Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 262 of 262
Like Tree144Likes

Thread: Why are creationists dolts?

  1. #201  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    One of the problems is not reading what I write. . Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem. I will try to be even more simple.... It is clear to me that some folks jumped on my statement, not because they could not understand my statement, they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion triggered a knee jerk response. If that hatred was not triggered they would have been able to read clearly and understand, easily, what I had written.Some on this thread have also been extremely lazy, not reading what I wrote but rather, only reading what others claimed I wrote as if I wrote it.. lol..
    What, in your view, has what others have written to do with what I am asking you? My questions were directly related to the text of yours I quoted. I do not personally harbour hatred for the religious and I hope you are not implying that I do. I was making a straightforward point.
    Your point was an invalid one though Kalster. Correct me if I am wrong but you tried to make the point that I only stated that its reasonably possible intelligent beings could be out there tinkering in the universe and nothing stating that its reasonably possible there is no highly intelligent beings outside of earth. This is just not the case.

    Your point was that I have only spoke on one side of this equation, and thats not true. There is clearly no "god", no Christian god or Allah but, the idea being pushed here that everything in the universe, without doubt and for a fact, is all natural, is not so clad iron or known either. It could be so, it could not be so as well. If some of the people on this thread have a hard time understanding that, if they cant understand this and if they cant understand this, I don't care.
    No, you responded to my first post saying you never said you were sure and I then responded by saying that I did qualify it by saying "as sure". It stands to reason that if you hold that there is a "good possibility" that advanced alien beings are out there, that you are not excluding that there aren't. I even agreed with you that such intelligent being might exist and that most of us would agree with that, but also that we might not state it as confidently as you are.

    My questions were about whether such beings would qualify as gods and then I made the point about the need to look at probabilities. I tried to explain to you why I feel comfortable discounting the existence of gods and that I think it is the same position most atheists hold. You said you will not listen to people who know gods don't exist and I tried to explain why I am feeling comfortable saying as much. I then asked if it is such an unreasonable position to have.

    I hope it is clearer now and that you will feel free to answer my questions.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    but to declare for a fact that all things are natural is just as silly as believing god did it all.
    Oh, wrong.
    Since there is absolutely zero evidence for "god" then, on balance of probabilities alone, "everything is natural" makes sense.
    stonecutter likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    What? Lol.. I will try to make this extremely easy for you. Its simple. I do not agree with the absolutes being pushed in this thread. The choices being pushed on this thread of either all god or all natural for everything in the universe is stupid and narrow minded. Believing in god itself is silly but to declare for a fact that all things are natural is just as silly as believing god did it all.
    On the other hand, we can make decisions based on evidence.

    While those not interested in science can, of course, believe what they want.
    stonecutter likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I was walking to work on campus the other day and saw this set up in our main yard:



    It was an impressive amount of work put into something so devoid of substance. It was a triangle with canvas on all sides. We get these people all the time, usually it's the same group, but this guy really put some effort into his presentation. Of course, it immediately went downhill when he called people who subscribe to evolution "evolutionists".

    I don't know what kind of resolution you get from the photos here, but you can zoom in and see the questions. They make no sense whatsoever.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I was walking to work on campus the other day and saw this set up in our main yard:

    [photo deleted for clarity]

    It was an impressive amount of work put into something so devoid of substance. It was a triangle with canvas on all sides. We get these people all the time, usually it's the same group, but this guy really put some effort into his presentation. Of course, it immediately went downhill when he called people who subscribe to evolution "evolutionists".

    I don't know what kind of resolution you get from the photos here, but you can zoom in and see the questions. They make no sense whatsoever.

    Their counterarguments are almost as old as their source material.


