Reefer, I know - and I dont mean to be rude - I am pretty busy what with trying to steer around the MOM scammers - may they live to see their children die!, putting my plants under screens and ranting on about fizziks. I owe you an answer
Printable View
Reefer, I know - and I dont mean to be rude - I am pretty busy what with trying to steer around the MOM scammers - may they live to see their children die!, putting my plants under screens and ranting on about fizziks. I owe you an answer
I should have guessed that Herr Smitler was Pastafarian. You know that shit is just load of meatballs?:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler
We actually prefer the term philosophy, but then again, it's important to realise that labels never really capture their targets anyway. So go ahead and call it bullshit if you want. Here's the part of your logic that I have trouble following: We should only accept what science can verify for us, and at the same time, jumping ahead to think that science explains everything. The great strength of science is that it's free to change its mind whenever data suggests that it should, but that doesn't mean I can't take it with a grain of salt when science claims it has all the answers. I've heard that before, many times throughout history. I don't believe psychics or televangelists either, although I don't know why I'd link you all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
I guess I think all notions of morality/god/spirit, or whatever you want to call it arise from that space that comes into being when we realise that we'll never KNOW. Because absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. There could be something more fundamental than strings and governed by still deeper natural laws, couldn't there? Averages don't exactly yield absolutes do they? Closer and closer approximation but no limit. Empiricism is a castle made of sand.
I guess it's all bullshit after all.
let people beleive whatever stupid crap they want. as long as they arent trying to force their beleifs on you, leave them be.
if modern science claimed to know everything, they wouldn't still be studying the universe, now would they? i don't see any reason why we couldn't know everything one day. that's not to say that we will, or that it's even likely, but there's no reason to rule it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polymirize
Where did you get this argument? Nothing wrong with quoting but its appropriate to give the source.
This is interesting.
Essentially this says that "intelligible" means "has an explanation" - its a definition of terms. I have no issue with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I cant agree with that - I do agree that one shouldnt give up trying to understand but what law says that human brain is capable of understanding the true nature of the universe? The brain evolved to solve the problems of of early humans - mostly this involved social problems since for humans being a member of society is everything. As any high school student will tell you , the brain is not well adapted to doing math or physics. These habits of thought dont come naturally to us - in fact we havent been able to do them at all until very recently!! Why should the brain of a social ape on some small planet in some godforsake... uh scuse me .. in some remote corner of the cosmos have the necessary tools to comprehend the universe ? We may well be stuck with only being able to understand a small part of it - in fact I am am pretty sure this is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
As I said this is optimistic :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I havent thought carefully about this categorization. By c do you mean irreducable facts? Facts that just cant be explained in terms of other facts? Then you are likely committing the fallacy of "begging the premise". This is a confusing term but it means you have sneakily assumed your conclusion. The argument that follows is just a sleight of rhetoric to distract. Give an example of an "irreducible fact" or an "essential object" the only one that springs to mind is God and it is his very existence that is being debated. There may be no irreducible facts. There may be a never ending chain of discoveries and revelations - this certainly has been our experience to date - why should it end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
Rogue I have to take a break here since my wife wants to smoke - we can take up the rest later if you care. This is enought to be getting on with:rasta:
Interesting!
Also, I apologize for bragging about my credentials earlier. I was a jerk. I am an older guy and I have been an academic all my life. There are many people like me and most of them are a lot smarter. I just lost patience with what I considered to be a case of extreme intellectual laziness. Being an atheist leans towards impatience - you realize there isnt much time. But I was an ass about it. Excuse me.
I think the word for this is, if Herr Smitler will pardon me, hutzpah!:D ummm .... whaddya mean "necessarily" ? There are a few possibilities:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
If you mean "is it necessarily so that the universe exists?" Then this is a debate about perception - is what you see real? Then who the fuck is asking these questions. Am I just a brain in a vat being fed a videotape and why couldnt I have gotten better writers? Does the self exist or is that just another perception. Thats not what we are after.
So if we suppose that our current universe arose from something else - that our universe has a finite age it is logical to speculate whether it had to be this way. And modern cosmology is that the universe did indeed arise from something else and that the particular nature of our universe including at least some of the physics were the result of random fluctuations in first instants of the its existence.
But wait up - theres at least one more logical possibility that the universe has always existed. Oh! Then there is the possibility that the universe was born in the cataclysmic death of a previous universe - and that could be part of a chain that has no beginning. Like turtles holding up turtles holding up turtles. It need not be homogenous. Perhaps God created the universe and he was created by the occupants of a previous universe who were just trying to get even with the God that had created them. Or perhaps their universe had always existed or perhaps it was made by a turtle! I could go on but I think its clear there are, at least logically, an infinite variety of such possibilities.
