ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:21 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Does God exist?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 8:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Well?

[I'll post my opinion later on... I just wanted to get the ball rolling here.]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 9:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Yes.

Well, until I get something of an arguement I don't see any reason to elaborate.

-MiB
Touche

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Actually I'm agnostic, but what the hey, I can still play Devil's Advocate! (Even though I'm agnostic regarding ol' Beelzebub as well. ;-) )
PostPosted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Alright, I'm here to conclusively deny the existence of God! Get ready to defend thyself and thy deity, knave!!! 8)

First off... er, well, waitaminit.

::scratches head:: Uhm, MiB, could you explain your definition of "God" first, so that I know what I'm shooting at? 'Cause that term encompasses so many damn things I just can't decide where to aim first. :-? Sorry.


And parry! ;-)

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 12:05 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Foo.

Well, until I get something of an arguement I don't see any reason to elaborate.

-revolutio
Repauste


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: No.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 12:56 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
I say no; my definition being an omniscient, omnipotent being who exists beyond the laws of physics and reality that we tend to abide by. I say this because up to this point in my life I have come across no conclusive evidence of it's existance, much as have come across no conclusive evidence that I posess DBZ'esque powers and will one day wake up with the ability to dominate the world with flashy energy beams. I can assure you that it is not from lack of trying (with either concept). My point mentioning the DBZ powers, in case my analogy was too fuzzy, is that it's simply not condusive to my continuing survival to believe, and act on, something that I have no evidence for. I would no sooner try to fly of a 10 story building and blow up cars with my inner 'chi' than I would pray for a god to save me if in mortal peril. They lack, in my expierences, real world physical proof to back them up. To put it simply, 'faith' is not my style. It doesn't get results.

This does not mean I am without religion or even a little faith, I'm currently a follower of the scientific meathod. This religion gets results. If you need any proof simply look at the text in front of you. Without science you would not be reading this. I can put my faith in a religion that brings real world benefit to my life. As for what denomination of science I currently perscribe to, I'm a bit of a big bang/multiverse anthromorphic principal guy (sure it's a cheap way out, but it works).

For me to believe in god, it's going to have to start dealing out hints in a manner which makes me question my sanity, and then continue despite the best medical help and anti-psychotic drugs I can get. And even then, I doubt I'd believe.

As for specific gods as defined by conventional religious texts...don't make me laugh. That's even farther out there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:14 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
My definition of God currently is thus:

A being with the power to set into motion the evolution of the laws of this universe.

Okay then. Argue away.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I like that definition better than most others I've come across with.
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 11:43 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
How does such a being arise? That's always one of the bigger arguments, and one I never seem to get resolved.

And less relevant:
Why would such a being set this into motion in the first place? Why create the universe at all?

Even less relevant:
Those that believe: all powerful, all knowing, all loving. Pick two of the three, and explain why. If you can explain how all three could be true, I'll be impressed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 3:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Well, I started believing in God a while ago, but my definition of God is so thoroughly different than the normal Judeo-Christian conception of God that, in this debate, I'm going to (at first, anyway) say that God does not exist. Here, I'm defining God to be an intelligent, conscious being who created the universe. I do not believe such a being exists.

Occam's razor states that entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. In other words, if you have two models of how a phenomenon occurs, both explain the phenomenon adequately, both have equal predictive power, and one involves fewer mechanisms than another, you choose to believe the one that involves fewer mechanisms. This is a matter of economy; since truth is what is useful, if two theories can be used to explain something, and one is simpler, that one will be easier to use.

Now, the theist model of the universe includes one more entity than the atheist model, and this particular entity is pretty fucking complicated, especially if we're talking about organized religion. Thus, the burden of proof lies upon the theists. The theist must justify the existence of God, and if enough evidence cannot be found for God's existence, we must assume Ve does not exist. Now, evidence can come in many forms. Evidence can be based on logical necessity, in which case the evidence is called a proof. The one theistic proof I'll deal with in this post will be what is normally called the Cosmological Argument. The idea is that everything has a cause, and that the universe, too, must have a cause. This cause would be God.

