 'who'. Simply that the present evidence does not make it seem a likely suggestion (to me), and thus, it shouldn't be among the primary explanations initially considered.
About that waterfall, however, to ask 'why' does it make that noise cannot be answered by an explanation of the mechanism. Okay, it can, but only because in English the word 'why' has a synomonous meaning with 'how'. I didn't mean that sort of 'why'. I meant purely 'for what philisophical cause.' What you said there is the 'how', which is a union of 'what, when, and where.'
Ah, I understand. The principle philisophical cause I consider for such things is "For the preservation of Life". The capital L is deliberate; I am refering to life the system, the natural world, and not the shallow political "As many homo sapiens as possible" version of "life". Of course, my view on this is shaped from my naturalistic world view. Take it as you will.
It is difficult to say, I wasn't disputing that. But difficulty to discern does not mean that there isn't truth. Just because Democritus or Rutherford had incomplete ideas of what the atom was doesn't mean they were entirely wrong. In literature, too, discerning is difficult, but this doesn't mean that it isn't echoing the divine. I have found the Bible to be true because of Faith, and have taken that as part of a threepart Mind, Heart, and Spirit (Reason, Emotion, and Faith), but that's only myself. I cannot use that in a philosophical way. You can call into question my own beliefs in this manner - my only defense is Faith itself, which is understandably inexplicable - but in regards to my more general argument... no, you can't quite pinpoint God out of literature. But if ones does wish to examine God, that is the way to do it. I'm just saying that's the proper tool. I'm not saying how to use it.
I must further say that I am wholly talking about literary truth, as opposed to literal. Literary truth, simply because it is literary, isn’t any less truthful simply for what it is. I think that’s what must be maintained. How do I know which contains literal truth? Doesn’t matter, so long as it contains literary truth. That’s what I’m trying to say.
If you are talking of a metaphorical god, then by all means, search for him in literature. That is a perfectly valid way to go about it. If this god is a metaphor for the truth and wisdom in and of the universe, then you will certainly learn of god through art. But that's the sort of god you will construct by reading between the lines of great literary works. Your god will be the sunrise and the sunset, but it shall be the rotation of the earth, and not Apollo and his chariot that ushers the sun across the sky. Your god will be spring and winter, but the tilt and orbit of the earth will be their cause, not the custody of Persephone that brings them about. This god will be a useful metaphor, and can lead to wonderful art, but it is not an entity in the sense we think of. It will not be a conscious being.
Ah, but here is something interesting, something that might seem a bit more dangerous is fundamentalist circles, but which I think I'd say bears some weight: there might be some aspects of Zeus that do echo the truth of God. Surprised? Well, by my dogmatic belief (and I am very dogmatic, I must admit), I must say that the Bible is the only sure place to find truth. That’s a statement of Faith, which I cannot defend any other way (call it irrational, that’s alright.) However, that doesn’t mean that other writings cannot also contain truth. Indeed, look at the development of Zeus in Greek thought (and I’ll have to say, I might well know the Greek mythological corpus better than the Bible due to the nature of my studies), and you see a strong trend to the monotheistic, focused on Zeus, this all in about 450BC. Here I’m talking Aeschylus and Sophocles and Euripides. Statements like ‘I think there is a god unlike any of the others in body or form’ and ‘Zeus, if that name please you,’ show a change in their understanding. Paul, in the New Testament, so much as tells the Athenians their poets were understanding this truth in their writing. As such, it isn’t shoehorning as a continual examination of the nature of god. Why, one of the most brilliant examinations of God, in particular in regards to creation, is in Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Though it is not something that can be considered dogmatic canon, by virtue of beauty and clarity it might well outmatch even the Biblical account. So in essence one doesn’t take these things and create reality out of them, but seeks to see which aspects of them ring true in reality. It’s like sonar, really. And that’s the literary endeavour. One can force reality out of them, but one can do that with anything, including natural sciences if they are misused (ie. The person who pinned moths to the trees to prove his hypothesis about adaption.) But this does not invalidate the concept as a whole.