There is a more abstract interpretation of the universe in that statement: what is the essential nature of its physical existence. What really is matter, energy, time? After strings whats next? Well if we arrive at some understanding that cant be further reduced then I agree, this is a meta theory, its a theory that explains science and therefore it is NOT science. But why does it have to be that way? Perhaps we will keep peeling away onion layers for ever and weeping all the way. Perhaps its mixed! Some facts are irreducible and some are not!
Sorry for the long stoned ramble but in short there are a lot of possibilities to eliminate and #7 ignores them - a "bifurcation fallacy"
Never got there;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
uhhh ... I just realized I've had my pants on backwards all day .... dont pay any attention to this crap!:stoned:
So smoking the leaves of my growing plants: Not the best thing to do but we are dry. I get enough of a buzz to get mildly confused - doesnt help my wife much :(
Ok - I got my pants on the right way around and I am thinking a bit more clearly. Yeah - ignore all that blather I wrote. You kick this down at its foundation:
The entire argument depends on offering a rational explanation. But "God created the universe" is not actually an explanation. It,s a story masquerading as an explanation. The point of an explanation is to reduce the amount of mystery and to simplify your understanding. The creation theory doesnt do this - not at all. It simply moves the mysteries to another place and there they are much greater. Immediately one would ask.
Who created God?
And if God was never created but has always been here then why couldnt existence always have been here without ever being created? You havent really made any progress , just swapped one mystery for another
And then you get: Why did he create it? What is his nature? How many of these things are there out there?
These questions usually get deflected with something like "the true nature of God cant be grasped by the human mind" I agree! but wasnt the point of this explanation to provide understanding not mystery? Is this the "rational explanation" that was offered at the start of the proof?
Deflected can be a little harsh. I mean, how do you discuss infinity in finite terms? How do you speak of necessary conditions on the unconditional?Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
You don't. Of course you'll never "prove" god through reason. it's completely irrational.
The only argument in its favor is that reason (much like science) is based upon our current understanding, so it's not complete.
You mean you want the mystery to be revealed? The answers to be given? The illusion to drop away?
Eventually, you'll have to face your doubts without an answer, but instead only with more questions.
The Principle of sufficient reason:
A closely related traditional form of cosmological arguement starts with a philisophical principle known as the The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR), which says, "There must be an explanation (a) for any being, and (b) for any positive fact. Using PSR, a theist can reason,
1. Every being is either dependent or self-existent.
2. Not every being can be dependent.
Thus,
3. There is a self-existent being.
Because of PSR, step 1 rules out there being anything that is explained by nothing. A dependent being is explained by something else. A self-existent being is self-explanitory, or necessary.
Step 2 results from this reasoning: If all beings were dependent, then there would be one positive fact-that these being exist at all-that would have no explanation, and this is ruled out by PSR also; that fact can only be explained by a nondependent being;thus 2 is true.
And step 3 follows from 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that anything in the universe, or the total composed of these things, is self-existent, thus there must be a God outside the system of dependent beings who created them.
A traditional Design arguement:
1. So far as we are able to determine, every highly complex object with intricate moving parts is a product of intelligent design. (The only such objects whose ultimate origin we are sure about are artifacts designed by people.)
2. The universe is a highly complex object with intricate moving parts. (From observation)
Therefore,
3. Probably, the universe is a product of an intelligent design (from steps 1 and 2)
4. No one could design a universe but god. (it's a big job)
Therefore,
5. Probably, there is a god. (from steps 3 and 4)
I'll be back later and write some evidence in favour of Athiesm :stoned:
Firstly this was presented as a proof. It fails. Since the 19th Century - Cantor - Mathematics routinely deals with the infinite. It is an integral part of the calculus for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polymirize
I agree you cant prove God, not with certainty, not to beyond reasonable doubt, not even to a preponderance of the evidence , but the author of that proof thought he could and Rogue asked for my comments
Disagree - how about turtles under turtles under turtles descending forever - why must there have been a prime turtle? And if there could have been a prime turtle why cant that be the universe itself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
an object or being not subject to law has not been observed. an object or being not subject to law can not be explained. this leads to the conclusion that god can not exist outside "the system" without being subject to some greater system; by the definition of god, this is not the case. therefore god does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
Yeah that was a driveby and I deserve to get called on it. :o I would justify my statement but right now we are trying to find the real answer to , godtheuniverseandeverything. Just as soon as we've done that, I will explain, promise!
No Science definitely does not have all the answers. It cant even answer most of the questions that it can deal with - as Adolf pointed out - and there are many important topics that it cant even begin to tackle, at least not with what we have on hand. What should I do with my life? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Is Brittany Spears really a no talent cunt?'
However, while it cant answer these things, it can inform the investigation. In this way science is much underused and much underappreciated.