The problem with this is, it doesn't really solve the problem. What created God? The theist will answer that God created Vimself, or God always was. Couldn't we simply say the same about the universe, thus eliminating an entity and simplifying our model? Saying that the universe was created by a God who just is does not solve the question of why the universe is; it simply transfers the mystery from the universe to another entity. Also, why must we assume that this first cause is conscious or intelligent? It seems kind of anthropocentric to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Good God.

I am SO not debating this. I know too little.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: ::the ringing of blades echoes through the thread::
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 4:15 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
The Man In Black wrote:
My definition of God currently is thus:

A being with the power to set into motion the evolution of the laws of this universe.

Okay then. Argue away.

Yes sir. ;-)

Well, no, actually, I'm afraid I must ask another question or two, though I promise to offer some of my own ideas this time as well.

I can see that, by your definition, God is almost a necessary part of reality, seeing as how without It (Where did you get this 'Ve,' 'Vim' stuff, Icy?) the laws of this universe might never have evolved. But, however much I may personally despise Occam's bloody Razor ([H-Kat]HATE![/H-Kat] :evil: ), Icy's reductionist bit above still holds; depending on how one decides to define "a being," might the Big Bang not qualify as God under your definition?

So I guess my question now grows and divides into:
1. What is your definition of 'a being'?
and
2. What is it that convinces you that it was some being (however you have chosen to define that term) and not random chance that brought us the universal laws we have today?

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ::the ringing of blades echoes through the thread::
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 5:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Yevaud333 wrote:
...however much I may personally despise Occam's bloody Razor...


You can't despise Occam's Razor... It's like despising thought itself. Although we don't notice it, we actually use Occam's Razor daily, and our mind simply could not function without it. You cannot know the true cause of ANYTHING, and whenever your mind makes a judgment about the world - any judgment - you are using Occam's Razor. For example, I generally assume that I am not surrounded by invisible pink unicorns, despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever against the existence of said unicorns. If I were to meet someone who believed that invisible pink unicorns existed and were all around us, I would not be obligated to definitively disprove their existence; rather, it would be up to the person who made the claim to prove that either a) there is direct evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns, or b) a model of the universe incorporating invisible pink unicorns would simply and effectively explain some other observation(s).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
These people are sure he exists, but I imagine they are starting to doubt which side he is on...

Make sure to read the last paragraph.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 12:36 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 820
Location: An Unforgiving World Overrun by Poverty, Drug Abuse, Nepotism, and Ninjas...
Hn...while I don't consider myself "Christian", or any other religion, I do pray. When I do, I feel something. It's rather hard to explain...it could be anything from God to Concentrated Energy to Bean Burrito Power. Who knows. Either way, I believe that something is out there.

However, we will never "prove" God exists. If people have some experiences that make them believe in a higher power: Spiffy. If not...well, still Spiffy. Different than my views, but as long as you aren't intolerant and hateful about it, I'm happy.

_________________
<sarevock> I think my eyes started bleeding.
<NebbieQ> Bleeding is just another word for love.
<sarevock> ¬¬
* sarevock runs away from NebbieQ
<NebbieQ> But I just want to make you love me. ;_;


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 8:47 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
No. The god-concept is a creation of the human mind, used to explain what they could not otherwise comprehend.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Capt. Agnosto to the rescue!!!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 10:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
My standard answer:

How the hell should I know?

No, seriously. Supposing there *were* an all-powerful entity with complete control over the universe, wouldn't such an entity be able to make it seem to us as if ve didn't exist? How could you ever prove that such an entity doesn't exist?

Now at present, I've seen no real evidence that such a thing does exist, aside from our existence here, which is somewhat open to interpretation. As I mentioned before in another post, any being that actually knew everything and could do anything would be very odd indeed, and probably not very understandable to us.

Of course, depending on your definition, even a powerful alien, or a basic 6th-dimensional being, could be considered a "God" from our point of view. But again, I have yet to see good evidence that any exist, unless you want to consider the universe as a whole "God", in which case ve exists by definition.

Yevaud333 wrote:
(Where did you get this 'Ve,' 'Vim' stuff, Icy?)