It seems that you and I do not differ as far as it would initially appear on the use of literature in the search for truth. What you suggested near then end of this paragraph is very similar to what I was getting at with my Moby Dick example: Revenge on an animal is absurd (literary truth) but that doesn't mean there was an actual Captain Ahab (literary device). I think that this may also reveal the main point of departure. I view gods as literary devices, not literary truths.
I had actually considered putting Illuvatar in my lists of dieties there, but I've not yet read the Simarillion, I wanted to stick with things I dieties I was more familiar with. As always, I appreciate your knowledge of the beliefs of the ancient Greeks.
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. As an ambivalent Engineer and Humanities student, I strongly disagree with this statement. This is making the assumption that only those things which are literally true are real, which has yet to be proven, and in fact discounts much of the human worth in literature. It relegates it to only holding worth in what the natural sciences can prove to be true. However, the natural sciences simply should not be used in this way. There is reality in art beyond what the natural sciences can tell us. The natural sciences might be able to tell us what’s factual in art, but not what’s real.
What is real in art may not be real outside of it. It's a question of scope. I think that ideas can be literary truths revealed through art that are also meaningful in the real world. However, I don't think that entities can be revealed through literature (or rather, as literary but not natural truths) because an entity, something that is physical and there in the world will be observable and have properties that are observable. It would be within the domain (if not exclusively) of natural truth. And for "things" that are within the domain of natural truth, if they are not true in that scope, well, that's the practical information on the topic.
-
Thanks, both of you, those are the sorts of things I was looking to hear.
Now I can retire from this discussion.
-
...
That's it?! You have nothing more to say?!
-
You should be encouraged. It's already far more than Krispin has said on the Compendium pretty much all year. Long before you joined, he and I really used to go at it...
-
You should be encouraged. It's already far more than Krispin has said on the Compendium pretty much all year. Long before you joined, he and I really used to go at it...
Well, I guess that's true, but still...
We made this little fight over the whole thing, then made up, and I expected it would go on for another few pages, but one reply later and it's over?! Not fair.
-
...
That's it?! You have nothing more to say?!
Uh, is there anything more to say? I mean, you've heard what I've said; I've heard what you said. What you said is giving me thought; and I assume what I said is giving you thought as well. I'm not in agreement, but since you've at least made yourself clear and solidly made your point, what more's to be done?
Of course I'm still standing with my belief that true truth, perhaps even truer truth (heh, truer truth. I know, impossible), can be found in literature. Aristotle says that poetry is more of a science than history, because history only tells us specific facts, whilst poetry tells us general truths. I see the same distinction between what we call science and poetry. But this is the way I see it. I tried to sound off the idea that maybe empiricism isn't as good as it seems, and you rebuffed it. I might still think you're wrong, and that your case against it isn't right, but you nonetheless made it a good case of it. I can respect that, since obviously you have a pretty definite idea of what you believe. I've learned some things, maybe you've learned some things - and hey, that's the point, isn't it? I was just trying to get you to question, and open a bit of a dialogue. Well, mission accomplished, I guess. Other people can take over with different tangents on the topic now.
I mean, your lengthy reply was appreciated. Don't get that wrong.
-
Oh, well...okay. I guess I just...
I was hoping there WAS more to be said, because I enjoyed the exchange. I didn't learn anything new per se, but it reaffirmed some things I keep forgetting, certainly, and I'm glad I gave you something to think about.
-
Some of those debates really put some people off. Many previously frequent posters left the forums all together.
-
I don't see why. People shouldn't be emotional about debates like these. In fact, they're good practice for controlling one's emotions in all such arguments, debates, confrontations, whether through text on the internet or through speech face-to-face.
Dan and I both became huffy because I made the mistake of straying into territory he knew he could not keep himself from becoming emotional about. That's the sort of mistake one needs to make clear should not be made before the debate begins, as we both learned.