Science is not a set of answers at all. Its method of investigation. It's actually a technique for generating useful questions It is totally new method of thought - only about 500 years old and it is a major advance for human understanding.
I would like to talk a bit scientific thinking, since its so important and there is so much confusion but first godtheuniverseandeverything.
Reefer Rogue, if you quote someone else's work you must give an attribution. You owe it to the guy who wrote it and you owe it to the guy who reads it. Otherwise, the implicit claim is that this is your work. Is it?
When your Dead Your Dead.
Think about it?
If I am retarted am I not in heven?
If have a 12 inch cock can I use it in heven?
If I have a Bag of Weed can I smoke it in heven?
At least in Hell I'll have a light.
I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
The main arguement against Theism: (Premise 1)
1. If there were a God, there would be no evil in the world. (From the concept of God)
2. There is evil in the world. (By observation)
Therefore,
3. There is no God.
Supporting arguement:
A: A morally good being prevents all the evil that he has the power and oppurtunity to prevent. (By definition of goodness)
B. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent all evil. (By definition of omnipotence)
C An omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal being who is the creater of all has the oppurtunity to prevent all evil. (By definition of all ther operative concepts)
D. God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and creator of all else. (By the standard, developed concept of God)
Therefore,
E. If there were a god, there would be no evil in the world. (And this conclusion is identical to premise 1 of the main arguement, which was in need of support.)
taken from wikipedia:
If the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.
[QUOTE=Reefer Rogue]I did quote my source. Look harder at my last post ;) [/quote}
And so you did! I am fucking blind. I apologize.
I dont buy that. Who says God is good? Perhaps he is cruel? Perhaps the good in the world is just here to make the evil more painful? Even if God is good, he might be using evil for good purposes. Sort of "tough love" . And then perhaps he doesnt care about us at all. If God exists why should he necessarily be concerned with our existence. Perhaps our status in the universe is on a par with cockroaches? A sort of pest that is hard to suppress completely. Perhaps God just created the universe, as a science experiment and then left it to run its course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
It does seem improbable to me that a Good and caring God could have created the harsh, cruel world we live in - but improbability is only evidence against Gods existence not proof and, before any one jumps on me, this was presented as a proof. :)
This is another Bifurcation Fallacy.
I never said it was proof. I just stated evidece for both sides. It's up to every what what we believe. We DO have free will. Would you disagree? :)
What do you mean by "know" and "know everything"? Do you think we will ever know all the digits of PI in its decimal expression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler
perhaps a new form of math will be invented to reveal this. we're long overdue for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
It most definitely is an attempt at a proof or at least a logical argument. An argument is not the same as evidence. Evidence can be a component of an argument but they are not the same thing. In that last example the only evidence IMO is the existence of evilQuote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I have serious doubts about free will. I cant square the idea of free will with that of a universe governed entirely by physical laws. Nor can I find any evidence for free will. I cant think of any way of testing for it either. I have serious doubts even about the existence of a self that could exercise free will. And finally, I am not entirely convinced that I even exist. You might call me a skeptic. :)
if god is omniscient, then he knows our choices for a fact in advance. all people must make choices that conform to what god knows, or else he is not omniscient. however, we then do not have free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your question. You're asking for someone to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that their religious beliefs are the correct ones. Faith is not a logical operation, there is no proof involved. The whole point of religion is that it is belief without proof.
this is a good point. if we assume that any cause has one effect, then the universe will proceed in a set way until the end of time. another theory i'm sure you're familiar with is that if we could look at one single moment in the universe, then we could look at all the effects and find the causes, and effectively piece together the history of the universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
i did not expect somebody to prove their beliefs. the point of this thread was for people to attemt to, so we could argue back and forth. religious faith is without proof or evidence, and therefore, without reason. thus i conclude that to be religion is irrational. however, one can have logical faith, like faith that they will wake up in the morning, or that they can beat super mario bros 3 after years of practicing. these things can not be proven or disproven when they are assumed, but will be so later. god can never be proven, and therefore should not be believed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stedric
Yes perhaps. Perhaps all sorts of things. Perhaps in 5 mins Jesus will appear on this forum and bitch slap all the atheists. (Remember Mr "fuck you guys I know what's right" ? )Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler
But the current mathematics says its not possible. We know how to evaluate any digit of PI's dec seq. The problem is that there are an infinite number of digits and we can evaluate them all unless we have an infinite number of people doing it or we have infinite time. And if we do find a way to visit them all where would we store this knowledge - even in its most efficient encoding it would require and infinitely large storehouse. And suppose we could do that - does that mean we "know" the sequence as human beings - I did ask what you mean by "know". And when you are done with the digits of PI there still remains an uncountably infinite number of such sequences . Most of them have no name we just call them irrational numbers - (no these are not numbers that believe in Jesus - these are numbers that cant be written as the ratio of two integers)
I am not sure what you mean about being overdue for a new math? The 20th century was an explosion of mathematical ideas. Many call it the Golden Age of Mathematics - IMO thats premature , like you say there is more to come - but we surely havent been slacking. I can read all the mathematics upto the beginning of the 20th century. I can read most of what was written before ww2 - after that - well I walk into the math section of a university library and many of the math books are completely unintelligible to me. Even though math is my business.