    PS: One of the statements in the middle canvas is: "Do creationists believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?" and the answer is: "Some creationists believe in a young earth and some don't". Funny how they do not agree about the age on the Earth based on their own book.
    Flick Montana and Bad Robot like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    One of the problems is not reading what I write. . Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem. I will try to be even more simple.... It is clear to me that some folks jumped on my statement, not because they could not understand my statement, they did so because their hatred and bigotry for and towards religion triggered a knee jerk response. If that hatred was not triggered they would have been able to read clearly and understand, easily, what I had written.Some on this thread have also been extremely lazy, not reading what I wrote but rather, only reading what others claimed I wrote as if I wrote it.. lol..
    What, in your view, has what others have written to do with what I am asking you? My questions were directly related to the text of yours I quoted. I do not personally harbour hatred for the religious and I hope you are not implying that I do. I was making a straightforward point.
    Your point was an invalid one though Kalster. Correct me if I am wrong but you tried to make the point that I only stated that its reasonably possible intelligent beings could be out there tinkering in the universe and nothing stating that its reasonably possible there is no highly intelligent beings outside of earth. This is just not the case.Your point was that I have only spoke on one side of this equation, and thats not true. There is clearly no "god", no Christian god or Allah but, the idea being pushed here that everything in the universe, without doubt and for a fact, is all natural, is not so clad iron or known either. It could be so, it could not be so as well. If some of the people on this thread have a hard time understanding that, if they cant understand this and if they cant understand this, I don't care.
    No, you responded to my first post saying you never said you were sure and I then responded by saying that I did qualify it by saying "as sure". It stands to reason that if you hold that there is a "good possibility" that advanced alien beings are out there, that you are not excluding that there aren't. I even agreed with you that such intelligent being might exist and that most of us would agree with that, but also that we might not state it as confidently as you are. My questions were about whether such beings would qualify as gods and then I made the point about the need to look at probabilities. I tried to explain to you why I feel comfortable discounting the existence of gods and that I think it is the same position most atheists hold. You said you will not listen to people who know gods don't exist and I tried to explain why I am feeling comfortable saying as much. I then asked if it is such an unreasonable position to have.I hope it is clearer now and that you will feel free to answer my questions.
    I know where I stand and what I believe. No one can tell me what I think or what I believe. Kalster, my refusal to believe or hold as fact that everything in the universe has been created or influenced solely by natural processes is not due to any belief in other intelligent beings existing. I do not believe they do exist, I believe it is a reasonable possibility. Because of that, you, or anyone else, will not and cannot make me believe all things, everything, outside of our little solar system, as a matter of fact, is all natural and unaltered or lacking any influence by intelligent life forms. I think a second grader could understand this position and why.. Not based on faith or religion either but rather, based on math and science.
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 17th, 2014 at 07:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Kalster, concerning "god" or "gods", the definition holds and has many meanings to many different people and cultures. I am sure you know this already. I am not sure what you are asking concerning "god".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    my refusal to believe or hold as fact that everything in the universe has been created or influenced solely by natural processes is not due to any belief in other intelligent beings existing.
    Why do you believe something other than natural processes must be at work? Where does science no longer sufficiently explain this to you?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I know where I stand and what I believe. No one can tell me what I think or what I believe. Kalster, my refusal to believe or hold as fact that everything in the universe has been created or influenced solely by natural processes is not due to any belief in other intelligent beings existing. I do not believe they do exist, I believe it is a reasonable possibility. Because of that, you, or anyone else, will not and cannot make me believe all things, everything, outside of our little solar system, as a matter of fact, is all natural and unaltered or lacking any influence by intelligent life forms. I think a second grader could understand this position and why.. Not based on faith or religion either but rather, based on math and science.
    I am not trying to "make" you believe anything. I am telling you what my position is and why I have it and that I believe most atheists hold a similar position. I then ask if you think it is such an unreasonable position to have.

    I already said, multiple times now, that most of us would agree that there is a possibility of intelligent beings having their fingers in the pie on some level. We are in agreement on that mostly!

    I am not attacking you, I am asking questions so we can better understand each other.

    Kalster, concerning "god" or "gods", the definition holds and has many meanings to many different people and cultures. I am sure you know this already. I am not sure what you are asking concerning "god".
    The question is about whether these possible, universe creating intelligent beings would qualify as gods as required by the major religions or belief systems. The thing about such intelligent beings is the same as with the panspermia debate; even though they might be responsible for everything we see, they themselves still had to come from somewhere. Unless the universe is infinite in time and that intelligent beings have always been there, they would have had to have evolved as well and would have had to have originated from a process of abiogenesis . Given that, the existence of universe creating intelligent being simply pushes back the inevitable question of where we came from.

    Again, I am not trying to make you believe anything, I am trying to get to the bottom of your position.
    Last edited by KALSTER; April 17th, 2014 at 08:31 AM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    May I just point out that scientists and theists are both Creationists, but with a different version of Creation.
    Nearly all scientists worship the idea of the Big Bang as the Creation, with QM, Special and General Relativity as if they are the works of God. Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes! Should this be true then the theist has a particularly weak, narrow and pathetic interpretation of God, while the scientist has a much stronger interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    May I just point out that scientists and theists are both Creationists, but with a different version of Creation.
    Wrong, scientists work on evidence not belief. Creationism as discussed here is the idea that "Goddidit", the antithesis of science.

    Nearly all scientists worship the idea of the Big Bang as the Creation, with QM, Special and General Relativity as if they are the works of God.
    Apart from all those scientists (possibly a majority judging by the link the duck gave here) that have no belief in God or who are agnostic you mean? No scientists I have worked with or met worship any theory. They accept them as the best model of reality we have. That is not worship. In fact I can't think of a single case where myself or any of my colleagues have discussed religious beliefs and how they affect how we do science, if your assertion was correct surely this would be a key discussion in any project don't you think?

    Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes! Should this be true then the theist has a particularly weak, narrow and pathetic interpretation of God, while the scientist has a much stronger interpretation.
    These are speculative hypotheses not theory and if you stay away from popsci books and fringe nonsense about them I don't think you'll find any scientist bringing God into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes!
    M can stand for Magic, Matrix or Mystery according to Witten but Multiverse is not one of the options.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes!
    M can stand for Magic, Matrix or Mystery according to Witten but Multiverse is not one of the options.
    Excuse me. I did not say it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    May I just point out that scientists and theists are both Creationists, but with a different version of Creation.
    Nearly all scientists worship the idea of the Big Bang as the Creation, with QM, Special and General Relativity as if they are the works of God. Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes! Should this be true then the theist has a particularly weak, narrow and pathetic interpretation of God, while the scientist has a much stronger interpretation.
    Sorry, but this is nonsense.