Gender-nonspecific pronouns: Get Yours Today! (C)

I don't know where Icy got that particular set, but the ones I use were, I believe, originally invented by Greg Egan (the science fiction writer). They're by far my favorite out of the ones I've seen. A quick equivalence chart:
he = ve
his = vis
him = ver

I know of several science fiction writers and at least one transhumanist group who have standardized on Egan's set. They come in handy when discussing hypothetical Gods, AI's, aliens, etc., since such entities obviously are neither male nor female, "it" is a rather objectifying term for a sentient entity, and overloading the plural forms (i.e "they") is just awkward. You could just overload the male form, but aside from its political impropriety (which I honestly don't care about), that inevitably carries an unnecessarily anthropomorphic undertone. They also come in handy even in everyday discussions, where the gender of a person is unknown or unimportant. Interesting note- the English language *used* to have gender-nonspecific pronouns in everyday use, but we got rid of them for some reason. Damned if I know why- the things are useful.

See here for more, as if that wasn't enough already :)

Nebula Queen wrote:
Hn...while I don't consider myself "Christian", or any other religion, I do pray. When I do, I feel something. It's rather hard to explain...it could be anything from God to Concentrated Energy to Bean Burrito Power. Who knows. Either way, I believe that something is out there.

Really? Why? Couldn't what you feel simply be a mental reaction to your thoughts at the time?

Quote:
However, we will never "prove" God exists.

You seem awfully sure about that. What makes you think that God couldn't get tired of playing coy someday and come down and reveal verself to us, perform miracles, the whole bit? I think that would count pretty well as "proof" for most people. Or do you presume to know all of God's thoughts? (The basis of most organized religion, as I see it)


Kylaer wrote:
No. The god-concept is a creation of the human mind, used to explain what they could not otherwise comprehend.

While Religion is, as far as I can tell, a human artifact, that doesn't rule out the possiblity of some kind of powerful being that would still be recognizable enough to be considered a sentient enitity by us existing. So there, Mr. Atheist-pants :P

EDIT:
IcyMonkey wrote:
a model of the universe incorporating invisible pink unicorns would simply and effectively explain some other observation(s).

Invisible pink unicorns are the force behind gravity. Trillions of them go around and try to push elementary particles towards each other with their horns. (sorry, couldn't resist ^^)

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Last edited by Wandering Idiot on Sat Jul 05, 2003 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Capt. Agnosto to the rescue!!!
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 10:52 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Wandering Idiot wrote:
My standard answer:

How the hell should I know?

No, seriously. Supposing there *were* an all-powerful entity with complete control over the universe, wouldn't such an entity be able to make it seem to us as if ve didn't exist? How could you ever prove that such an entity doesn't exist?


This is technically true; however, it is only true in the same way that there could be invisible pink unicorns (henceforth known as IPU's) wandering around my room at the moment. The unicorns could simply have the ability to make it seem as if they didn't exist. If we really think about it, existence doesn't mean anything unless the object that supposedly "exists" can be detected - as Berkeley said, "esse is percepi" ("to be is to be perceived"). Keep in mind, as I proved in the philosophical brawl thread, reality does not exist outside usefulness. In everyday life, we follow this dictum, consciously or not. We usually only count things as existing if there is evidence for their existence. Why, then, should this not apply to God? I am an atheist (at least, the way we're defining "God" now - I would not call myself an atheist usually) the same way that I am a a-IPU-ist.

Oh, and btw, WI, I stole the "ve" thing from you - vaguely remembered you using it in a post a while back and I thought it was cool. :) However, I messed up on the objective ("vim" instead of "ver")...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:23 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:47 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: somewhere in Canada
Although I know of no evidence that can support God's existance or non-existance, I believe that it is possible that there is some higher entity that we can not perceive. After all, our perception of the world around us is quite limited so it's entirely possible that God has been in plain sight and we just never noticed. In either case, most people would answer that God does exist for the reason that a lot of people need a higher being to believe in. Even if they are not aware of it, a lot of people need to believe that there is some higher being looking out for them or dispensing righteous justice to the wicked. Or that there is some being that takes sick pleasure in making their lives a living hell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Adrift between Science and Christianity, Occam's Razor and God....
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 6:03 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1214
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
IcyMonkey wrote:
Yevaud333 wrote:
...however much I may personally despise Occam's bloody Razor...