So I ask again what does it mean when we say we "know something" does it mean one person knows it? A small community knows it? Everyone knows it?
We now know that Fermats Last "Theorem" (conjecture actually) is proved. This means I can use this result in my work and build other proof on it. But man I cant read the paper by Weil. Only a handful of people on the planet can. Starting from here I estimate about 5 years of hard study before I can think about reading that proof. That may be optimistic. I have a high opinion of myself. And frankly for much of the human race, its just plain impossible - they dont have the intellectual equipment - so what do they "know?"
[QUOTE=altagid]i believe he was referring specifically to the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic (and maybe rastafari, not sure about those guys) scriptures. if was all these things, he would be able to accomplish all of these goals without evil or suffering. both good and evil are unnecessary, but if god was good he would use only good and not create evil. therefore, if god exists, he is neither all good nor all evil, but finds pleasure in both to some degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefer Rogue
you'll have to forgive my ignorance, i'm only 16 after all. what i meant by a new "kind" of math is like geometry, algebra, calculus. that may not be how math works so feel free to correct me if that's the case. what i meant by "know" is that society will know it. we know the world is round, though some tribes in Pacific islands don't know that the world isn't all oceans and islands. you are, however, forgetting that even humans will evolve into another species, and that species into another, presumably smarter with each new one. if they inherit all of our knowledge, and their successors inherit everything from the races before them, there's no telling where it could lead. possibly to the calculation of infinity. they won't be the same genetically, but they will have built upon us directly, so they will be a continuation of us IMO. i've even formulated my own theory of infinity (which will probably be discredited in the future, but i was 14 and high, and it still sounds pretty cool): if we assume that there is a smallest possible unit of time and a smallest possible unit of length, the either the number of moments from the beginning to the end of time or the number of points in the universe is equal to the highest number possible. not infinity by definition but by practice. what would be really sweet is if these numbers were exactly the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
Yeah. I knew that but firstly its too big a step, just the existence of a Creator is a very big step - if you can do that then you can start to tackle his nature or qualities. Secondly its just too easy a target. The Omini God that you refer to leads immediately to logical contradictions as you have pointed out somewhere here - and any statement that does that is false - no ifs buts or ands - it false foo!Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler
Yeah but dont you suspect he finds a lot more pleasure in evil than in good? I know I do ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adolf Smittler
yes, after seeing the movie "catwoman" and wondering what sort of twisted freak would allow something so atrocious to come into existance.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagid
well i got tired of reading after the 4th page so i don't know realy what's been said alllltogether.
here's a quote
"you are saying that you have faith that smoking weed will bring you pleasure.. "
well not to be rude but, that's as stupid as saying "you have faith if you try hard in school you'll do good" NO, if youtry hard in school you'll do good, fuck faith. you don't need FAITH to know smoking weed will bring youp leasure cuz you KNOW it will. so why put FAITH into religions... there's a starwars religion, lord of the rings religion, believing god puts you on the same level as those gullible people. think about it...
look at the human race from a 3rd person, alien-perspective. and look at all these arguments, look at the belief of god. look at all the otehr beliefs. drugs will make you see things like "visions", and those drugs that DO, have been around wayyyy back, past before the bible was written. now how do you know some ancient people ate mushrooms, and had those "visions" of god and so on, then wrote it down. well all these anti-drug people could very well be believing in drug-influenced thoughts. not saying that IS it. but it's just as possible as anything else.
there's only five pagesQuote:
Originally Posted by TipTIP
well...duh. meaning i didn't read the rest of the 4th page and the 5th page.
You guys in this thread are all such fucking hardliners. Religion is the opiate of the masses (Marx) but I guess personally I fail to see the difference between pouring your faith into religion, or science, or causality, or belief in my own existence, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by TipTIP
The form of logic is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is inescapable. Just remember that we assume all our premises.
Of course you assume smoking weed will have certain effects, you should read something by David Hume.
Structured forms build categorical systems on a floating foundation...
we can philosophize all day long about meanings of words and historical examples, but for all intents and purposes, science deals with fact. religion doesn't yielded anything for society. science (and math, her lesbian partner) has yielded, amond other things, computers, lighters, hydroponics, pornography, lasers, space shuttles, can openers, and flight.