    Nobody worships the Big Bang. It is not an issue of faith. It is a scientific theory, arrived at by the scientific method, which means it is subject to amendment or even rejection should better evidence present itself. And the Big bang has nothing to say about where whatever "exploded" came from. We simply don't know.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No scientists I have worked with or met worship any theory.
    Really? You mean they do not worship Newton or Einstein - maybe not as deities, but as geniuses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,436
    That is respect not worship, there is a HUGE difference...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No scientists I have worked with or met worship any theory.
    Really? You mean they do not worship Newton or Einstein - maybe not as deities, but as geniuses.
    Maybe you have a different definition of what "worship" means. Revere is not the same a worship. Both of those people were wrong about quite a few things as well.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Nobody worships the Big Bang. It is not an issue of faith. It is a scientific theory, arrived at by the scientific method, which means it is subject to amendment or even rejection should better evidence present itself. And the Big bang has nothing to say about where whatever "exploded" came from. We simply don't know.
    I would still regard it as a form of worship, and as such it is not totally proven just like God is not proven. Who knows what they will be saying in the future about the level of science today.

    I did say that scientists worship the idea. I did not say they worshipped the Big Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    May I just point out that scientists and theists are both Creationists, but with a different version of Creation.
    Nearly all scientists worship the idea of the Big Bang as the Creation, with QM, Special and General Relativity as if they are the works of God. Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes! Should this be true then the theist has a particularly weak, narrow and pathetic interpretation of God, while the scientist has a much stronger interpretation.
    [insert]Sound track of derisive incredulous laughter[/insert]
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Nobody worships the Big Bang. It is not an issue of faith. It is a scientific theory, arrived at by the scientific method, which means it is subject to amendment or even rejection should better evidence present itself. And the Big bang has nothing to say about where whatever "exploded" came from. We simply don't know.
    I would still regard it as a form of worship, and as such it is not totally proven just like God is not proven. Who knows what they will be saying in the future about the level of science today.
    Then you are broadening the definition of worship in order to suit your preconceptions. Nobody (sane) worships the big bang and it is fully understood that it might turn out to be wrong. You are creating a false dilemma here and trying to conflate faith with science. You are failing.
    Paleoichneum and stonecutter like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Excuse me. I did not say it was.
    You stated M was a multiverse theory, I merely corrected you that it is not.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Kalster, my position is a simple one to understand... Again, I do not know. It's that simple. When we discuss the term "god", as it applies to most modern faiths today, that bar, for beings, technology wise, is very low.. Right? It seems as if any trick or technology beyond the ability of humans can be used to label someone or something as a god, and millions will claim it as such.

    The word or term god is not for me. I understand superiority, lord, king, power, etc.. Those terms, words, are far more realistic and perhaps can, will and do often cross over into the word/term "god" IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I know where I stand and what I believe. No one can tell me what I think or what I believe. Kalster, my refusal to believe or hold as fact that everything in the universe has been created or influenced solely by natural processes is not due to any belief in other intelligent beings existing. I do not believe they do exist, I believe it is a reasonable possibility. Because of that, you, or anyone else, will not and cannot make me believe all things, everything, outside of our little solar system, as a matter of fact, is all natural and unaltered or lacking any influence by intelligent life forms. I think a second grader could understand this position and why.. Not based on faith or religion either but rather, based on math and science.
    I am not trying to "make" you believe anything. I am telling you what my position is and why I have it and that I believe most atheists hold a similar position. I then ask if you think it is such an unreasonable position to have. I already said, multiple times now, that most of us would agree that there is a possibility of intelligent beings having their fingers in the pie on some level. We are in agreement on that mostly!I am not attacking you, I am asking questions so we can better understand each other.
    Kalster, concerning "god" or "gods", the definition holds and has many meanings to many different people and cultures. I am sure you know this already. I am not sure what you are asking concerning "god".
    The question is about whether these possible, universe creating intelligent beings would qualify as gods as required by the major religions or belief systems. The thing about such intelligent beings is the same as with the panspermia debate; even though they might be responsible for everything we see, they themselves still had to come from somewhere. Unless the universe is infinite in time and that intelligent beings have always been there, they would have had to have evolved as well and would have had to have originated from a process of abiogenesis . Given that, the existence of universe creating intelligent being simply pushes back the inevitable question of where we came from. Again, I am not trying to make you believe anything, I am trying to get to the bottom of your position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Excuse me. I did not say it was.
    You stated M was a multiverse theory, I merely corrected you that it is not.
    Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes!
    Please read carefully what I actually said. I was not saying that M stands for Multiverse.