You can't despise Occam's Razor... It's like despising thought itself. Although we don't notice it, we actually use Occam's Razor daily, and our mind simply could not function without it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean I have to like it. ("Although we don't notice it, we actually contribute to the destruction of innumerable parts of our environment every day, and our society simply could not function without doing so." :evil: ) The human mind is ridiculously narrow and limited when you get right down to it; we just don't notice because, even moreso than with dimensions beyond the 3 spatial and 1 chronological, we're not built to transcend it (since to do so would involve not just physical improbability but actual logical paradox [though who's to say that our puny 'logic' is the final word on anything?]). True, we can do immeasurably more things than any other organism or system in our frame of reference, but the infinity between 0 and 1 is still less than the infinity between 0 and 100. (Sorry, to clear up that analogy: if our intelligence is like the infinity between 0 and 1, and thus significantly greater than the next greatest animal intelligence [which is, say, 0 to 0.37] there's still the possibility [and near 100% probability, given the vastness of reality] of other intelligences which dwarf our own by even greater magnitudes.)

Sorry, it's late (or early, now :-? ) and I'm getting self-indulgent with the parenthetical statements. ::tries to discipline himself as he continues::

I guess my main beef with Occam's Razor is that, while it enables us to function and has led to a great number of 'accurate' (read: useful) interpretations of our world, I'm sure it has killed just as many beautifully ornate systems which had positive side effects which are lacking in the simpler systems which replaced them. This is directly related to the absoluteness of Occam's Razor, the fact that in all situations, every possibility but the one with the fewest moving parts must be discarded. I have similar issues with Christianity. It's champions, like the Occam's Razor-armed warriors of Science, dismiss anything and everything but their philosophy and worldview as not just absolute balderdash but actual evil. Since all who disagree with them are incorrect, they must be converted and their beliefs destroyed so that they do not mislead others and detract from the greater glory of the sublime Truth of Science/Christianity, the light of which must be allowed and encouraged to spread to the furthest corners of reality so that all may be freed and enlightened thereby.

The worst part (or at least one of the most annoying ones) is that this is a noble goal. When you come down to the ideals at the heart of both Science and Christianity, they are indeed good ones, involving the liberation and empowerment of all human beings. So one cannot dismiss them all as evil or misguided (though there are certainly individuals within their ranks to whom those labels apply). At worst, they are like the forces of Good within Eve Forward's Villains By Necessity (more reviews here), who pursue their aim of eradicating Evil with such ardor that they fail to realize that their actions are imperiling, through an excess of homogeneity, the very world they are trying to save. No one law can or should hold throughout reality, or even a single world. In attempting to bring about such a state of affairs, they fail to heed the wisdom of that philosopher's paradox: "There is an exception to every rule." (And while this statement may apply even to itself, I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to have found the instance thereof.)

In the end, I just chafe against the idea that anyone or anything could or should be allowed to assert and maintain its dominance in all places and at all times. Unless your neighbor is interfering with your life and/or beliefs, you have no place interfering in his. (Although, again, I acknowledge that in the case of both Science and Christianity it is sometimes a sense of generosity and good intention that drives such unprovoked interference.) The end result of such a crusade, taken to the logical extreme, would be a sort of death - at the least of many beautiful ways of human thought, belief, and expression, and at the worst of all but the tiniest degree of human mental freedom.


Oh, and Wandering, my personal favorite in the realm of gender-neutral pronouns has long been to overload the plural "they," though I admit to bowing to popular pressure in recent years and beginning to abandon such usage. Perhaps if I start using these Greg Egan terms, though, people will beg me to resume my prior practice.... 8)


And finally, because I re-read the thread again, and found something else to respond to which actually helps clarify some of the vauge points I made above....

IcyMonkey wrote:
If we really think about it, existence doesn't mean anything unless the object that supposedly "exists" can be detected - as Berkeley said, "esse is percepi" ("to be is to be perceived").
I disagree, slightly. And so do you. :P
IcyMonkey wrote:
Keep in mind, as I proved in the philosophical brawl thread, reality does not exist outside usefulness. In everyday life, we follow this dictum, consciously or not. We usually only count things as existing if there is evidence for their existence. Why, then, should this not apply to God?