-
The debates themselves are often counterproductive in terms of persuading people. They can be useful in other ways though, and people who leave the forums over them are just being dramatists.
-
Exactly. The whole point is that you have fun and that you consider the opposing point of view and learn from the experience. The only way you'll actually convince the other side is if they're not all that strong in their convictions, and that almost never happens.
-
I left the forums once or twice, actually. Though it was mostly to preserve the peace. When I'd cooled down and felt that I could talk peacably again, I returned.
-
I left the forums once or twice, actually. Though it was mostly to preserve the peace. When I'd cooled down and felt that I could talk peacably again, I returned.
Now see, that's a good thing. If you ARE getting too emotional, leaving for a bit to cool down is sensible.
It's the people who leave and never come back that are being ridiculous.
-
Kyronea, while some people might enjoy it, I sure don't. It's never about having fun for me. It's about exposing the poisonous lies or blissful ignorance of others.
-
Kyronea, while some people might enjoy it, I sure don't. It's never about having fun for me. It's about exposing the poisonous lies or blissful ignorance of others.
Surely that is fun?
People need to have more fun in their lives. Really. It helps.
-
Kyronea, while some people might enjoy it, I sure don't. It's never about having fun for me. It's about exposing the poisonous lies or blissful ignorance of others.
Surely that is fun?
People need to have more fun in their lives. Really. It helps.
ZEALITY BREAK
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Grimmjow2.jpg)
-
Kyronea, while some people might enjoy it, I sure don't. It's never about having fun for me. It's about exposing the poisonous lies or blissful ignorance of others.
This is how I feel too.
-
Kyronea, while some people might enjoy it, I sure don't. It's never about having fun for me. It's about exposing the poisonous lies or blissful ignorance of others.
Surely that is fun?
People need to have more fun in their lives. Really. It helps.
Fun clouds the perception.
Anyway, that Socratic bit said, on what I was talking about before, I have a quote that might serve as a bit of a vindication.
'Now take the acquisition of knowledge; is the body a hinrance or not, if one takes it into parnership to share an investigation? What I mean is this: isthere any certainty in human sight or hearing, or is it true, as the poets are always dinning into our ears, that we neither hear nor see anything accurately? Yet if these senses are not clear and accurate, the rest can hardly be so, because they are all inferior to the first two. Then when is it that the soul arives at truth? When it tires to investigate anything with the help of the body, it is obviously led astray. Is it not in the course of reflection, if at all, that the soul gets a clear view of the facts? Surely the soul can best reflect when it is free of all distractions such as hearing or sight or pain or pleasure of any kind - that is, when it ignores the body and becomes as far as possible independent, avoiding all physical contacts and associations as much as it can, in its search for reality. Then here too - in despising the body and avoiding it, and endeavouring to become independent - the philosopher's soul is ahead of all the rest. Here are some more questions, Simmias. Do we recognize such a thing as absolute uprightness? And absolute beauty and goodness, too? Have you ever seen any of these things iwth your eyes? Well, have you ever apprehended them with any other bodily sense? By "them" I mean not only absolute tallness or or health or strength, but the real nature of any given thing - what it actually is. Is it hrough the body that we get the truest perception of them? Isn't it true that in any inquirely you are more likely to attain more nearly to knowledge of your object in proportion to the care and accuracy with which you have prepared yourself to understand that object itself? Don't you think taht the person who is likely to succeed in this attempt most perfectly is the one who approaches the object, as far as possible, with the unaided intellect, without taking account of any ssense of sight in his thinking, or dragging any other sense into his reckoning - the man who pursues the truth by applying his pure and unadulterated thought to the pure and unadulterated object, cutting himself off as much as possible from his eyes and ears and virtually all the rest of the body, as an inpediment which by its presence prevents the soul from attaining to truth and clear thinking? Is not this the person, Simmias, who will reach the goal of reality, if anybody can?' - Phaedo, 65:9-66:8
It's interesting, because I had not read this before now. However it seems to be that, in arguing my case earlier, I was following similar thought-patterns for my philosophy. Even so, this all says it in far clearer words than I was capable of. There is this concept that what is empiricle can only give a shadowy show of truth because it is always just a lesser form of an eternal absolute. To truly understand a thing means to examine it apart from the limiting constraints, and examine the absolutes. This, though impossible to do entirely within life, can at least be striven for. The questions that is being asked is 'what stands behind this?' Truth is not found inherent in a thing, but behind it, and as such an empiricle analysis cannot give us anything more than a semi-complete answer as to the truth of a thing. This can be seen by the examination of such concepts of 'beauty'. For the relative concept to exist (ie. a thing is more beautiful than another), there must be an absoulte standard by which to define it (that is a logical neccessity.) As such, there is then something that might be called True Beauty, but since everything we see is only on the relative scale of it, we will never be able to understand the truth of the matter using empirical examination of the senses - it must be considered in isolation apart from them if any real understanding is to be reached. This was at the core of my critisism empirical approaches.
You must remember, this was written in a time when empirical science was being very much pursued.
-
Some of those debates really put some people off. Many previously frequent posters left the forums all together.
That is why I just stay out of these kind of topics all together. I don't comment on things, I know nothing, or very little about.
I don't see why. People shouldn't be emotional about debates like these. In fact, they're good practice for controlling one's emotions in all such arguments, debates, confrontations, whether through text on the internet or through speech face-to-face.
To leave a forum over one topic you don't agree with is ridiculous. And those kind of people who would leave over such a thing, I say good riddance. Well said, Kyronea.
-
It's not one topic though. There were heaps of controversial debates.
-
It's not one topic though. There were heaps of controversial debates.
Really? I never noticed too much. Mainly because I just stayed out of them I guess.
Who left forever? I'm curious as to who left, and how many, since you said it turned off a lot of people.
-
I don't see why. People shouldn't be emotional about debates like these. In fact, they're good practice for controlling one's emotions in all such arguments, debates, confrontations, whether through text on the internet or through speech face-to-face.
To leave a forum over one topic you don't agree with is ridiculous. And those kind of people who would leave over such a thing, I say good riddance. Well said, Kyronea.
And the moral of this week's story? "Easier said than done."
-
It's not one topic though. There were heaps of controversial debates.
Really? I never noticed too much. Mainly because I just stayed out of them I guess.
Who left forever? I'm curious as to who left, and how many, since you said it turned off a lot of people.
Sentenal? Krispy for a while. Er, some other guys.
-
its not over the topic itself. more like, if the people you come on the forum to talk to are all sitting there mocking something you really really like, why keep talking on said forums? and sure you could fight, but not everyone wants to
example:
the viewer is a ps3 fanboy
Person 1: lol this topic is as dumb as sony for releaseing the ps3 at $900
person 2: lol yea, sony is retarded.
person 1: yea, and anyone who likes them must be stupid.
now if persons 1 and 2 are your best friends on the forum, you might get mad at this.
but this is about more important things than game systems, i see a lot of people mocing religion here. thats as bad as being racest in terms of singleing out people and offending them.
example:
the viewer is a christian
Person 1: lol this topic is as dumb as the bible
person 2: lol yea, jesus is retarded
person 1: yea, and anyone who believes in him must be stupid.
now if persons 1 and 2 are your best friends on the forum, you might get mad at this.
okay, but not everyone is like that on these forums. they try to be as respectful as they can when talking, but they still say that.
lets say your black, and your life long best friend comes over and says to you
"lol, your a nigger, and all niggers are stupid"
keep in mind hes not joking or anything. we'll say hes been hanging out with racest people lately, and thats why hes like this, if you want a reason.
now if he says
"sorry. i dont like you anymore be cause your skin is a differant color than mine, and i believe that makes you less inteligent than me and other people of my skin color, i hope your not offended."
you're still going to get offended, and mad. and some of you will say "thats his problem" but if hes your life long best friend you would expect more from him than that, so dont give me that BS.
you wouldnt be his friend anymore.
anyway, now i've showen you that being respectful, your words can still piss people off.
so lets say you go to a group on the internet, and everyone likes final fantasy 9, and so do you, so you join, but in every topic theres something like "lol, yea boss 6 was a nigger" or something along those lines. would you really put up with it? or would you just go somewhere else?
----------------------------------------------------------
question: how can being a ps3 fanboy hater be like being racest?
answer: cause you hate someone based on only one thing, regardless of wether they're good people or not.
question: why did you only use christians and blacks? isnt that racest?
answer: im christian, so i know what thats like, and one of my friends is black and had that happen to him, and maybe you could view it as racest, but i'm not saying black people are christians are any better or worse than anyone else, so i personaly wouldnt view it as such.
question: didnt you blow this out of porportion?
anwser: i zoomed in so you could see all the flaws easyer.
question: why dony you use spell check, and proper grammer?
answer: too lazy, but i took english 101 in collage, and i have firefox spell checker, so dont think its cause i cant.
----------------------------------------------------------
short version: you only say its stupid because you don't know whats its like, dumbasses.
-
short version: you only say its stupid because you don't know whats its like, dumbasses.
Hmm.. No
-
short version: you only say its stupid because you don't know whats its like, dumbasses.
I'm a dumbass? Hmmm, news to me.
Every example you listed is far too extreme. We have never been racist, or taken cheap shots at anyone in this forum. I for one am offended that you would even associate this forums members with that sort of blatant hatred.
We treat people with respect and courtesy here. If we disagree, we give good reasons, and do them calmly. We don't just shout stupid BS to someone we disagree with. We don't roll like that here. Not now, not ever.
And I don't appreciate being called a dumbass. I'm a dumbass, because I don't feel the same way you do? That's real mature. Even if it wasn't aimed at me, your so called quote was uncalled for. And "dumbasses" must mean we as a forum. And calling everyone here a dumbass, is not a smart move on your part.
Take this crap somewhere else.
-
no one on this forum is a dumbass, just proving to you guys who say "dont be offended by internet text" that its easyer said than done. also, as i said, it is the same, but less extreme.
-
no one on this forum is a dumbass, just proving to you guys who say "dont be offended by internet text" that its easyer said than done. also, as i said, it is the same, but less extreme.
Touche. I see you point now.
I know when I'm bested. :lol:
I still stick with my post, because that's how I truly feel. But I get your point too.
This is one of the few forums I frequent, so I feel a strong bond to it. So I'll defend it to the death.
-
no one on this forum is a dumbass, just proving to you guys who say "dont be offended by internet text" that its easyer said than done. also, as i said, it is the same, but less extreme.
The examples you give aren't analogous. I can chose to buy or not buy a PS3, and then later change my mind. I cannot chose the color of my skin, nor the social context I was born in to.
It is certainly easy to offend people via the internet, which is why we here strive for a respectful tone in our discussions. People can disagree without disrespecting each other.
-
The thing many people often forget, though, is that the internet is not some magical fantasy land separate from the rest of the world. People abuse the anonymity the internet affords them--to those who don't know how to find out who you are--and are often much ruder and spew more hatred than they would ever dare in person, and that can hurt feelings. Emotions are powerful and affect our lives in so many ways...probably one of the most important things to manage when it comes to health and well-being.
The internet is just another method of communication and information transfer, like telephones, television, books, radio, and so on. That's all...it's not a separate reality the way people act like it is, and I really wish more people would realize that. It would certainly make it a nicer place.
-
@Ramsus: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that when someone makes a completely voluntary decision (like buying a PS3), then we are allowed to criticize them? So if I become homosexual, I too am allowed to be criticized? Probably misunderstood you, so yeah, correct me if I'm wrong.
-
You know, after asking and receiving several replies, many to the sound of "go away, never to return", Sora has done a terrible job fulfilling our utmost wishes!
Certainly sir, calling the fine members of this forum "dumbasses" because they completely disagree with your rather circular form of logic is certainly not a way to make many friends.
I'm hoping that you catch on to the message behind my rather sensitively written assessment of your stay at the Compendium. AND IF NOT: GTFO YOU FAILURE.
I'm fairly certain I'll wrap this up in Zeality fashion (I hear it's all the rage these days), for the lulz.
(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3645/picardfacepalmyb0.jpg)
-
Ouch, I haven't seen this much antagonism directed at one member on the forums since...
You-know-who.
-
Ouch, I haven't seen this much antagonism directed at one member on the forums since...
You-know-who.
The one whose name shall not be spoken. NOT. BE. SPOKEN.
-
I think he's talking about Clay, not Lord J.
-
Clay? You mean Ye Grande Olde Idiot?
Jesus, why is that wordfilter still active? I mean, I wanted it to be for purposes of this post, but damn.
-
You know, after asking and receiving several replies, many to the sound of "go away, never to return", Sora has done a terrible job fulfilling our utmost wishes!
Certainly sir, calling the fine members of this forum "dumbasses" because they completely disagree with your rather circular form of logic is certainly not a way to make many friends.
I'm hoping that you catch on to the message behind my rather sensitively written assessment of your stay at the Compendium. AND IF NOT: GTFO YOU FAILURE.
I'm fairly certain I'll wrap this up in Zeality fashion (I hear it's all the rage these days), for the lulz.
fail. become an hero.
-
You know, after asking and receiving several replies, many to the sound of "go away, never to return", Sora has done a terrible job fulfilling our utmost wishes!
Certainly sir, calling the fine members of this forum "dumbasses" because they completely disagree with your rather circular form of logic is certainly not a way to make many friends.
I'm hoping that you catch on to the message behind my rather sensitively written assessment of your stay at the Compendium. AND IF NOT: GTFO YOU FAILURE.
I'm fairly certain I'll wrap this up in Zeality fashion (I hear it's all the rage these days), for the lulz.
fail. become an hero.
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
-
I think he's talking about Clay, not Lord J.
You're right about Clay, but where'd you get the idea that cupn00dles was talking about you? Someone wants a bit o' attention it seems :P
-
I think he's talking about Clay, not Lord J.
You're right about Clay, but where'd you get the idea that cupn00dles was talking about you? Someone wants a bit o' attention it seems :P
The Lord of Jayness is a sarcastic one, you know. Even sarcastic Lords need attention, once in a while. Otherwise they start crying like a poodle puppy.
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
Dear god, what a funny spelling.
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
Dear god, what a funny spelling.
I see all my spelling and grammar mistakes, but I'm too lazy to correct them.
and yea, just cause theres a typo in the post you should disregard it.
by the way its God, not god. also what the fuck is that "a" doing there?
I'm just fine with you making posting mistakes, but if you're going to be a grammar Nazi and spelling Nazi fucking form your sentence without any flaws!
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
Dear god, what a funny spelling.
I see all my spelling and grammar mistakes, but I'm too lazy to correct them.
and yea, just cause theres a typo in the post you should disregard it.
by the way its God, not god. also what the fuck is that "a" doing there?
I'm just fine with you making posting mistakes, but if you're going to be a grammar Nazi and spelling Nazi fucking form your sentence without any flaws!
It depends on which god a person is referring to, really.
Also, your spelling is a funny one. Treating your spelling as a unique entity by referring to it with an indefinite article should be classified as a neologism, at worst. Also, fuck grammar. Linguistics are the topic at hand, if you wish to write about casual internet communication, which emulates casual speech.
Anyways, bad spelling is perfectly understandable, when it doesn't rob a sentence of its meaning. Fact is, even if one is easily able to presume what 'but you've changed my mine on that' means, it doesn't change the fact that it is utterly funny, all things considered.
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
The irony is burning me.
BURNING ME, I SAY!
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
Dear god, what a funny spelling.
I see all my spelling and grammar mistakes, but I'm too lazy to correct them.
and yea, just cause theres a typo in the post you should disregard it.
by the way its God, not god. also what the fuck is that "a" doing there?
I'm just fine with you making posting mistakes, but if you're going to be a grammar Nazi and spelling Nazi fucking form your sentence without any flaws!
It depends on which god a person is referring to, really.
Also, your spelling is a funny one. Treating your spelling as a unique entity by referring to it with an indefinite article should be classified as a neologism, at worst. Also, fuck grammar. Linguistics are the topic at hand, if you wish to write about casual internet communication, which emulates casual speech.
Anyways, bad spelling is perfectly understandable, when it doesn't rob a sentence of its meaning. Fact is, even if one is easily able to presume what 'but you've changed my mine on that' means, it doesn't change the fact that it is utterly funny, all things considered.
there you go. an indepth look and diesecting of the post instead of a mear summery. this post is respectable. if you posted more like this i wouldnt have a problem with you. and im sure others would be the same (though i am sure they dont dislike you like i do, they probally think you're immature, and yea, i know they think that of me, but just cause im a hypocrit doesnt mean im wrong)
-
Hahahaha.
I just noticed I wrote 'unique entity'. I wonder if the English word 'unique' serves as a synonym of 'particular', like we have it in Portuguese, or if it serves only to express a 'one of a kind' concept.
-
Emo weeaboo idiots are not permitted to speak in such a manner.
Get off my ebaums.
wow, how sad. you've been here about 4 times longer than me, yet you still havent figured out this place isnt failchan?
i'm surprised you havent called me a "newfag" yet -.-|||
anyway, i know your use to spaming goatse and tubgirl to get your point across, so your not very good at talking normaly, but still; would you atleast try not to me a dumbass? i said in a post above that no one on this forum is a dumbass and i just said that to prove you can get offended on the web very easely, but you've changed my mine on that.
Dear god, what a funny spelling.
I see all my spelling and grammar mistakes, but I'm too lazy to correct them.
and yea, just cause theres a typo in the post you should disregard it.
by the way its God, not god. also what the fuck is that "a" doing there?
I'm just fine with you making posting mistakes, but if you're going to be a grammar Nazi and spelling Nazi fucking form your sentence without any flaws!
It depends on which god a person is referring to, really.
Also, your spelling is a funny one. Treating your spelling as a unique entity by referring to it with an indefinite article should be classified as a neologism, at worst. Also, fuck grammar. Linguistics are the topic at hand, if you wish to write about casual internet communication, which emulates casual speech.
Anyways, bad spelling is perfectly understandable, when it doesn't rob a sentence of its meaning. Fact is, even if one is easily able to presume what 'but you've changed my mine on that' means, it doesn't change the fact that it is utterly funny, all things considered.
there you go. an indepth look and diesecting of the post instead of a mear summery. this post is respectable. if you posted more like this i wouldnt have a problem with you. and im sure others would be the same (though i am sure they dont dislike you like i do, they probally think you're immature, and yea, i know they think that of me, but just cause im a hypocrit doesnt mean im wrong)
I doubt very seriously you're on speaking terms with any of them, so I'll politely redirect you to the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
Have a great day! ^_^;;; (LOL LOOK AT ME I'M SO KAWAII DASU DASU THE POOL IS OFFLIMITS)
Hahahaha.
I just noticed I wrote 'unique entity'. I wonder if the English word 'unique' serves as a synonym of 'particular', like we have it in Portuguese, or if it serves only to express a 'one of a kind' concept.
I'm fairly certain your usage is acceptable, no worries about that mate.
-
Fuck all of you. Locked.