    As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as religion. There might be worship of a deity or worship of a personality or worship of an idea, but that does not imply there is any sort of god whatsoever. It's all interpretation, and interpretation finds its way into both religion and science. When we get rid of interpretation we might start to find real answers. So you can exclude all religion because religion is based purely on interpretation, which leaves only science and mathematics which still rely on some interpretation, most notably in QM and the Platonic World.
    Mathematics is the only science that has proved itself a religion (de Sua)
    Could be sorta correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Excuse me. I did not say it was.
    You stated M was a multiverse theory, I merely corrected you that it is not.
    Some will go as far as M Theory where M (whatever it is) is a Multiverse of 10^500 Universes!
    Please read carefully what I actually said. I was not saying that M stands for Multiverse.
    Read what river_rat wrote: M theory is NOT a multiverse theory.
    M theory does not deal with, or postulate, a multiverse.

    As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as religion.
    Then, quite obviously, you're wrong.
    Religion(s) exist. It's that simple.

    There might be worship of a deity or worship of a personality or worship of an idea, but that does not imply there is any sort of god whatsoever.
    Of course not.
    But then again religion is predicated on the belief that there is.

    When we get rid of interpretation
    Starting, ideally, with yours.

    Mathematics is the only science that has proved itself a religion (de Sua) Could be sorta correct.
    "Sorta" is right.
    You quoted it incorrectly: [Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be a religion under this definition. But] mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified.
    Echoing John Barrow's "...mathematics is the only religion that can prove itself to be one!"
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 17th, 2014 at 10:40 AM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Again, if someone cannot understand what I wrote, thats not my problem.
    Then continue to be ignored and/or misunderstood.
    Bad Robot and stonecutter like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, my position is a simple one to understand... Again, I do not know. It's that simple.
    I understood this much before I made my first post to you.

    Once again, I am trying to explain to you why I am confidant that there aren't any gods, that it is a matter of probabilities and the probabilities for the existence of the gods of the major religions are stacked against them in my opinion. You said you don't listen to people saying they know, I am trying to tell you where that comes from and asking for your comments on it. I don't know how many times I have to ask for it.

    When we discuss the term "god", as it applies to most modern faiths today, that bar, for beings, technology wise, is very low.. Right? It seems as if any trick or technology beyond the ability of humans can be used to label someone or something as a god, and millions will claim it as such.

    The word or term god is not for me. I understand superiority, lord, king, power, etc.. Those terms, words, are far more realistic and perhaps can, will and do often cross over into the word/term "god" IMO.
    I don't agree. The bar is in fact ludicrously high, which adds to the improbability of them existing. We are dealing with a being who supposedly knows every bit of information there ever was and will be in our universe, who has the ability to do anything imaginable. That is not a low bar.

    The word or term god is not for me. I understand superiority, lord, king, power, etc.. Those terms, words, are far more realistic and perhaps can, will and do often cross over into the word/term "god" IMO.
    I agree here mostly. As humans we have a propensity for developing religions around some of the most mundane things. I can't think of a realistic situation in which the definition of the god of the major religions can exist. Anything with a reasonable possibility of existing would only fit the bill in terms of superiority in some areas. I would never blindly follow or worship such a being though, no matter how superior it is.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as religion.
    Tell that to the 1.2 billion Catholics and see if they agree with you.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as religion.
    Tell that to the 1.2 billion Catholics and see if they agree with you.
    Again, what I said is that as far as I am concerned.
    But it just goes to show that 1.2 billion people are totally and utterly wrong. You can add another billion muslims. They think they follow a religion but they are 100% deluded. What they follow is a fantasy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Nobody worships the Big Bang.
    *puts down his knife and releases the goat*

    ...yeah. Cause that'd be, like, crazy....right?
    KALSTER, adelady, RedPanda and 1 others like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Again, what I said is that as far as I am concerned.
    But it just goes to show that 1.2 billion people are totally and utterly wrong. You can add another billion muslims. They think they follow a religion but they are 100% deluded. What they follow is a fantasy
    .
    So at least 3 billion people are totally and utterly wrong, and you're correct.

    Have you made your appointment at the mental health clinic yet?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I was walking to work on campus the other day and saw this set up in our main yard:

    [photo deleted for clarity]

    It was an impressive amount of work put into something so devoid of substance. It was a triangle with canvas on all sides. We get these people all the time, usually it's the same group, but this guy really put some effort into his presentation. Of course, it immediately went downhill when he called people who subscribe to evolution "evolutionists".

    I don't know what kind of resolution you get from the photos here, but you can zoom in and see the questions. They make no sense whatsoever.

    Their counterarguments are almost as old as their source material.