The two regions I bolded above are inconsistent. Specifically, if the usefulness of an idea or concept determines its existence or reality, then there are many useful things which we have little or no evidence for. And God is actually a prime example of this.

To paraphrase some of wolf346's comments: belief in a higher power has a profound effect upon many people's thoughts, and thus on their actions, and thus on their lives, and thus upon their reality. So while we may lack any evidence for the existence or lack thereof of God, the concept of God is undeniably a "useful" one, in some sense of the word.

Similarly, many systems of belief which have been torn down and supplanted by Science and/or Christianity may have actually been more "useful" in certain ways than their conquerors. The most tragic cases are those in which the prior system of beliefs included elements which contributed positively to human life and well-being in ways that were lost upon their replacement. Though they may not have described objective perceivable reality so well as Science does, the subjective reality that their believers experienced may have been a better one than that offered by Science, technological advances and all.

So these are the charges which I bring against Occam's Razor and those who wield it: The simplest system is not always the one best suited to serve humanity. The predictive power of a system does not directly correlate with its effect on human happiness. And to forget this and hail Occam's Razor as a physician's blade which can do no harm is irresponsible and innacurate.

_________________
Only try to realize the truth...
There is no spoon. Then you will realize
that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.


"Only he who attempts the absurd
is capable of achieving the impossible."
 - Miguel de Unamuno


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I really have to cut down on all these parenthetical statements....
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Yevaud, that was beautiful.

I really suggest, no, I demand that you read Nietzsche. You would absolutely love him, since he seems to hate all the same things you do. Specifically, read this essay (which you very well might have already done, seeing as I've linked to it before).

I agree with you. I don't believe Occam's Razor is anything more than something which helps us cope in the world. However, Occam's Razor is a fundamental component of logic, and by extension Science. This is a debate. As such, we are using logic. Even the reasoning you used in attacking Occam's Razor itself implicitly contained the assumption that only things that effect us are to be taken into account. Occam's Razor is embedded in our language and our very way of thinking. Thus, we really can't ignore it.

This debate is not about "the truth", because the truth quite simply does not exist. The idea of an outside world, as I've said again and again throughout the threads on this board, is a concept which has no inherent substance aside from usefulness, defined in the broadest sense (i.e. the quality that allows one to accomplish one's goals, whatever they may be). I thought I proved this to you all already, people! :evil:

Yevaud333 wrote:
The two regions I bolded above are inconsistent. Specifically, if the usefulness of an idea or concept determines its existence or reality, then there are many useful things which we have little or no evidence for. And God is actually a prime example of this.


Okay, let me clarify my position in the debate here.

As I said, I am an atheist in that I do not believe in a conscious, intelligent supernatural entity who created the world. This is because I know too much about Science. I love Science. Science is "useful" to me in that I enjoy learning about it. Science is one particular model of the universe, created to satisfy very particular needs (I would call it a specific "mode of usefulness"). These needs include being able to predict phenomena (defined as "the end result of sensual perception and mental classification" (as Nietzsche said in the above essay, we don't actually have access to the outside world - we have access to a third-hand copy of it, filtered through our (very limited) senses and the subconscious mental processes which cause us to categorize our surroundings in specific ways (I really have to stop using all these parentheses))) and being able to use this predictive power to create devices that work in a predictable way (e.g. atom bombs and automobiles). What fascinates me is that such a clear-cut system with such seemingly simple and boring goals could result in a model of the universe that is, at times, stunningly beautiful.

Now, the scientific model sometimes conflicts with other "modes of usefulness" (or so it seems... by the end of this post I will conclude otherwise, as you'll see). For example, scientific thinking seems not to allow for things like free will, absolute morality, and the existence of God (IMO). These three concepts are very useful themselves. Now, there are three ways to get around this:

  • We throw out Science and go back to the pre-Enlightenment view of the universe. I don't want to do this because Science is interesting sometimes (as I've said), and Science also makes my life much, much easier.
  • We accept the Scientific model while continuing to hold opinions that directly contradict it. I don't like this option because I just hate Doublethink... While I know in the back of my mind that all views of reality are simply "useful fictions", I don't like "believing" in something whose consequences would contradict another one of my beliefs. Consistency, to me, is "useful" in that it just makes thought easier.
  • We try to reconcile these ideas with Science. This is not saying all our opinions and judgments would be scientific - it's only saying that we would avoid opinions and models of the universe that directly contradict the Scientific model.