    PS: One of the statements in the middle canvas is: "Do creationists believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?" and the answer is: "Some creationists believe in a young earth and some don't". Funny how they do not agree about the age on the Earth based on their own book.
    That's just how people are. With the same source material, people draw radically different conclusions in anything. Religion, politics, science. It would be surprising if they could agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    That's just how people are. With the same source material, people draw radically different conclusions in anything. Religion, politics, science. It would be surprising if they could agree.
    In science, we have guidelines against cherry-picking your data. That isn't a restriction for these people. They can pick and choose as they like. Defend that which is defensible and ignore what is not. It is no longer faith at that point. It's a bastardization of science and anyone who subscribes to it should be ashamed of themselves.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    That's just how people are. With the same source material, people draw radically different conclusions in anything. Religion, politics, science. It would be surprising if they could agree.
    In science, we have guidelines against cherry-picking your data. That isn't a restriction for these people. They can pick and choose as they like. Defend that which is defensible and ignore what is not. It is no longer faith at that point. It's a bastardization of science and anyone who subscribes to it should be ashamed of themselves.
    I don't see the problem as long as someone isn't actually standing in the way of science. Are you talking about people with an abstracted interpretation of their respective faiths or what exactly? You can have a religion, but not conflict with how science says the universe works because people can partition their minds/lives. Science fills one role, and spirituality/religion fills another. People shouldn't have to be ashamed of their culture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    That's just how people are. With the same source material, people draw radically different conclusions in anything. Religion, politics, science. It would be surprising if they could agree.
    In science, we have guidelines against cherry-picking your data. That isn't a restriction for these people. They can pick and choose as they like. Defend that which is defensible and ignore what is not. It is no longer faith at that point. It's a bastardization of science and anyone who subscribes to it should be ashamed of themselves.
    I don't see the problem as long as someone isn't actually standing in the way of science. Are you talking about people with an abstracted interpretation of their respective faiths or what exactly? You can have a religion, but not conflict with how science says the universe works because people can partition their minds/lives. Science fills one role, and spirituality/religion fills another. People shouldn't have to be ashamed of their culture.
    People are free to follow whichever religion they choose, as long as it doesn't encroach on other people's basic rights. WHen it comes to science, they should either subscribe to the scientific method or accept that they aren't doing science and stay out of it. I am talking about those who try and have their religions have a say in science, like creation "scientists" and the like.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    People shouldn't have to be ashamed of their culture.
    but they should be ashamed when they try to impose their culture onto others who don't share their beliefs
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I don't see the problem as long as someone isn't actually standing in the way of science.
    That's exactly what proponents of ID are doing. They are misguiding the masses when it comes to science. They are twisting and perverting what science either practices or has come to understand and they are creating a fallacious debate in regards to science and religion, thus impeding the public understanding of what makes the world around them actually function.

    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Are you talking about people with an abstracted interpretation of their respective faiths or what exactly? You can have a religion, but not conflict with how science says the universe works because people can partition their minds/lives. Science fills one role, and spirituality/religion fills another.
    I completely understand compartmentalization. If someone has a void in their life they need filled by religion, it is their prerogative to do so. I take offense to people who use improper science and pseudoscience in an attempt to put faith in place of science. Young Earth, for instance, is completely absurd yet many creationists try to defend it using pieces of ACTUAL science.

    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    People shouldn't have to be ashamed of their culture.
    They SHOULD be ashamed of stealing the results of hard work and scientific rigor to support their bogus pseudoscience. It's dishonest and lacks integrity.
    Last edited by Flick Montana; April 17th, 2014 at 08:05 PM. Reason: so peeved I couldn't spell properly
    adelady and stonecutter like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    That's just how people are. With the same source material, people draw radically different conclusions in anything. Religion, politics, science. It would be surprising if they could agree.
    In science, we have guidelines against cherry-picking your data. That isn't a restriction for these people. They can pick and choose as they like. Defend that which is defensible and ignore what is not. It is no longer faith at that point. It's a bastardization of science and anyone who subscribes to it should be ashamed of themselves.
    I don't see the problem as long as someone isn't actually standing in the way of science. Are you talking about people with an abstracted interpretation of their respective faiths or what exactly? You can have a religion, but not conflict with how science says the universe works because people can partition their minds/lives. Science fills one role, and spirituality/religion fills another. People shouldn't have to be ashamed of their culture.
    People are free to follow whichever religion they choose, as long as it doesn't encroach on other people's basic rights. WHen it comes to science, they should either subscribe to the scientific method or accept that they aren't doing science and stay out of it. I am talking about those who try and have their religions have a say in science, like creation "scientists" and the like.
    What if you have a religion, but it serves a different role in your life then science, so you let science do its job? I'm religious, but I have little problem accepting the scientific method and what science teaches. If science teaches something that my religious leaders say is wrong, I'm the kind to side with science there because religion trying to duke it out with science, well, that's sciences battlefield. I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    In as short a way as I can express it; because the scientific method demands that we rule out the improbable and God is the least probable answer for almost every question we have.
    Last edited by Flick Montana; April 17th, 2014 at 08:10 PM.
    Lynx_Fox and Bad Robot like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    In a short a way as I can express it; because the scientific method demands that we rule out the improbable and God is the least probable answer for almost every question we have.
    But you don't have to allow your religion to affect how you do science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    What if you have a religion, but it serves a different role in your life then science, so you let science do its job? I'm religious, but I have little problem accepting the scientific method and what science teaches. If science teaches something that my religious leaders say is wrong, I'm the kind to side with science there because religion trying to duke it out with science, well, that's sciences battlefield. I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    Then they don't. Like I said, you are free to practice your religion as you choose. If you allow science it's space and even find delight in it, then that is great.

    If we were to get into a discussion about the validity of some of the claims your religion makes, we will probably not see eye to eye. You might then be bumping against critical thinking. For example, old earth creationists might not be as bad as young earth creationists, but they are still make rather large leaps of faith and discount quite a lot that clashes with their beliefs.

    What are your beliefs if I may ask? Every one around me in my life are religious, but I don't spend my days berating them at every opportunity, even those that I have outed myself to regarding my atheism.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    In a short a way as I can express it; because the scientific method demands that we rule out the improbable and God is the least probable answer for almost every question we have.
    But you don't have to allow your religion to affect how you do science.
    Which is called compartmentalization and is the reason SOME scientists are religious.

    It's the reason I don't declare all religious scientists liars and cheats and demand they be tossed out.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    What if you have a religion, but it serves a different role in your life then science, so you let science do its job? I'm religious, but I have little problem accepting the scientific method and what science teaches. If science teaches something that my religious leaders say is wrong, I'm the kind to side with science there because religion trying to duke it out with science, well, that's sciences battlefield. I don't see why the two have to be in conflict.
    Then they don't. Like I said, you are free to practice your religion as you choose. If you allow science it's space and even find delight in it, then that is great.

    If we were to get into a discussion about the validity of some of the claims your religion makes, we will probably not see eye to eye. You might then be bumping against critical thinking. For example, old earth creationists might not be as bad as young earth creationists, but they are still make rather large leaps of faith and discount quite a lot that clashes with their beliefs.

    What are your beliefs if I may ask? Every one around me in my life are religious, but I don't spend my days berating them at every opportunity, even those that I have outed myself to regarding my atheism.
    I was raised cross-culturally in respect to religion, taught to respect my Jewish roots and intermittently celebrating the holiday's/keeping Sabbath but otherwise we were Christian's though I identified more with Judaism and, for example, don't count Jesus as part of G-d or anything and don't believe that Old Covenants can just be overwritten. Eventually I did a stint as an atheist, then came back to religion but with an attitude that I let the rules of science be top dog in its realm and when I approach scientific theories, not to let my religious views effect whether or not I see the evidence to support it. I view scripture as a tool for spirituality/ethics as opposed to something we should always take literally. It certainly isn't something we should try and use to argue against science or mathematics. I'm pretty liberal in general and outright reject a lot of paradigms I consider nonsensical. I also have a pretty abstract conception of G-d.
    Last edited by SowZ37; April 17th, 2014 at 02:58 PM.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    It's all interpretation, and interpretation finds its way into both religion and science. When we get rid of interpretation we might start to find real answers.
    Oh, c'mon. How is that supposed to work? You can't make sense of data, or apply knowledge, construct theorys, or test hypotheses without "interpreting" or finding meaning in information in some way.
    adelady and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I'm pretty liberal in general and outright reject a lot of paradigms I consider nonsensical. I also have a pretty abstract conception of G-d.
    I was also in such a position at one point. Problem was that the more I looked at my beliefs critically and honestly, the more I had to reject a bunch of religious tenets and eventually to the point where the whole thing didn't make any sense any more. I still remember what belief meant to me at times and in some ways, I miss it. But I can't see any way of ever going back to some form of belief. There is just nothing there.

    I still remember how I felt about atheists though and that is part of the reason I try to explain my position to the religious. Unfortunately a large proportion of them are incapable of seeing past the prejudices and warped perceptions that they have been brought up with. I do try to understand people as much as I can though. People generally try to do what they think is right, even when a lot of other people might have directly opposite ideas of what is right. We too easily dismiss other we don't understand as simply evil. Even the beheading radical Muslims think they are behaving morally.

    Do you feel a specific need for God in your life? I always like to contrast people's answers to such a question with how I see the world and how I view morality and such. I often find though that when people are pushed, that they can't really explain properly why and what they believe. They often just default to a string of logical fallacies that they try and argue in favour of, like any explanation, no matter how convoluted, is good enough if they believe in it strongly enough.

    I also have a hard time understanding what people say they really believe. Things like the fact that they are supposedly under 24/7 surveillance of everything they do, feel and think, or the fact that people believe in the concepts of heaven and hell. Particularly troubling is that people seem ok with it that by the far the majority of people will end up in unending torture according to their religion. Jesus Himself said in the Bible that nobody can go to heaven if not though him, so they necessarily believe that no matter how good a person you are, that you'll burn in eternal torture for not believing in Jesus. And they are fine with that. I can't understand that.
    Lynx_Fox and Bad Robot like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    It's all interpretation, and interpretation finds its way into both religion and science. When we get rid of interpretation we might start to find real answers.
    Oh, c'mon. How is that supposed to work? You can't make sense of data, or apply knowledge, construct theorys, or test hypotheses without "interpreting" or finding meaning in information in some way.
    Yep, a decidedly weird statement to make. It is because we don't know everything that we have to interpret what we are seeing. You can only really know straightforward facts.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    I've often wondered how religions would be doing if no one was raised to either believe or not believe in a God, but could be converted if they wanted to believe after age 21.