In this debate, what I am claiming is that the Scientific model of the universe does not allow for the existence of God (or, to be more accurate, would give us no reason to believe in vis existence, for the same reason that we don't believe in IPUs). That is the full extent of my claim. Thus, I am assuming that we are arguing within the bounds of Scientific thinking. I believe Science is bullshit just as wholeheartedly as you do, Yevaud. However, it's useful and fun bullshit.

Quote:
To paraphrase some of wolf346's comments: belief in a higher power has a profound effect upon many people's thoughts, and thus on their actions, and thus on their lives, and thus upon their reality. So while we may lack any evidence for the existence or lack thereof of God, the concept of God is undeniably a "useful" one, in some sense of the word.


Yes, I agree. My concept of God (I'm basically a pantheist (i.e. I worship the universe as God), although calling me that would be simplifying things quite a bit) does not literally contradict Science... My concept of God is more of a metaphor or a point of view, and yet I feel it provides just as much comfort as the traditional concept of God does, without forcing us to engage in doublethink.

Quote:
Similarly, many systems of belief which have been torn down and supplanted by Science and/or Christianity may have actually been more "useful" in certain ways than their conquerors. The most tragic cases are those in which the prior system of beliefs included elements which contributed positively to human life and well-being in ways that were lost upon their replacement. Though they may not have described objective perceivable reality so well as Science does, the subjective reality that their believers experienced may have been a better one than that offered by Science, technological advances and all.


"Usefulness" is a relative term. As I've said already, there are different "modes" of usefulness, each attempting to accomplish a different goal. You simply cannot say that Science is more "useful" than Spirituality (defined in its broadest sense), in the same way that you can't say that the fastest supercomputer in the world is more "useful" than the fastest aircraft in the world. Science and Spirituality are aiming for totally different things. I would not go to a scientist or an engineer if I wanted to know how to live an enlightened life. However, I wouldn't want to go to Lao Tzu or the Buddha if I wanted to know how to build a computer.

So, in conclusion, Science and what I will call Spirituality serve entirely different purposes, and thus would never compete with each other in terms of usefulness, since they deal in entirely different fields. Organized religion makes the mistake of attempting to make definitive statements in both areas, and that is where the contradiction between Science and Religion comes in. However, I think that ideally, we should keep each in its seperate sphere. Science is about those things which make our physical life easier... in essence, it deals with things that are useful to our relationship with "the outside world". Spirituality is about points of view and ways of thinking that make our lives easier... it deals with our relationship with ourselves and with other human beings. Spirituality (as opposed to most religions, which are in reality a combination of Spirituality and bad Science) does not actually deal with models of the outside world... rather, it gives us ways of coming to terms with things. I believe in a Spiritual God but not a Scientific one. That's why I say my God is a point of view or a metaphor, rather than a being.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 06, 2003 8:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2788
Location: Neo-Connecticut
Many people try and make the argument that "random chance couldn't have created the universe, because what are the odds of that happening?" Well, the odds are quite good actually. There may be only one universe out of a potential infinite amount of multiverses that generated from random chance... but guess what? We're in it. The odds may be an infinite amount to one that it won't happen, but, we wouldn't be around to see the infinite amount of chances. This invalidates the argument that the odds aren't possible. As for it not being possible at all, well, that may be true- we can't prove it at this time as we DO NOT understand how matter behaves. For all we know, there may be an entirely new type of matter underneath what we know now. After all, we used to think that atoms were the smallest part of the world- who's to say that subatomic particles are the smallest? There might be subquarks or something similar. Thus, we cannot also say that is impossible, or even improbable, because we CANNOT know the chance. This means that random chance still is viable for the creation of the universe... and with only two options, I'm going to go for the one that's the simplest. Which is simpler- an unexplainable creation of the universe from nothing, or an unexplainable creation of a being from nothing that then created the universe? Basically, it comes down to whether you believe Occam's Razor or not. If there is no god, it would be correct. If there is a god, it would be wrong in at least one case. What do you think? Was I too confusing?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 210 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group