    I know what I think would happen, but at the same time know I'll never find out for sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    You can only really know straightforward facts.
    And even then you have to be careful that what you think is real, really is.

    This is mainly about perceptions and memory, but for those who spend the time it takes to watch it's worth it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8BcqrKOb1A
    KALSTER likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.



    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, my position is a simple one to understand... Again, I do not know. It's that simple.
    I understood this much before I made my first post to you. Once again, I am trying to explain to you why I am confidant that there aren't any gods, that it is a matter of probabilities and the probabilities for the existence of the gods of the major religions are stacked against them in my opinion. You said you don't listen to people saying they know, I am trying to tell you where that comes from and asking for your comments on it. I don't know how many times I have to ask for it.
    When we discuss the term "god", as it applies to most modern faiths today, that bar, for beings, technology wise, is very low.. Right? It seems as if any trick or technology beyond the ability of humans can be used to label someone or something as a god, and millions will claim it as such. The word or term god is not for me. I understand superiority, lord, king, power, etc.. Those terms, words, are far more realistic and perhaps can, will and do often cross over into the word/term "god" IMO.
    I don't agree. The bar is in fact ludicrously high, which adds to the improbability of them existing. We are dealing with a being who supposedly knows every bit of information there ever was and will be in our universe, who has the ability to do anything imaginable. That is not a low bar.
    The word or term god is not for me. I understand superiority, lord, king, power, etc.. Those terms, words, are far more realistic and perhaps can, will and do often cross over into the word/term "god" IMO.
    I agree here mostly. As humans we have a propensity for developing religions around some of the most mundane things. I can't think of a realistic situation in which the definition of the god of the major religions can exist. Anything with a reasonable possibility of existing would only fit the bill in terms of superiority in some areas. I would never blindly follow or worship such a being though, no matter how superior it is.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes.

    So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    It's all interpretation, and interpretation finds its way into both religion and science. When we get rid of interpretation we might start to find real answers.
    Oh, c'mon. How is that supposed to work? You can't make sense of data, or apply knowledge, construct theorys, or test hypotheses without "interpreting" or finding meaning in information in some way.
    Yep, a decidedly weird statement to make. It is because we don't know everything that we have to interpret what we are seeing. You can only really know straightforward facts.
    True, our interpretations are provisional. But at the same time, they are absolutely necessary for applying those facts in a useful way, or even jumping to the next level of understanding - ie "Gee, if this is true, I wonder if...." Without making some meaningful interpretation of facts and observations, we are just sophisticated detectors and recorders of things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes.

    So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    If you were God would you want worshipers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes.

    So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    If you were God would you want worshipers?
    Nope.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I agree with that Kalster. The technology, trick or natural act often only needs to be slightly higher or slightly beyond understanding for people to label something done by god or gods.

    IMO, the imagination, ambition, opportunity for control and power, etc, simply end up driving these grossly and fanciful over exaggerated abilities and attributes by an imaginary being who is responsible for the technology, trick or act of nature. The actual technology, trick or act of nature that triggered or triggers the outrageous and imaginative claims of super powers is an easier standard, bar, to meet..

    While your using the bar set by the imagination of people and the "god" of their imagination (which is fine), I am looking at the actual technology, trick or act of nature that fueled the imaginative creation of their "god", not the highly imaginative abilities and attributes added by their imagination after witnessing or being told of a lightning bolt that hit peter on the head after he cursed the stars.


    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes. So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    Last edited by gonzales56; April 18th, 2014 at 10:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes.

    So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    If you were God would you want worshipers?
    Nope.
    Without worshipers is it possible to be God?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Kalster, the idea of an all know god that can do anything and all things is highly unlikely.. Even impossible in my estimation. The technology, understanding and power it would take to have the ability or capability to know all, past present and future, to control all and to do anything and all things seems to me to be completely impossible.
    Probably yes.

    So we agree mostly, only your definition of what would qualify as a god is lower than mine. Is that about right you think?
    If you were God would you want worshipers?
    Nope.
    Without worshipers is it possible to be God?
    Why not? Should their prayers be giving me powers or something?

    All I'd need would be some level of respect, IF I had made my presence known. But demanding worship is one of the primitive tribal tendencies we still suffer from today. I would like to think that I would have ascended above such self-serving nonsense. I'd be god. I wouldn't need people to worship me so my ego could be fed.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzalez56
    While your using the bar set by the imagination of people and the "god" of their imagination (which is fine), I am looking at the actual technology, trick or act of nature that fueled the imaginative creation of their "god", not the highly imaginative abilities and attributes added by their imagination after witnessing or being told of a lightning bolt that hit peter on the head after he cursed the stars.
    I would think though that people would be disillusioned by the truth of these more advanced aliens and declare that they weren't their gods after all, even if those aliens were in fact the inspiration for their religions.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    What I'm trying to get at is just because you are able to create a universe, does that mean you are stuck being God to any life that might develop there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Put another way in the other sense: Did the Big Bang know the Universe was coming? If so did it require scientists (rather than worshippers)?

    Put the following options to someone without knowledge of science and religion:
    The Universe had a creator who took a while. The creator was there before the Universe.
    The Universe was created instantly from nothing without a creator. We know not why and what happened before.
    Strange how the first option seems the likelier, even to an atheist like me. The creator must have had a knowledge of mathematics because the Universe IS mathematics, n'est pas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Strange how the first option seems the likelier, even to an atheist like me. The creator must have had a knowledge of mathematics because the Universe IS mathematics, n'est pas?
    No, the universe is not mathematics, just as the universe is not language.

    We can use one or the other or both to describe it, but that's not what it is. The universe got along quite nicely for 13 billion years without us and our languages and our mathematics to describe it. There might well be other beings out there with maths and language to describe the universe - but I very much doubt there were any of them back in those first few billion years while things were taking shape.

    And you're the first atheist I've come across who thinks that "a creator" is the most likely option.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Put another way in the other sense: Did the Big Bang know the Universe was coming? If so did it require scientists (rather than worshipers)?

    Put the following options to someone without knowledge of science and religion:
    The Universe had a creator who took a while. The creator was there before the Universe.
    The Universe was created instantly from nothing without a creator. We know not why and what happened before.
    Strange how the first option seems the likelier, even to an atheist like me. The creator must have had a knowledge of mathematics because the Universe IS mathematics, n'est pas?
    I have no such feelings about the universe. It's creation is nothing but an act of nature and the conditions that existed that allow for the creation of universes as a natural order of business. We aren't the first and we won't be the last. Our universe is not a one of a kind only event. I'm not an atheist because of my feelings, but because there is no evidence of a God and I have no over riding need for an afterlife to look forward to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    Adelady: By a creator I do not mean a god in the theistical sense. The creator could have been a type of unrecognisable computer. I think the guy who created Mathematica was seriously in to this. Not many people seem to focus on how all the mathematical laws magically spilled out from the Big Bang. I've been browsing Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe where he speculates that the Universe could be mathematics, and he is certainly not the first person.

    Consider a future scenario where the population has been ravaged by war, hunger, pestilence, global warming or whatever. A form of computer could become a new kind of god to be worshipped if was seen to be self-intelligent, immortal and infallible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I'm pretty liberal in general and outright reject a lot of paradigms I consider nonsensical. I also have a pretty abstract conception of G-d.
    I was also in such a position at one point. Problem was that the more I looked at my beliefs critically and honestly, the more I had to reject a bunch of religious tenets and eventually to the point where the whole thing didn't make any sense any more. I still remember what belief meant to me at times and in some ways, I miss it. But I can't see any way of ever going back to some form of belief. There is just nothing there. I still remember how I felt about atheists though and that is part of the reason I try to explain my position to the religious. Unfortunately a large proportion of them are incapable of seeing past the prejudices and warped perceptions that they have been brought up with. I do try to understand people as much as I can though. People generally try to do what they think is right, even when a lot of other people might have directly opposite ideas of what is right. We too easily dismiss other we don't understand as simply evil. Even the beheading radical Muslims think they are behaving morally. Do you feel a specific need for God in your life? I always like to contrast people's answers to such a question with how I see the world and how I view morality and such. I often find though that when people are pushed, that they can't really explain properly why and what they believe. They often just default to a string of logical fallacies that they try and argue in favour of, like any explanation, no matter how convoluted, is good enough if they believe in it strongly enough. I also have a hard time understanding what people say they really believe. Things like the fact that they are supposedly under 24/7 surveillance of everything they do, feel and think, or the fact that people believe in the concepts of heaven and hell. Particularly troubling is that people seem ok with it that by the far the majority of people will end up in unending torture according to their religion. Jesus Himself said in the Bible that nobody can go to heaven if not though him, so they necessarily believe that no matter how good a person you are, that you'll burn in eternal torture for not believing in Jesus. And they are fine with that. I can't understand that.
    I find Hell equally senseless and wonder how it works in ones mind. That philosophy would make life emotionally impossible, in my mind. And yet...
    Last edited by SowZ37; April 20th, 2014 at 09:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    delete
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Creationists on this forum...ban them all?
    By gottspieler in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 16th, 2011, 11:09 AM
  2. PhD's and creationists
    By Golkarian in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 12:20 PM
  3. Creationists and Evolutionists Are Correct
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 174
    Last Post: October 20th, 2008, 06:06 PM
  4. Why do people laugh at Creationists?
    By bobby9 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 04:20 PM
  5. creationists and evolution
    By captaincaveman in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 6th, 2006, 05:04 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •