I know I've mentioned it a couple times, but for those of you who don't yet know, I'm a bit of a fan of the guy. I can't understand why he's always depicted as the bad guy.
The bit in the Garden of Eden, especially. How could Satan possibly be the villain in that story? God gives us "free will," then castrates it by denying us the knowledge we need to act on that free will. Satan does no more than convince us to learn -- and for that crime humanity is exiled from Paradise?
The rebellion in Heaven could conceivably be disloyalty -- but is Satan's rebellion disloyalty to a friend or disloyalty to a tyrant? God's pretty clearly got a control fetish -- even among the angels, God arranged them in set caste systems to determine the value of each angel based on their race. Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity? Surely any omniscient god would recognize the importance of having an equal? Even Satan wasn't God's equal -- as powerful as he supposedly is, he's still only the number 1 angel, not God's equal or friend.
I include "friend" there because if God has the power to create an equal, and chooses to create a lesser being instead, that being is a "pet," an inferior, not a friend.
I've yet to see how God's at all redeemed for Her ridiculous need for control. To tie the angels back with the Garden, She needed to control the human race, giving Adam and Eve free will but providing only the information She wanted them to know. That's pretty despicable, isn't it? Wasn't Satan doing the right thing by fighting back against such a tyrant? Wouldn't you or I do the same?
In Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan is provided with one of my all-time favorite quotes. "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." To me, that summarizes the philosophy Satan's fought for all his life -- better to live independent and free than to bend the knee as the acknowledged pet of whatever god chooses to make pets and control their lives with an iron fist.
Of course, I may be projecting my own philosophy on the guy, but from what I've seen, Satan's a pretty admirable guy. What crime has he ever committed? What has he done to be portrayed as the red hooved villain with a pitchfork? To be exiled from some idiot hick town in Florida? To be universally despised by the species he set free from the shackles of ignorance? I've never understood this, and I'd love it if someone could help me find a reason why Satan shouldn't be worshipped. Let alone why Yahweh should.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And forgive this if it's a bit disconnected, I'm feeling a bit light-headed. I'm going to exercise a bit -- be back in a few.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo, there's no way I can do this argument as much justice as C.S. Lewis does, both in Mere Christianity and in Perelandra.
Dagonee
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
The problem with Lewis' arguments are that they preach to the choir -- if you're already convinced of Christianity, you'll nod enthusiastically, and if you're not, you won't.
I think he's one of the best Christian apologists I've read, but I usually remain fairly unconvinced by his writing. Though I'll take a look at the books you're recommending, is it that difficult to come up with a reason why Satan's a villain?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can come up with them - it's articulating them that's difficult.
However, the problem will be that at it's core, I see nothing wrong with the idea of "inferior" creatures per se.
Perelandra is Lewis's fictional take on the fall - it presents things in the narrative that I'm not sure can be expressed directly. If you've read his other apologetics, I'd start there.
Meanwhile, I'll see if I can put together a coherent explanation of my own. No promises - this issue is at the heart of Christian doctrine and has been discussed by far better minds than mine.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Fascinating way of looking at things. I grew up learning that the devil piles bad things on people and that GOD LETS HIM. That always bothered me. That bad things didn't have to happen, and for God to stand aside and do nothing. For example, the Job story. Am I the only one bothered by that story? The way Job goes through hell, boils, loses his family just because of a bet between God and the Devil. It gets under my skin completely, Especially since Job is loyal and righteous. Why should he have to suffer like that?
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Ahhh. Perelandra. Wonderful book. Wonderful trilogy. *goes off to read them while thanking her lucky stars for a good friend like Annie*
Seriously folks, those three books are wonderful. And if we're talking about Satan, I put my vote in for the Screwtape letters as the book of the month. EVERYONE should read that book IMO. Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote: I've never understood this, and I'd love it if someone could help me find a reason why Satan shouldn't be worshipped. Let alone why Yahweh should.
In the end, what does Satan want for you, in your opinion? And also in the end and in your opinion, what does God want for you?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Lalo, If you are applauding the efforts of Satan, then apparently you believe he/she/it exists (Satan, that is), which of course would mean you have to believe that God exists, since He created Satan (from the only record we have of such) -- and I thought you were firmly against the existence of God whatsoever..?? If you don't think God exists, then your whole point is moot, because then Satan wouldn't either..
FG
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Judging from their performances in the Garden of Eden? God wants pets. Satan wants freedom for all, not just himself and the angels. It's pretty damn selfless of Satan, isn't it?
I can see how the story can be warped to say Satan's taking revenge on God by freeing Adam and Eve, not doing it for the sake of their liberty. But not only is that inconsistent with Satan's philosophy (as shown in his rebellion against tyranny), it's ascribing evil motives to a good act. If I were to volunteer at an orphanage right now, sure, you could say I'm doing it to one-up you -- and you may even have some small element of the truth in there -- but more likely than not I'm out to do good, especially if I have a history of volunteer service.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Lalo, If you are applauding the efforts of Satan, then apparently you believe he/she/it exists (Satan, that is), which of course would mean you have to believe that God exists, since He created Satan (from the only record we have of such) -- and I thought you were firmly against the existence of God whatsoever..?? If you don't think God exists, then your whole point is moot, because then Satan wouldn't either..
FG
Farmgirl, this doesn't logically follow. Does every person you know who believes in a god necessarily believe in a devil? Are the two necessarily intertwined?
And for the record, I'm highly skeptical of the existences of gods or demons. I'm not "firmly against the existence of God." I'm actually rather hopeful that there are gods out there willing to grant me Paradise -- and in this case, it looks as though Satan's Hell is a far better Paradise than Yahweh's Heaven. At least in terms of dignity, liberty, and equality.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But what's so good about dignity, liberty, and equality? Why not prefer humility, servitude, and nobility?
Satan's is a philosophy of arrogance - the sort of philosophy that would lead young children to run away from home, thinking they are better off running their own lives. I tend to think it's not a very wise way to think.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
From my learning, the serpent in the garden is not Lucifer but is a servant of God who's task was to test mankind. The same temptor in the garden is the same man who set about to make Job miserable for a while. How else would he have concert with God in heaven?
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Primal has an excellent point.....I have had this discussion with many others before---Satan is supposed to be a creation of God, yet god does no evil. How can this be so....
So, Satan is either a servant of god to test mankind or he is an equal of god to be his foil--the opposite of god.
I'd say he's a servant: Satan was one of his angels...
Mind you--I almost wrote a story about this--about Satan not really being all that bad--that he was cruel, but only to those who deserved it and was fair. In this story, a person was murdered as sacrfice to Satan, but since she was unwilling, A)he had no rights to her soul and B) it was an unfair sacrifice. So essentially, satan becomes a human for a short time to teach these "minions" a lesson and to save their next victim.
I was 15 when I came up with this idea. Then I turned 16 and got a job, and let my sister write an inferior version.
Grant you, I don't believe in Satan, or the Christian god. I'm an eclectic pagan who believes in A God and A Goddess, or rather the forces of masculine and feminine that make up the world. Evil exists only to justify Good, to keep the world in balance.
I do, however, like making up good vs. evil tales, sometimes with a Christian theme just because it's easy for me to do.
And Lalo--that thing about the idiots in the Florida hicktown---what a riot! They did all this stuff to expell "witchcraft" from their town and didn't even realize they cast a spell themselves. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
::notes that no Biblical verse names Lucifer as a name of Satan - Lucifer is a word in translation referring to the 'morning star', and only appears once in the KJV Bible, In Isaiah, in reference to the King of Babylon::
And, in Job, the being is referred to in the original texts as 'the satan', with the article - not as a proper name, but as a description or title. Interesting...)
[ January 01, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
oh---and Hello everyone!
It's been about a month since I've posted....did anyone miss me?
Nevermind, back to the talk... Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
In response to that--correct me if I'm wrong---wasn't Satan a title of an infiltrator, or someone sent by the ruler to come in and rile up the up the people to start a rebellion so the ruler could crush it, therefore further showing his power.
These guys dent by the ruler were called "Sataans."
And for the life of me---I don't know where I heard this or even if I'm right....I'm thinking it was something a former Hatracker told me, but I can't be sure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ed,
Are you a fan of Satan because Satan "gave" us freedom (he didn't), or because he opposed the Christian God and gave us freedom? Your entire premise is based on the idea that if something good is done, the motive doesn't make a difference, it's still good and the doer should be lauded.
An example. I'm a mobster with lots of laundered money on my hands. I need to clean it up, hide some of it, and outright get rid of the rest of it. I've also got a bit of a guilty conscience, as well as a sense of noblesse oblige. So I give millions to build better schools across my state. Sure, it's a good thing. But why was it done? The same question should be asked of Satan. Sure, you did a good thing, and I'm grateful (and I am, I'm arrogant enough to prefer freedom and flaws and suffering to innocent bliss, at least while I know the innocent bliss isn't available ) for it, but why did you do it?
Many if not all Christians believe that Satan did it not because he loved and respected humanity and its future, but because he wanted to stick it to God. You're implying he did it out of some sense of justice and popular sovereignty of the soul. The mistake you make is that you're looking at the story of the Garden of Eden, changing Satan's motives, and then criticizing Christians for criticizing Satan. You're criticizing Christians for beliefs they simply don't have.
Now, knowing your scorn for organized religion in general and Christianity in particular, I'm not very surprised at this. But it's still a mistake. Christians do not believe Satan does things out of respect for humanity, they believe he does things out of envy of humanity's place in God's plan, and so tries to make them fall at every turn. One needs only look at the world around us, from a Christian's perspective, and respect his at least partial success.
quote:The bit in the Garden of Eden, especially. How could Satan possibly be the villain in that story? God gives us "free will," then castrates it by denying us the knowledge we need to act on that free will. Satan does no more than convince us to learn -- and for that crime humanity is exiled from Paradise?
Satan can easily be the villain in that story, depending on his motive. His motive is pretty clearly given in the Bible, but you're not mentioning it here.
quote:But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Seems to be some misdirection there, don't you think? The part about, "Ye shall not surely die," is pretty straightforward. God said if you eat this fruit you will die, that is not live forever. Satan contradicted this by lying, saying you won't die if you eat this fruit. Now I suppose next you could say that Satan had so much respect for the freedom of humanity that he lied to the innocent Eve for her own good.
I don't need to tell you what I think of that kind of argument, do I? Satan didn't "convince" Eve to learn.
quote:God's pretty clearly got a control fetish...
Clearly.
quote:Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity?
Of course, if you would do it it naturally follows that God would do it, right? Not all Christians believe God has the power to create another equal God. But don't let that stop you from criticizing Christians for not criticizing God for doing something many of them believe is impossible or irrational or unneccessary.
quote:I've yet to see how God's at all redeemed for Her ridiculous need for control. To tie the angels back with the Garden, She needed to control the human race, giving Adam and Eve free will but providing only the information She wanted them to know. That's pretty despicable, isn't it? Wasn't Satan doing the right thing by fighting back against such a tyrant? Wouldn't you or I do the same?
Christians have this little thing they call the New Testament. Check into it.
quote:In Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan is provided with one of my all-time favorite quotes. "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." To me, that summarizes the philosophy Satan's fought for all his life -- better to live independent and free than to bend the knee as the acknowledged pet of whatever god chooses to make pets and control their lives with an iron fist.
Milton isn't scripture. And if God (your use of her is so clever) has a control fetish, can do anything, and desperately wants humanity under her thumb...why doesn't she just undo the whole Fruit thing? You say God likes pets better than less powerful but potentially wise creatures. So why doesn't God just make more pets? Unless God can't...which begs the question, "What else can't God do?"
quote:Of course, I may be projecting my own philosophy on the guy...
Hmmm, maybe.
quote:I think he's one of the best Christian apologists I've read, but I usually remain fairly unconvinced by his writing. Though I'll take a look at the books you're recommending, is it that difficult to come up with a reason why Satan's a villain?
How can you be knowledgeable enough to have that opinion when you haven't read his premier works on the nature of Christianity?
quote:I can see how the story can be warped to say Satan's taking revenge on God by freeing Adam and Eve, not doing it for the sake of their liberty. But not only is that inconsistent with Satan's philosophy (as shown in his rebellion against tyranny), it's ascribing evil motives to a good act.
Fortunately we have you to level the playing field, thus presenting a clear and unbiased account of what went on before humanity existed. What a relief! Christians believe that what's said in the Bible about Satan's motives is accurate...and you're condemning them for not thinking his motives are contrary to their Scripture!
You know from Milton (not scripture) that Satan was rebelling against tyranny. But just because you're not the boss doesn't mean you're being oppressed. That is at the core of the quote you used. It's better to be king of my own land than serve someone I don't like. It makes no mention of whether or not the previous master is unjust, it simply speaks to ambition.
If you're going to attack a belief, stay within the bounds of that belief. Don't go inserting your own beliefs into the belief you're attacking as a means to belittle that belief.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: And, in Job, the being is referred to in the original texts as 'the satan', with the article - not as a proper name, but as a description or title. Interesting...
Likely because Judaism doesn't believe in a Satan, an independent entity; rather there are prosecutors (that's what "satan" -- actually pronounced sah-tahn -- means), angels appointed by God to do that job.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Maybe Job goes through hell, boils, and losing his family because God knows that millions of other people will be comforted and given the strength to go on from Job's story. That's what I choose to believe at least.
There are so many instances in the Bible that one could point to in order to illustrate how "evil" God is, why do people always choose Job?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: even among the angels, God arranged them in set caste systems to determine the value of each angel based on their race.
I'm fairly certain that although this is the doctrine of some churches, there's nothing in the Bible that says it. Scripture really gives very little information about angels or demons, either one.
Lately the notion has come to my mind that God created beings less powerful and knowledgeable than himself so that they could have the experience of growth--which, if you think for a moment, you'll realize is something God can't do, if he is already all-powerful and all-knowing. In that light, Satan's temptation of humans suggests an attitude of "Who cares about growth? Hand me the goodies now!" However, I admit that I haven't had time to put the idea through a rigorous testing just yet.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which brings us to the question as to why an omnipotent god has such a fetish for creating inferior creatures -- surely any omnipotent god would be able to create another omnipotent deity? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, if you would do it it naturally follows that God would do it, right? Not all Christians believe God has the power to create another equal God. But don't let that stop you from criticizing Christians for not criticizing God for doing something many of them believe is impossible or irrational or unneccessary.
Good lord, Jeff. (That may be a pun.)
Calm the hell down. (That was almost certainly a pun.)
There's no need to get so angry. I'm not anti-religion, nor would I scorn Christianity in particular if I were anti-religion.
I'm going to get around to your argument come Saturday, or Sunday at the latest. That goes for the rest of you dudes, too -- I'm too wiped to do anything right now, and I have tomorrow booked.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Maccabeus, why would God value growth? How can it be valuable if it is something alien to God, when God is the epitome of all that is good?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Eddie, have you been reading Lucifer, the Vertigo comic book?
Seriously, while an argument can be made that some kind of rebellion against God could be noble -- or even encouraged by God as a necessary part of his plan, as the comic suggests -- speculating on the motives of Satan as described in scripture is going to wind up extra-scriptural. In other words, people are going to assign him the attributes that make the most sense for the story they want to tell. *shrug*
[ January 02, 2004, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
ae, growth as I am using it here is by definition "getting better". If God is the epitome of all that is good, how can he not value improvement?
Perhaps we have a paradox here...I'm not sure.
However, it sounds as though you may be confusing moral good with...um...experiential good. God is absolutely good in a moral sense, but there are "good experiences" which precisely because of his various perfections he cannot have. Many of them have to do with improving oneself, but not all; for instance, if God's omniscience does in fact mean he knows all of the future in detail (of which I am unsure), then he cannot be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Eddie, are you familiar with the Gnostic take on Yahweh and the serpent? If not you might find it interesting.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I would be a Satanist, only if I got to be Satan.
Otherwise, why worship the Horny Dude. I mean, according to your favorite quote, Satan "Would rather lead in hell than serve in heaven". Since there is only room for 1 leader, that means Satan's choices for us are not whether to lead or follow, but whether to serve in Heaven or serve in Hell.
Heaven has a nicer view supposedly.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Atheism is the only logically consistent exit from this argument.
Posted by :Locke (Member # 2255) on :
From the LDS perspective:
Before creation, all the spirits that ever were and would be existed without bodies, and to my understanding, without any kind of physical form. Though they existed, there was no progress of any kind-- the spirits could not learn or grow because they were in the direct presence of God.
God saw this, and so He made a plan. He called a council in Heaven, which all the spirits attended. At this council, He put forth His plan: That He would create a world, and that the spirits would be born there, and given bodies. Because they would be in physical form, and because they would no longer be in the prescence of God, they would have the chance to progress and to learn. There would also be the chance that they would make mistakes, though, and because God loved them He would send a Redeemer to save the world. At this point, there came the dispute. There were two candidates for the position of Redeemer. Lucifer and Jesus.
Lucifer offered to go to earth as the Redeemer, and promised to force all men to obey God's commandments, and that every soul would return to Heaven. But Lucifer also said that if he was sent to fulfill that role, he would take all the glory for himself.
Jesus, however, took up the position of free will, saying that He would save anyone who would follow Him, by example and not by force. He would go and give all glory to God.
In the dispute one third of all Heaven chose Lucifer, and the other half sided with Jesus. God then cast out Lucifer and his followers from Heaven. The ones who followed Lucifer did not recieve bodies and could never progress spiritually.
Then in the garden of Eden, Lucifer had power over a serpent and tempted Eve. The LDS perspective is again somewhat unconventional regarding this story.
Though Lucifer was gone from Heaven and could never have a physical form, he did have some power. One such power was to tempt, although we are told that Satan can never tempt beyond a person's ability to resist. God could certainly have stopped Satan from tempting Eve, but it was in God's plan for Eve and Adam to gain the knowledge of Good and Evil. Why, then, would God forbid them to eat of the tree? It's my own opinion that they were being tested as to which law they would follow (because without knowledge of good and evil, they would never do as they had been commanded, to reproduce and fill the earth). Satan, in this case, was an unwitting instrument in the hands of God. Though he sought to bring Eve down to his fallen state, he instead caused her to choose was ended up being the higher law-- rather than have free will in permanent ignorance, Eve and Adam lived with pain and hardship, and became stronger than they ever would have been in the garden.
So how do I look at Satan? It's hard to say. For a long time, I feared him as the one being that really, truly wanted me to come to utter nothingness. I despised him, also, as the instigator of a great deal of suffering.
More recently I have come to understand more fully that in the case of Satan causing suffering, it's really not so much Satan making people sin as it is people choosing to sin because Satan makes it look attractive to them. I began to not hate Satan, though I still feared him. And then I read a certain scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS scripture) section 76, verses 25 through 27:
quote:25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an aangel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!"
To me, that really did something strange to me-- for the first time, I really pitied Satan. It's hard to explain, but I did. I couldn't look at him anymore without seeing just how low he was and how weak and pathetic. So although I don't feel that Satan was more righteous than God, or that he had any kind of benvolence, I feel a great amount of pity for him.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The whole point of Satan is that he's supposed to represent pure evil and God pure good.
But as real 'people', we reach a problem. No one is ever all evil (or at least has reasonable motives, or madness), and no one is all good, so if Satan and God are 'people', they cannot be absolutes.
But is that the point, the fact that God and Satan represent impossibilities...
Oh dear. I'm obviously not a theorist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Atheism is the only logically consistent exit from this argument.
Wrong – atheism is the way to change the premises so the argument doesn’t exist. While the result is logically consistent, it would still be wrong if God exists. Logic is a set of operations that may be applied to a set of rules and “facts.” The following is logically consistent:
1. All human beings are mammals. 2. All mammals are red. 3. All human beings are red.
It also happens to be factually false, because not all mammals are red. But it is logically consistent.
There is no inherent contradiction or logical paradox in an omnipotent/omniscient entirely good God allowing evil to exist. To put it simply, if individual free will is a good, and if evil arises from the misuse of free will, then evil can exist because tolerating it enables a greater good to exist.
Of course, if you use a simplistic definition of omnipotent, then this argument won’t suffice. However, any true definition of omnipotence suggests that omnipotence enables the possessor to do anything, but does not enable the possessor to do mutually exclusive things. For example, an omnipotent being could not make me be an only child and have a twin brother at the same time. If true freedom requires the ability to make any choice the chooser is physically capable of carrying out, then evil choices must be allowed.
I realize this does not address the question of whether or not there is a God – it simply points out that the existence of an omnipotent/omniscient entirely good God is not precluded by the seeming paradox caused by the existence of evil.
This is a much simpler argument to answer than the one posed by Lalo. Answering that question involves investigating why individual free will is a good and why, if it is a good of such magnitude as to tolerate the existence of evil, obedience to rules was set as a condition of Paradise.
Dagonee
[ January 02, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's no good, Lalo. I stand by my description. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dagonee said:
quote: Wrong
Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence. Not everyone is open to such evidence.
Does it not disturb you that all existence may be random and purposeless? That your very finite lifetime may leave no permanent imprint?
To the extent that my beliefs are a conscious choice, I choose purpose and eternity. "Objective" evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso:
quote:Why not prefer humility, servitude, and nobility?
The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
Rivka,
quote:No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence. Not everyone is open to such evidence.
Does it not disturb you that all existence may be random and purposeless? That your very finite lifetime may leave no permanent imprint?
To the extent that my beliefs are a conscious choice, I choose purpose and eternity. "Objective" evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Here's a question: How is a religious life any less purposeless (more purposeful--is that a word?) than an atheistic life?
When one dies, should one ascend to heaven, then what? Is it your purpose to worship God for all eternity? It would be incorrect to state that religious people (and only religious people) fulfil God's purpose through beneficent acts while here on Earth, since Atheists, Wiccans, and heathens of all numerations and denominations do so as well (if not better than...)
And what do you get to experience for eternity? Basking in the eternal glory of God? How long can that orgasm last for before you start to get all twitchy and jittery? Proclaiming God's eternal glory? You'd think he'd have that one figured out by now (talk about low self-esteem!).
And I'm so glad that we can all discard objective proof. It can get soooo annoying at times to have to base beliefs on actual, observable data.
Much better if we can make it all up, always go on hunches, and say that whatever we feel in our hearts to be true is true.
Subjectivity is fine--within limits. I would not want to give up on art, or music, for instance. But I'm an engineer--would you like to fly in an airplane designed purely by subjective reasoning (an oxymoron, if you ask me), or a vehicular bridge built solely because "well...it looks like it should hold up."
Subjective evidence? Something is true because some minimum number of people believe that it is true? Is Allah the One True God because there are more Muslims than Christians? Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
Or is it just true for the individual? In which case, you (not "you," personnaly--more "vous" than "tu") shouldn't be trying to convince other people of your belief--you should be trying to find a way to get them to experience the same subjective evidence. If you try and convince someone of your belief, then you're appealing to objective data (your belief), instead of subjective belief, which unfortunately would acknowledge the superiority of objective data (which you state is "irrelevant and unnecessary") over subjective data.
Final question: can we just respond subjectively from now on? Throw objectivity out the window? I wait with bated breath.
--Steve
[ January 02, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What is wrong with Satan?
He is a liar from the beginning. He doesn't do things for our good, but to make us miserable. He promises the moon, but delivers us mud. Even in the garden of Eden he promised knowledge of Good and Evil so that he could destroy us by making sure we don't choose the Good. He wanted to make sure we COULD sin so that he could be the oppressor using our own weaknesses. Luckily, God used him and his arrogance for a higher purpose; doing what God could not do -- tempt.
And he didn't rebel against God to help us get away from a tyrant. He rebelled against God to take God's place and force people to obey him. If you want to take pot-shots at God you could say the battle was between two tyrants, not a tyrant and a freedom fighter.
What has Satan done that is wrong? He is the reason for hate, death, and hell. You can again take a pot-shot at God and say that God is allowing evil to exist, but it is still Satan that is the author of that evil.
You want to know why you wouldn't want to worship Satan? For the same reason you wouldn't want to worship Hitler; and I am not using him as hyperbole.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
A slave is subjected to authority unwillingly. You’re not equating unwilling humility, servitude, and nobility with willing, are you?
quote:ssywak said: Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
There’s a difference between the objective/subjective distinction as it applies to evidence compared to how it applies to truth. Objective evidence is suitable for application to the natural world, not the supernatural (meant literally as “above nature”).
You are taking it on faith that because thrown balls have accelerated downward at 32 ft/sec/sec since we began measuring it that they will do so in the future. My belief in that it will do so is based on an overriding faith that the Universe was created by a rational Creator.
What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on? There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant. Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
There is no way to logically go from an objectively provable set of statements to any proposition about how a person should behave. No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
Dagonee
[ January 02, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
No, it doesn’t bother me. I would not expect evidence of supernatural phenomena to be of the same type as evidence of natural phenomena. There are accounts of people who have observed God’s work directly. Why is their evidence harder to accept than written accounts of the Battle of Chalons?
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dagonee,
quote:What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on? There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant. Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
There is no way to logically go from an objectively provable set of statements to any proposition about how a person should behave. No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
There is no objective (or subjective) proof that God's laws of morality which govern today will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that God's moral laws are constant. Especially when God is omnipotent, and therefore not bound by any laws of constraints which people may seek to impose on Him (Her). God could change what is right, and what is wrong, even as we sit here debating.
Therefore, based on what you have said, you are also precluding any sort of morality. But because you base you morality on a subjective--and inherently unproveable--belief system, you have no real way of determining right from wrong independently of either ancient written scripture or more recent interpretations by religious officials (Rabbis, Mullahs, the Pope, etc.). Since you accept that they are in contact with God as much as if not more so than you, if they say that morality has changed (such as "Pederasty is now OK"), who are you to argue?
Do you prefer to live in a universe that can change right out from under you? If that's religion, my friend, I'll take objective atheism (or, if you must--agnosticism) any day.
What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
When "subjective" belief (such as yours) is challenged by an objectivist (such as myself), the person with the subjective belief will seek to discredit objective belief as valueless--thereby rendering all knowledge useless, and placing both our belief systems on supposedly "equal grounds."
Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you. According to your "logic," nothing is knowable, and therefore God may exist. Woop-de-friggin-do! Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
[ January 02, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: There is no objective (or subjective) proof that God's laws of morality which govern today will not change tomorrow. Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that God's moral laws are constant. Especially when God is omnipotent, and therefore not bound by any laws of constraints which people may seek to impose on Him (Her). God could change what is right, and what is wrong, even as we sit here debating.
Therefore, based on what you have said, you are also precluding any sort of morality. But because you base you morality on a subjective--and inherently unproveable--belief system, you have no real way of determining right from wrong independently of either ancient written scripture or more recent interpretations by religious officials (Rabbis, Mullahs, the Pope, etc.). Since you accept that they are in contact with God as much as if not more so than you, if they say that morality has changed (such as "Pederasty is now OK"), who are you to argue?
Do you prefer to live in a universe that can change right out from under you? If that's religion, my friend, I'll take objective atheism (or, if you must--agnosticism) any day.
But you’re the one who requires objective proof to believe something – the lack of objective proof does not make my beliefs inconsistent with themselves. I was pointing out an inconsistency in your belief system – you have no rational basis for assuming the universe will not change right out from under you. You believe it for some reason other than objective proof. Therefore even you do not require objective proof for all your beliefs – you just refuse to acknowledge that a significant portion of your belief system is objectively unprovable.
I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable, although as the world changes morality may have to be applied in new ways. I believe that human beings’ interpretations of morality will be inherently subjective. That does not mean morality is relative – it means each person has an incomplete understanding of it.
But what all of these moralities have in common is the idea that there is a particular way people ought to behave. And there is no way to reach an “ought” statement from objectively provable premises.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(Sorry--we're both apparently typing at the same time)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable, although as the world changes morality may have to be applied in new ways. I believe that human beings’ interpretations of morality will be inherently subjective. That does not mean morality is relative – it means each person has an incomplete understanding of it.
Yes! Somebody's finally got it!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, in a world where objective proof is "irrelevant," morality is objective and absolute ("I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable").
I will assume, that since everything comes from God, that morality must also come from God. And, since you believe that God can change whatever He wants, when He wants (such as the laws of physics), can not morality also be changed by God? Or does your belief system only allow certain things to be changed, and not others? And, since what you believe is not based on any objective observations of the world, and is purely subjective, you are free to claim that God may change "A", but not "B", and you may also state what you want "A" and "B" to be.
Do I have that right, so far?
[ January 02, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
When "subjective" belief (such as yours) is challenged by an objectivist (such as myself), the person with the subjective belief will seek to discredit objective belief as valueless--thereby rendering all knowledge useless, and placing both our belief systems on supposedly "equal grounds."
Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you. According to your "logic," nothing is knowable, and therefore God may exist. Woop-de-friggin-do! Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
I wasn’t trying to prove that God exists, nor that knowledge is useless. I was demonstrating why your attack on my beliefs is not logically valid. You’re the one who arbitrarily limited the realm of knowledge to that which is objectively provable, with no rationale for doing so. Your view makes knowledge an insipid, useless thing. Woop-de-friggin-do! We know how a ball travels through the air! What use is scientific advancement without some kind of guidance about what ends are worth achieving with science?
What’s that you say? Science has led to medicine to heal the sick, and food production, storage, and transportation technologies to feed the hungry? I agree – science has done wonderful things. But the reason we can call these things wonderful (or its excesses bad) is because there is an objective yet non-objectively-provable proposition that it is good to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Science can do nothing good without a means of deciding which ends are good and which bad.
That’s not the “dirt of total ignorance,” it’s a far more realistic way of examining the world and 5000 years of intellectual history than the relatively recent innovations of materialism and objectivism.
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just because it can't be proved doesn't mean it can't be True.
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
Interesting, but I fail to see a significant delimma.
Defining an external force (Satan or God) as good or evil has no bearing on me or my actions. Regardless of religious (or lack thereof) guidelines that are the building blocks of how we choose to conduct our life, I find a significant majority of folks in the world have very similar definitions of right and wrong. If you exclude the superfulous 'sins' (prostitution, dancing, showing a woman's face,etc.) and messengers (Christ, Mohammed, Rani, etc.) the basics are very similar. That same group of similar thinking folks tend to work very hard to be 'good' people.
So, Is Satan the tempter and is God (Christ) the savior? I really can't be terribly concerned about that. The choice of action is mine and preoccupation with the source would temper my response. I choose (as do most folks) to do the good and right thing. My preoccupation is with clearly being able to define 'good' and reacting accordingly.
In this way I am not bother by whether the bible (or other religious texts) is analogy, metaphor or history. I embrace that independence and strive to be better as my experience grows. I am motivated to give as well as get. If there is some spot for me in a paradise after this life, so be it. If my failure to embrace a different religion condemns me to an eternal hell, darn - it doesn't seem quite just, but so be it.
Does Satan exist? I can't be sure we can really care enough to make a difference
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: So, in a world where objective proof is "irrelevant," morality is objective and absolute ("I do not believe that morality is subjective and changeable").
I will assume, that since everything comes from God, that morality must also come from God. And, since you believe that God can change whatever He wants, when He wants (such as the laws of physics), can not morality also be changed by God? Or does your belief system only allow certain things to be changed, and not others? And, since what you believe is not based on any objective observations of the world, and is purely subjective, you are free to claim that God may change "A", but not "B", and you may also state what you want "A" and "B" to be.
Do I have that right, so far?
No, you have entirely mischaracterized my statements. I have never said, nor do I believe rivka meant, that objective proof was totally irrelevant. I interpreted what she said to in the context of the discussion of the existence of God. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, rivka.)
Morality is absolute and unchanging. It is objective in the sense that there is an ideal morality that should be followed. It is subjective only in the sense that no person (excluding Jesus for purposes of this discussion) can know the ideal morality perfectly.
I have also never said that the laws of physics can change at any moment – I in fact said I did not believe they would. However, the statement “The laws of physics will never change” is not objectively provable. In my world, where things can be true and not objectively provable, this statement can be accepted as true. In yours, where only that which is objectively provable can be taken as true, it cannot be accepted.
The idea of morality “changing” only makes sense within the framework of time. Morality, as it exists outside this universe, is not subject to the time flow of the universe. Morality as a “creation” of God could be changeable, I suppose. But morality as an expression of God’s will would not change unless God changed.
All of which makes for an interesting discussion, but it is a serious derailment of Lalo’s thread. His question as presented assumes the existence of God and the accuracy of the story of the Fall. He is asking a question, I assume, to allow him to further evaluate Judeo-Christian beliefs. The question of whether or not God exists is separate from, though related to, the question as to whether God or Satan is the more admirable character in the Fall. It is a much more sophisticated question and goes to the heart of almost everything Christians believe. (I’m not sure how it interfaces with the Jewish faith.)
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"No objective evidence, perhaps (although I might debate even that); many people (including me) have experienced quite a bit of subjective evidence."
Rivka, I believe that you, Hobbes, and Belle all say you've experienced subjective evidence. All three of you belong to different religions. Which one of you is right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: No, you have entirely mischaracterized my statements. I have never said, nor do I believe rivka meant, that objective proof was totally irrelevant. I interpreted what she said to in the context of the discussion of the existence of God. (Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, rivka.)
Exactly.
I taught HS science -- including the scientific method -- for a number of years. Of course I don't think objective evidence is irrelevant for everything. Actually, in terms of evaluating the physical world in which we currently reside, it is invaluable.
In terms of evaluating the extra-physical world, it seems to have very limited (if any) use.
As I mentioned above, in Jewish thought there is no independent evil entity, "Satan" (although there are some uses of such allegorically). Evil is a consequence of free will and a challenge for us to overcome.
God makes wheat. Our job is to take the wheat and make bread.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You are taking it on faith that because thrown balls have accelerated downward at 32 ft/sec/sec since we began measuring it that they will do so in the future. My belief in that it will do so is based on an overriding faith that the Universe was created by a rational Creator.
Do I need to bring out the dictionary again and explain the 2 definitions of faith? Please stop deliberatly confusing faith #1 with faith #2.
quote: What is your belief that a thrown ball will travel in a shape approximating a parabola based on?
Expirimental evidence. Try it. Go outside and through a ball, then measure the results. Now go outside and say a prayer, then measure the results. See where this leads? Religion gives us no measurable standards by which to judge its value.
quote: There is no objective proof that the laws which govern the motion of bodies will not change tomorrow.
Indeed, but we can throw a ball tomorrrow and test those laws. And you know what? If they change, science can also change. Science is not immutable as you seem to think. Science is a series of observations and predictions which are proven useful or not, by observing the natural world.
quote: Despite this lack of proof, you have arbitrarily decided to believe that physical laws are constant.
They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.
quote: Extrapolating from what you have said, you have chosen to believe that all the accounts of miracles from essentially all cultures are based on either deception or delusion.
Delusion is a strong word for not understanding nature, but you are allowed to use it. Would you care to provide any objective evidence for the existence of miracles?
quote: No ethical system can be founded purely on objective evidence. By insisting on objectivity as the sole judgment criteria, you are precluding any kind of morality.
THus sayeth the lord! Geez, why not? Why can't I look around myself, observe our world, and make a decision on what I want that world to be like in the future, then act accordingly? I wasn't aware that such an endeavor was impossible.
quote: There are accounts of people who have observed God’s work directly. Why is their evidence harder to accept than written accounts of the Battle of Chalons?
Eyewitness accounts of supernatural events are not evidence. I can measure the tempurature at which ice melts. I can proove that it take X amount of calories to change the temperature of X amount of water X many degrees. I can write my findings down, and others can verify my results by repeating my expiriments. There is no such option for god or the supernatural.
History is a very subjective art. It consists of best guesses and some observational evidence, IE fields full of dead bodies, sunken ships, tombs of pharohs, etc.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, to me, one of the unique things about Judaism is that we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife. In fact, we discourage proselytes and believe that any non-Jew who fulfills the Noachide Laws gets "full membership" in the next world.
So I have no problem believing that the religious experiences of people of other beliefs are valid.
[Edit to clarify (twice, and it's still not quite saying what I want, but I give up!)]
[ January 02, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Do I need to bring out the dictionary again and explain the 2 definitions of faith? Please stop deliberatly confusing faith #1 with faith #2.
You know, you need to give that tired argument a rest. Entirely objective proof is impossible. Have you ever measured the acceleration of the earth’s gravity on a freely-falling body? Then how do you know what it is? Because you believe someone else’s account of it. How do you know it is constant? Because you believe a lot of other people’s account of it.
There’s no objective proof that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address. Do you believe he did so?
quote:Robespierre said: Expirimental evidence. Try it. Go outside and through a ball, then measure the results. Now go outside and say a prayer, then measure the results. See where this leads? Religion gives us no measurable standards by which to judge its value.
And if I believed that getting prayers answered was all religion was about, then your comparison might be valid. You’ve given no reason why something must be measurable to be true.
quote:Robespierre said: They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.
Um, no. They’ve changed quite a lot since then. For example, Newton’s laws are based on the assumption that gravity effects things with mass only. They predict that the effect of gravity is transmitted instantaneously throughout the universe. Further, the theory predicted the universe should collapse in on itself and offered no explanation as to why the universe it didn’t. They also failed to accurately predict the path of Mercury’s orbit, so scientists decided there must be an undetectable planet or moon that affected its orbit. Einstein created a theory that eliminated the need for an undetectable planet but also predicted light would be bent by gravity. Eddington proved him correct.
quote:Robespierre said: Delusion is a strong word for not understanding nature, but you are allowed to use it. Would you care to provide any objective evidence for the existence of miracles?
Um, Moses believed he talked to God in a burning bush. Are you saying that if he did not this would not be a delusion? Let’s define a miracle as “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.” The mere labeling of an event a miracle implies that there is an understanding of natural law, else how would someone know the event is extraordinary.
That being the case, the only method of providing objective evidence of a miracle is by accounts from witnesses. This is the same level of evidence you have about almost everything you know.
quote:Robespierre said: THus sayeth the lord! Geez, why not? Why can't I look around myself, observe our world, and make a decision on what I want that world to be like in the future, then act accordingly? I wasn't aware that such an endeavor was impossible.
Of course you can do that. And once you’ve done that, all you’ve said is “I desire the world to be such and such” and acted accordingly. You haven’t justified why it is desirable for the world to be like that. You’ve provided no framework for evaluating in the future how a person ought to act in a particular situation. Which means you haven’t created an ethical system but simply a statement of your desires. You haven’t even provided a means for evaluating why your desired world is better than someone else’s.
quote:Robespierre said: Eyewitness accounts of supernatural events are not evidence. I can measure the tempurature at which ice melts. I can proove that it take X amount of calories to change the temperature of X amount of water X many degrees. I can write my findings down, and others can verify my results by repeating my expiriments. There is no such option for god or the supernatural.
History is a very subjective art. It consists of best guesses and some observational evidence, IE fields full of dead bodies, sunken ships, tombs of pharohs, etc.
But you’ve never stated why this measurability is necessary for something to be true.
Let’s turn the question around: Do you have any evidence that God does not exist? Is the existence of God incompatible with any experimental results? Do you have any idea at all why the parameters of this universe are such that it is possible for life as we understand it to exist?
We have a large unexplained mystery here: Why does the universe exist? How did life develop? I have an explanation that meets all observable data. Do you?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:TomDavidson said: Rivka, I believe that you, Hobbes, and Belle all say you've experienced subjective evidence. All three of you belong to different religions. Which one of you is right?
I would be very surprised if the subjective evidence as experienced by these three was contradictory. Unless one of them happened to receive a complete revelation, it probably didn’t touch on anything that contradicts any of the religions in question.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Have you ever measured the acceleration of the earth’s gravity on a freely-falling body?
Indeed I have. Most people who have taken highschool or college physics have done so.
quote: Because you believe someone else’s account of it.
I will point out again that science does not accept eyewitness testimony as evidence. No science consists of "believeing some else's account". Observations MUST be repeatable to full under the umbrella of science.
quote: There’s no objective proof that Abraham Lincoln ever delivered the Gettysburg address. Do you believe he did so?
I sure do. I have faith #1 that he made that address. I have no reason believe he did not. Nothing he is supposed to have done is in conflict with my basic understanding of the universe. I cannot say the same for Jesus. He is supposed to have risen from the dead, that IS in conflict with a rational view of the world. The more outrageous the claim, the more vigorous the evidence behind it must be. It is not unreasonable to believe that a president gave a speech before a crowd of people during the civil war. It IS unreasonable to belive that a man rose from the dead by supernatural means.
quote: And if I believed that getting prayers answered was all religion was about, then your comparison might be valid.
My comparison is valid, because indeed there is no aspect of religion that is measurable.
quote: They’ve changed quite a lot since then.
The additions made since their creation make no noticable effect when calculating the trajectory of a thrown ball. However, you demonstrate the superiourity of science very well. It can adapt to our changing understanding fo the universe.
quote: Let’s define a miracle as “An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.”
Lets not define miracle that way. Lets define miracle as "an event that consists of some action by the super natural". By your definition, one could define the rising of the sun as a miracle to primitive peoples, merely because they didn't undertant what it was. You raise the possibility that no miracles are the result of supernatural forces, that they may just be misunderstandings.
quote: You haven’t even provided a means for evaluating why your desired world is better than someone else’s.
Would I have ot do that for it to be moral?
quote: We have a large unexplained mystery here: Why does the universe exist? How did life develop? I have an explanation that meets all observable data. Do you?
Firstly, your explanation meets ANY evidence, since it does not rely on evidence. If it did, it could be tested, and you would quickly disbelieve because observible evidence is of little importance to you.
I don't claim to understand the origins of the universe, and you do. Where does the burden of proof lay? Explain to me how those things came about, and how this god did them. Then explain who or what created god, and where he/she was before the universe was created. You have explained nothing.
(edited for spelling and added a sentence)
[ January 02, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wouldn't. It is my understanding (of course to be corrected if I'm wrong) that the nature of the revelation Mormons receive is supposed to be that the LDS Church is the one true church.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ed,
I wasn't angry, and while irritated I was otherwise calm.
You are free to claim that you aren't anti-religion...but one certainly wouldn't know it from your posts on Hatrack, or by talking to you online. You're welcome to prove me wrong by finding even one post or thread you've started that doesn't criticize or outright insult organized religion (note that I said organized again), and Christianity in particular.
I will be surprised if those types of threads aren't vastly outnumbered by threads and posts that are critical or insulting. ----------- Tom,
quote:Seriously, while an argument can be made that some kind of rebellion against God could be noble -- or even encouraged by God as a necessary part of his plan, as the comic suggests -- speculating on the motives of Satan as described in scripture is going to wind up extra-scriptural. In other words, people are going to assign him the attributes that make the most sense for the story they want to tell. *shrug*
Well said. --- Robespierre,
quote:Does it bother you that in all of christianity, there exists no measurable quantities? No objective way to determine the truth of the basic beliefs? This is my biggest problem. If there were some data, and the only dispute was in its interpretation, then fine. But there is zero observable data that there exists a God or a Satan or whatever else. No evidence for a supernatural has ever been found.
No proveable evidence, you mean. And I suppose many religious people might respond, as I will right now, that they do have evidence. It's just not evidence that you're willing to use, or give credence to, or is unequivocal.
----------
ssywak,
quote:The noble slave, eh? Step'n Fetchit?
Servitude does not equal slavery, nor does freedom equal nobility. Service, like freedom, is noble or mean depending on how one serves or how one frees.
quote:And what do you get to experience for eternity? Basking in the eternal glory of God? How long can that orgasm last for before you start to get all twitchy and jittery? Proclaiming God's eternal glory? You'd think he'd have that one figured out by now (talk about low self-esteem!).
The problem being that this is another misstatement of what Christians believe.
quote:And I'm so glad that we can all discard objective proof. It can get soooo annoying at times to have to base beliefs on actual, observable data.
No need o be snide. What we call "objective proof" is discarded all the time. Modern science is built on an alpine landscape of past "objective proof". This isn't something most people think about, and in particular it's not something people who base their atheism on the subjective nature of religious people's evidence like hearing. It tends to get shluffed off.
quote:Much better if we can make it all up, always go on hunches, and say that whatever we feel in our hearts to be true is true.
So Christians think you're going to hell, and you think they're either sheep or crazy or liars. Seems to balance out to me anyway.
quote:Subjective evidence? Something is true because some minimum number of people believe that it is true? Is Allah the One True God because there are more Muslims than Christians? Will a thrown ball travel purely horizontally until it slows down enough, and then plummet straight down just because 74% of people questioned believe that's how it works?
You'll not find a person who says, "God exists because most people say so." That might be a part of their belief, but before that they'll probably include, "God exists because God speaks to me."
quote:Or is it just true for the individual? In which case, you (not "you," personnaly--more "vous" than "tu") shouldn't be trying to convince other people of your belief--you should be trying to find a way to get them to experience the same subjective evidence.
Which is, ironically, precisely what most missionaries try and do. Get people to pray to God and get answers.
quote:Final question: can we just respond subjectively from now on? Throw objectivity out the window? I wait with bated breath.
quote:What you now espouse is what I have, many times in the recent past, predicted is the path that these arguments typically take.
This is something I'm guilty of myself more than a little, but when you've got answers to statements that are going to be made, you're not listening anymore.
quote:Great--you're more than welcome to attempt to drag me down into the dirt of total ignorance; but I'm not willing to go there with you. .... Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?
After all, your views on this issue are objective.
Respond however you like, but I know a sneer or disdain or simple patronization when I hear it, be it from a priest or an atheist.
---
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robespierre,
You’ve still given no reason why measurable observations are required for something to be true. Why is it “unreasonable to believe that a man rose from the dead by supernatural means?” Simply because it doesn’t happen often? None of the definitions I know of the term “reasonable” or “reason” contradict the idea of bodily resurrection.
quote:Robespierre said: I don't claim to understand the origins of the universe, and you do. Where does the burden of proof lay? Explain to me how those things came about, and how this god did them. Then explain who or what created god, and where he/she was before the universe was created. You have explained nothing.
But I didn’t set out in this thread to prove the existence of God or any of the other things you’ve demanded. This portion of the thread started because you said, “Atheism is the only logically consistent exit from this argument.” You’ve not refuted any of my arguments to that point, yet. You’ve simply stated I can’t objectively prove God exists.
I’ve acknowledged that – I can’t objectively prove God exists. But that’s a lot different than saying only atheism is logically consistent.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka,
What are the "Noachide Laws?" Can you provide a link?
Hey, Slash has been mighty absent lately.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Heck, rivka, given my sense of smell (or current lack thereof), who knows what I'm eating?
I tell you, it's a weight loss plan just waiting to happen.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I lost weight when I was sick the other week.
Sadly, it must have been mostly water, because it came right back as soon as I was properly rehydrated. *sigh*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
But long-term, I'd waste away. No desire for food whatsoever. But I'm really pretty attached to my sense of taste, so it's be hard to give up smell.
However, of all the five senses, hearing would definitely be coolest to get out of the way. The others are harder to sort out.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Most of what I hear just irritates me. Car stereos with the bass cranked up, shrill stupid people, yowling cats insisting that they haven't been fed in years, and so forth. Ah, sweet silence. I could press my head to my husband's chest and Leonard to my bosom for all the vibrations of love I need. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Rob, you keep talking about repeatability, and I agree with you that it's important if you want to be as certain of something as possible. But in the end, you don't even really know that you're repeating anything, unless you did the previous experiments yourself. If someone else told you about the experiments, we're back to eyewitness testimony.
No matter how you slice it, you can't get away from depending on what other people are telling you. You can make judgements about who you're going to trust, but unless you intend to believe only what you directly experience, you're going to have to trust someone. And if not, well...I hope you don't suffer from hallucinations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rivka,
Thanks for the links. Very interesting reading, and it confirms my earlier statement about subjective experiences amongst believers of different religions not necessarily contradicting each other. Am I correct in my reading that the neither the idolater nor cursing the name principles can really be implemented without some core understanding of who God is, so even followers of the Noachide Laws have to have a serious overlap in their beliefs with the Jewish faith?
The last link, however, does a serious disservice to the Christian conception of “faith.” I hope this isn’t the idea held by most Jewish believers about what faith means to a Christian.
Dagonee
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Robespierre-
Its called faith, people who believe in Christianity do not need evidence. The whole point of Christianity is faith, for instance, when Peter(I am pretty sure it was Peter) tried to walk to Jesus across the water, he started to sink because he started to have doubts about his faith. Their would be no freedom of choice if God came out and told us what to do, that was the whole purpose to the story of eden. God doesnt rule us like a tyrant because he gives us a choice to believe.
And about the story of Job, he was repaid more than 10 fold for what he had to go through, and he was happy to serve god. After he had those boils and his children died, he had many more children and received so much more than he ever had before. He was rewarded for his faith.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: What’s that you say? Science has led to medicine to heal the sick, and food production, storage, and transportation technologies to feed the hungry? I agree – science has done wonderful things. But the reason we can call these things wonderful (or its excesses bad) is because there is an objective yet non-objectively-provable proposition that it is good to heal the sick and feed the hungry. Science can do nothing good without a means of deciding which ends are good and which bad.
After a long hiatus, I'm back. If anyone remembers . Anyway... I'd like to point out that not all people belive that morality is something universal or comes from a diety. A good scientist would say that morality is based on the survival instincts of a social species. Horses have morals, but what god gave that to them? Dolphins have morals, where did those come from? I don't mean to be snide, because if you say, "God." I'd be cool with that. But an atheist cannot be thwarted by saying that morality is only a product of godly influence.
quote: Its called faith, people who believe in Christianity do not need evidence. The whole point of Christianity is faith, for instance, when Peter(I am pretty sure it was Peter) tried to walk to Jesus across the water, he started to sink because he started to have doubts about his faith. Their would be no freedom of choice if God came out and told us what to do, that was the whole purpose to the story of eden. God doesnt rule us like a tyrant because he gives us a choice to believe.
But did Adam and Eve have a choice in what they belived? If they gave God the proverbial finger, what would he do? Isn't that what Lucifer did, and there was this epic war in heaven!
So if Lucifer han't sprung Adam and Eve from Eden, would the human race be truly free?
quote: And about the story of Job, he was repaid more than 10 fold for what he had to go through, and he was happy to serve god. After he had those boils and his children died, he had many more children and received so much more than he ever had before. He was rewarded for his faith.
But you don't think it's scary that your god would do such a thing to an ordinary, happy person just to prove a point? Is that moral?
Here's a creepy way of thinking about it: Let's say you have a big bag of those plastic army men. I love those things. And let's say that they have some concept of dedication to you. Nothing like you feel towards other people, but they're only plastic, so you don't hold it against them. One day, you decide that you're going to test the faith of one of them, so you take him away from his platoon, melt him, burn him, throw him in the wood chipper. When you're left, all you have is a chunky plastic torso and a bunch of green plastic melted mulch. You spend some effort and get the poor guy back together, good as new, and you go out and spend some money and buy him a nice, spiffy Pershing tank and a spiffy four-engine C130 cargo plane. He's happy, and all the other army men realize that you'll take care of them, no matter what. You're a just and loving owner and you have a plan for each and every one of them. You can feel their dedication get a little stronger. That's touching, but they're just plastic guys. Who really cares anyway?
*shudders* I'm not religious, and it creeps me out. I don't want to be a plastic soldier. I'd rather spend all of my plastic existence in that wood chipper than suffer the false affection of a shallow diety.
[edited for a bit of clarity]
[ January 03, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:They have not changed since their discovery by Isaac Newton. There is no reason to believe that they will change tomorrow.
There is also no reason to believe they won't change.
You are using the assumption that things will remain like they alway have been to prove the conclusion that things will remain like the always have been. That's circular.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
There's no proof that the laws of physics won't change, so there is no reason to think that that will. Isn't that what science is based on? Disbelief until a body of evidence presents itself to change scientific interpretations?
Specifically, this logic does not follow: You can't prove* that the laws of physics won't change, which means that they will (or could).
It's more correct to say: You can't prove* that the laws of physics are going to change because there is no evidence that they have ever changed during humanity's existence, so it's a good assumption that they aren't going to (at least not any time soon).
*or present a body of evidence to indicate that...
It plays into one of the few constants in the universe: You can't prove a negiative.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Wheat Puppet-
I believe Adam and Eve could have given God the perverbial figner, it is their choice. Their one restriction was, "Do not eat this apple." Yet Eve ate it. She did what God asked her not to do. God wanted the best for the human race, yet also wanted them to be able to choose.
The story of Job was not God testing Job's faith, it was Lucifer testing Job's faith. Lucifer said he could make Job renounce God. God was like, "Try, but dont hurt him or his family" So lucifer didd all this shit but didnt hurt his family, and then Lucifer said, "of course he wont renounce you if his family is okay." So God was sad but said that it was okay to hurt his family but not Job, and still Job did not renounce God for allowing his family to be hurt, then Lucifer said, of course he wont renounce you if he cant be hurt. So God said it was okay to hurt Job but not kill him, so Lucifer did all this crap to Job but did not kill him. Finally the devil said, "Of course he wont renounce you if I cannot kill him" But God stopped it and said, that you have done enough to Job(dont ask me why I just wrote that story out, I had a purpose in the beginning, and now i just cant bring myself to erasing it). It wasnt God hurting Job, it wasnt God testing Job, it was Lucifer testing Job. God knew Job would have faith, and now the story of Job has inspired alot of people. Maybe God knew this and thats why he allowed it to happen? I am not sure. Did you read The Worthing Saga? By good old OSC? It addresses alot of issues of why God would allow suffering and pain.
About the army men-which mad me crack the hell up, especially when you said, "I love those things" cause I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Plastic army men." My only logical response is that you do not feel this way towards the army men because you didnt create them(I am not insinuating that if you actually melted a bunch of plastic down and cast and army of green army men that you would feel sad if they got torn apart in the shredder) But the Bible says how that when someone goes to hell, it hurts God like a parent losing a child, or somehting along those lines. So when comparing our relationshuop to God, we arent just little green men, we are Gods children.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Wheat Puppet-
I believe Adam and Eve could have given God the perverbial figner, it is their choice. Their one restriction was, "Do not eat this apple." Yet Eve ate it. She did what God asked her not to do. God wanted the best for the human race, yet also wanted them to be able to choose.
quote: It wasnt God hurting Job, it wasnt God testing Job, it was Lucifer testing Job. God knew Job would have faith, and now the story of Job has inspired alot of people. Maybe God knew this and thats why he allowed it to happen? I am not sure. Did you read The Worthing Saga? By good old OSC? It addresses alot of issues of why God would allow suffering and pain.
I havn't read The Worthing Saga, no.
Lucifer did all those things with God's consent, and, regardless of God's feelings about it, he did it to prove a point. He wanted to prove that Job's faith was unwavering. Job kept his faith--which is the important point to Christians, I guess--but what did he lose just to settle a dispute? He lost everything and nearly died. Sure, he may have been rewarded, but I can't get anywhere close to a point where that's cool. I find such apathy towards life--any life--very, very scary. I don't see it as an inspirational thing, I see it as a little boy playing with toy soldiers. I don't want to live in a universe where death and pain can come so cheaply, especially when handed out (indirectly or directly) by the very being that brought about this universe.
quote: About the army men-which mad me crack the hell up, especially when you said, "I love those things" cause I was thinking the same thing when I read, "Plastic army men." My only logical response is that you do not feel this way towards the army men because you didnt create them(I am not insinuating that if you actually melted a bunch of plastic down and cast and army of green army men that you would feel sad if they got torn apart in the shredder) But the Bible says how that when someone goes to hell, it hurts God like a parent losing a child, or somehting along those lines. So when comparing our relationshuop to God, we arent just little green men, we are Gods children.
I used the army men example because it fit with how God was using humanity in that story, like toys. So substitute army men for sons. You let one of your sons be stripped of everything and nearly killed, but you give it all back and more. How is that okay? He's supposed to say, "I love you dad. Let's built a fort in the couch tomorrow." If I were that son, I'd stab my dad in the chest with a big, rusty, boning knife! I don't understand how inspiration is supposed to be gleaned from a story about how God cast his/er morality into the wind, but fixes it at the end to make it all better.
I don't remember, but does God even say sorry, or, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."? And if God was in the same room as Lucifer, why didn't he bash his head open with a godly rock and say, "I don't play games like that with my children. I prefer to kill them outright, like you, or not kill them at all."
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
God allows suffering because thats what makes us what we are. If we didnt have pain and suffering how would we ever understand what was great in life? We wouldnt understand sacrifice, dedication, or many other virutes because life would be disgustingly easy if God made all of our decisions for us. The problems and issues of morality and such are what make us human. What would any of us be if there was no struggle in the world? You may say happy, but I think you would feel like you were without purpose.
Maybe God knew Job would be happier in the end and therefore allowed him to go through with the suffering? In your original question you asked why you shouldnt pray to the devil, and the answer is that the Devil causes people to suffer where as God watches and does not cause suffering. God does not actively search out our pain and suffering as does Lucifer. Lucifer wanted to cause Job pain, without Lucifer God would not have chosen that path for one of his followers. The Devil is evil, and wishes harm and chaos upon human society.
I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, But I think Lucifer originally turned against God because God had such compassion for humans. Lucifer was jealous of humans because were and are given the opportunity to be imperfect yet still loved by God, where as angels are supposed to never waiver from their faith. I could be wrong about this whole Lucifers rebellion thing, im not so up to snuff on that portion of the bible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, to me, one of the unique things about Judaism is that we don't believe you have to be of our faith to be a good person and have a good afterlife."
Rivka, the problem here is not that you're disputing the nature of the afterlife with three religious people; it's that three religious people claim to have actually communed with God and received three different answers. In one of those cases, they DO believe that their religion is exclusive; the other one doesn't even believe in the same kind of afterlife that you do.
So unless you're talking to a different God than THEY'RE talking to, or unless one or more of you are mistaken about talking to God, God is either lying to you or giving you messages customized to your faith, which seems a little contrary to the intent of scripture.
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, But I think Lucifer originally turned against God because God had such compassion for humans. Lucifer was jealous of humans because were and are given the opportunity to be imperfect yet still loved by God, where as angels are supposed to never waiver from their faith. I could be wrong about this whole Lucifers rebellion thing, im not so up to snuff on that portion of the bible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe most interpret the writings to mean that Lucifer attempted a 'coup'. The most commonly mentioned is that Lucifer (who was generally depicted as one of two angels that had a spot on God's throne) persuaded and led a third of the angels in an attempt to place Lucifer in the Throne. They were defeated and cast out of heaven. Here I get a bit fuzzy, but I think they were sent to a wasteland earth prior to God's seven day extravaganza.
As in all cases we have to be cautious of translations and the time of the translation - it is translated in the 'makes the most sense to me' way. The concept that leaders and rulers were devinely annointed could well have influenced the translations. Your devine appointment was quite often validated by your victory in battle. Thus, God's success in stopping the coup was another sign of legitimate control of the seat of power.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Henry, almost all description of a "rebellion" in Heaven, including Lucifer's motivations, is completely extrascriptural.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:murmurs: 'Extrascriptural' in terms of traditional Judeo-Christianity.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: God allows suffering because thats what makes us what we are. If we didnt have pain and suffering how would we ever understand what was great in life? We wouldnt understand sacrifice, dedication, or many other virutes because life would be disgustingly easy if God made all of our decisions for us. The problems and issues of morality and such are what make us human. What would any of us be if there was no struggle in the world? You may say happy, but I think you would feel like you were without purpose.
I don't expect a diety to prevent pain and suffering on a genral level, it is both undesireable and infeasable to stop every act of cruelty. On the other hand, Job's story is not genral-level. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the story if Lucifer had said, "I'm gunna do all this stuff anyway, so let's make a wager on the results." But it seems to me that Lucifer had to ask God for permission.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's more correct to say: You can't prove* that the laws of physics are going to change because there is no evidence that they have ever changed during humanity's existence, so it's a good assumption that they aren't going to (at least not any time soon).
That's not a valid argument at all. You can't prove X, therefore it's a good assumption that not X? You can't prove terrorists will attack in 2004, therefore it's a good assumption that they will not? That form of argument doesn't work.
A better argument is this: You can't prove or justify X, therefore you don't know X for sure.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by HenryW (Member # 6053) on :
Henry, almost all description of a "rebellion" in Heaven, including Lucifer's motivations, is completely extrascriptural.
************
Well Tom, It probably is easy to see that I am not a biblical scholar and will not be putting the effort into being one. You are correct that there is no specific references in the Old/New Testament Bible to this rebellion. I was simply relaying what I remembered about the logic used to identify Satan as Lucifer. It was (at least partially) part of a long standing , centuries old definition of Satan.
I also seem to remember that if you take a literal approach with that scripture, Lucifer is not mentioned as a name for Satan.
I'll not attempt discourse as a scholar. However, I do stand by the point of my ending paragraph - translations of highly allegorical text results in a snowball effect of interpretation. For me, that makes literal application of the Bible a very difficult task.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wheatpuppet,
Sure, `member you fine .
quote:A good scientist would say that morality is based on the survival instincts of a social species.
The problem with this is that many of our moral "laws" most people live by-or claim to live by-are quite contrary to the survival or at least the ease, comfort, or safety of human beings. While this does not completely negate your statement, it does to me at least cast some doubt on purely scientific explanations concerning morality. Much as I tend to disagree with people who see God in everything (I'm going to praise Jesus for letting me make that green light, and thank Buddha that I won that coin toss), I similarly tend to disagree with people who try and find scientific explanations in everything.
Well, strike that. Who insist that everything is explained by science.
quote:Horses have morals, but what god gave that to them? Dolphins have morals, where did those come from? I don't mean to be snide, because if you say, "God." I'd be cool with that. But an atheist cannot be thwarted by saying that morality is only a product of godly influence.
They do? Howso? You're going to have to do better than pack behavior.
quote:But did Adam and Eve have a choice in what they belived? If they gave God the proverbial finger, what would he do? Isn't that what Lucifer did, and there was this epic war in heaven!
So if Lucifer han't sprung Adam and Eve from Eden, would the human race be truly free?
First, it should be said-again-that Lucifer was acting as God's agent-whether he knew it or not-according to a great many Christians. So to insist that it was Lucifer who gave us freedom and not God won't score many points with such people.
As to Adam and Eve, it's pretty clear they did have a choice what to believe and what to do. They were permitted the freedom to do what was forbidden, if they chose to do so. If God had really created puppets, mindless automatons designed soley to stroke his ego...then why were they programmed with the ability to thwart his will? Is that what you would do if you wanted to create a race without freedom of choice?
According to Christians, humanity had freedom from the very start.
quote:But you don't think it's scary that your god would do such a thing to an ordinary, happy person just to prove a point? Is that moral?
I'd say sticking it to Satan, proving to Job just how righteous he was, and giving a story to comfort billions worldwide is more than just "proving a point". Nevertheless, I do understand your point as well. Insofar as I believe in a God, I've always had a beef with that particular story. I (personally) would be mighty pissed at God, but then Job wasn't. Who am I to judge how angry someone should be at something done to them?
quote:You can feel their dedication get a little stronger. That's touching, but they're just plastic guys. Who really cares anyway?
*shudders* I'm not religious, and it creeps me out. I don't want to be a plastic soldier. I'd rather spend all of my plastic existence in that wood chipper than suffer the false affection of a shallow diety.
First off, we're not plastic soldiers. Neither literally nor in the sense that you described their free will and abilities.
Second, it is a common practice of atheists to label the affection the Christian God has for his children "false" and "shallow". Once again, I pose the question: who are you and I to tell another adult that what God is doing to them is false or shallow? The problem is that once you do so, you've set yourself up as the enlightened, wise, and benevolent-mentally superior, in other words-big brother, and the believer is just a chump. This is true for any motivation, and if you get irritated when a missionary does it, it should be similarly irritating when you do it.
quote: I find such apathy towards life--any life--very, very scary. I don't see it as an inspirational thing, I see it as a little boy playing with toy soldiers. I don't want to live in a universe where death and pain can come so cheaply, especially when handed out (indirectly or directly) by the very being that brought about this universe.
Apathy how, exactly? Apathy from your perspective, certainly. This is the problem. You are applying your own morality to God and since you would find it abhorrent to do such things, it must be an abhorrent, scary thing to do. You're also missing-or ignoring-one of the most basic facets of existence to most religious people, which is simply that life and death on Earth simply isn't the most important thing. It might not even make a top ten list to many of them.
quote:I used the army men example because it fit with how God was using humanity in that story, like toys.
The difference is, the toy made a covenant with its owner essentially signing up for many things, one of which being the thing that he got.
quote:I don't understand how inspiration is supposed to be gleaned from a story about how God cast his/er morality into the wind, but fixes it at the end to make it all better.
Incorrect. Your morality.
quote:I don't remember, but does God even say sorry, or, "Maybe that wasn't such a good idea."? And if God was in the same room as Lucifer, why didn't he bash his head open with a godly rock and say, "I don't play games like that with my children. I prefer to kill them outright, like you, or not kill them at all."
Then again, according to Christians Job is in Heaven right now, having been thoroughly repaid uncountable times over for his suffering. Christians also believe that if it weren't for Satan, we'd still be in the Garden of Eden, looking at shiny objects and being impressed.
And isn't that what you were objecting to in the first place? -----
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
Dagonee's right, the basis of scientific inquiry is that the world we experience behaves according to a set of unchanging laws. if the laws we observe today change tomorrow, we can of course attempt to explain that scientifically, but we would have to do so by postulating a deeper order which was controlling how the laws were changing, leaving us in much the same boat.
so yes, even athiests (such as myself) are forced to take certain things on faith (although this can be somewhat avoided by postulating that while we experience things in a temporally linear fashion the entire world is determinate and therefore exists as a single "object" in some dimension).
i think the issue at hand here is how much we take on faith. the assumption that the world behaves predictably is unavoidable; without we are completely paralyzed. the assumption that there is a benevolent god who sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and heaven everlastin's our reward is NOT unavoidable, as is demonstrated by those billions of people who aren't christian.
it really comes down to this: people attempt to direct their actions using the least assumptions possible, with the least amount of faith. that is why even religious people insist on 'objective' proof of science. the more assumptions we make, the more we take on faith, the less able we are to explain things. assumptions are limiting, they propose a certain way of processing information at the expense of others, and if we are to be able to process as much information as possible we must have an understanding of the world which is as flexible as possible.
on a slightly related topic, how is it that the assumption that a dichotomy must exist between the natural and supernatural world gone unchallenged? if the definition of the supernatural is that which cannot be explained logically then the assertion that a supernatural world must exist is basically an assertion that logic cannot explain certain things. here i must draw a line between the belief that logic CAN'T explain something and the belief that logic HASN'T explained something. look around you at all the things which we consider part of the natural world: the movement of the stars, the tides and seasons, the variety of life, the process of procreation. what do these all have in common? they were once considered inherently mystical, determined by unforseen forces, the hand of God if you will. i'm not saying that we can explain everything, perhaps we can and perhaps we can't, i'm simply saying that it's silly to simply assume we can't.
[edit] didn't realize there was a second page to this thread, sorry if this seems off topic...
[ January 03, 2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
In my opinion, Satan acted as a catalyst. Since humans have free will, sin is the natural product of this inherent human tendency. Sataan did not "spring" Adam and Eve from Eden. He just "bailed" them early than their natural sentence.
And Lalo, why does it not suprise me you empathize with Satan.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: A better argument is this: You can't prove or justify X, therefore you don't know X for sure.
Right. It's a good asumption that they aren't going to, though, since they show no trend of changing in the past.
Rakeesh, well said. I'm going to bow out of this discussion with the firm belief that we live in different worlds. And that's cool. That always amazes me, people can be so different in some ways, but be cool enough to chat about such things in civil ways. Makes me happy.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
It's also a matter of probability.
Probability of sun coming up, tomorrow: 99.9999999999999%
Probability of physical laws NOT changing tomorrow: 99.9999999999999%
All based on physical evidence, mind you.
Probability of physical laws changing within a time period of a few milliseconds after the creation of the universe: 90%
Based on indirect evidence.
Probability of the existence of Leprecahuns? Invisible Pink Unicorns? Zeus? Talking Dogs? Winning the lottery?
[ January 03, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's a good asumption that they aren't going to, though, since they show no trend of changing in the past.
No, that's circular logic. You are using induction to prove induction.
After all, just because there has been no trend of changing in the past does not mean there will be no changing in the future - not unless you already assume that things true in the past will continue to hold true in the future, which is the very thing you are trying to prove. The conclusion cannot be an assumption of it's own proof.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Probability of sun coming up, tomorrow: 99.9999999999999%
Probability of physical laws NOT changing tomorrow: 99.9999999999999%
All based on physical evidence, mind you.
Probability of physical laws changing within a time period of a few milliseconds after the creation of the universe: 90%
Based on indirect evidence.
What possible physical evidence allows you to know what such probabilities will be tommorrow? There is no such evidence, because any probability that held true in the past could very well not hold true tommorrow. Any use of probabilities is based on the assumption that we already know the future will be like the past, which we've already said is a unjustified assumption.
Therefore, it is not a matter of probability at all.
[ January 03, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
kerinin,
Like your post!
However, I find myself too cynical to agree with one of the tenets of your post:
quote:it really comes down to this: people attempt to direct their actions using the least assumptions possible
I find that in reality, most people are too stupid or lazy to care about that. They'll just say things, without thinking, or without worrying about the consistency or sense of their beliefs.
Dialogues like we're all having here are a great opportunity to get ideas down "on paper" (as it were) and to examine them for consistency and accuracy--but I have to think that we represent no more than 20% or so of the general population.
And, as we've all acknowledged (I think we've all acknowledged this), people can hold consistent sets of beliefs that do not necessarily agree with each other. Facts--or percptions of facts-- may be wrong (accuracy is off).
Are our beliefs consistent? Are the facts supporting those beliefs correct? What assumptions do we hold? Of those, which ones may be verified (and so changed from assumptions into facts)?
How many people do you think care enough to challenge themselves this way on a consistent basis?
--Steve
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Probability that any probability that holds true in the past will hold true tommorrow:
99.9999999999999999%
What sort of world do you live in? What in that world has led you to think that things can or will just randomly change?
How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you? We are all here at God's capricious whim?
On Monday, is there a finite possibility that my wife will turn into the color blue? Or that my briefcase wil become a fish? I should just walk into the hills and grab onto a rock and hold on for dear life. On Monday, I may turn into a teapot, two adjectives and the rules for "capturing en passante."
--Steve
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Oh, by the same logic, how can you know that the past has stayed constant?
How can you know that the laws of physics and of reality haven't changed, repeatedly, in the past week, or month, or year?
You can't.
In fact, you can't even know that there was a past.
How do you know that every fraction of a second, you are changing from person to flower, from noun to verb, and back to person? How do you know that you even exist as a person now, and that you're not some detached brain, in a vat, being fed nonsense from some great machine-god?
How do you know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Or, in more direct terms: what is the value of a belief system that holds that nothing is predictable or constant?
Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.
Maybe there are some people whose ancestors never really ate from the tree of knowledge, after all.
[ January 03, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Steve, that's right--we can't.
It isn't worth going on the assumption that things will change radically, as you (or someone on your side) pointed out, because such a world wouldn't be livable anyway. For the sake of convenience, we assume that the world will continue to follow the laws it appears to be following now.
But if I hear that something unexpected has happened, whether it's a man rising from the dead or a man turning into a cupcake, I can't dismiss it purely on the grounds that "That's unscientific." Scientists accept what actually happens and deal with it. If the laws change, science will adjust.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Mac,
But you open yourself up to charlatans that way.
If someone claims that a man has risen from the dead, or a statue is bleeding from the eyes, or if this poorly wrapped box contains a brand-new Sony VCR and I can have it for only $15, then I really need to see proof.
You seem to be implying (please note that phrase) that one should be more wiling to accept the unlikely, just so as to not show some prejudice towards expecting the physical world to continue on as it has in the past.
UFOs Aliens and anal probes Cow mutilations Crop Circles Bleeding statues The Bat Boy Giant fat mutant siamese twins Fatima Stigmata
I don't automatically dismiss any of those things purely on the grounds that they're "not scientific" (well, maybe Bat Boy). But in the total lack of any scientific evidence, I do dismiss them.
Science will adjust in the face of evidence contrary to held beliefs. And relatively quickly, too (for the most part).
Does religion? Does it even acknowledge things (I don't dare say "evidence") contrary to held beliefs?
Johnny is deathly ill--pray to God for his recovery. Johnny dies. Oh, God must have wanted Johnny for his own heavenly choir.
God saved my husband from 9/11--He kept him home that day. But what of the almost 3000 who died? Oh, um, God must have had his reasons...
Apparently, there is no contradictory evidence on the "other side" (since, Mac, you called it "My side.")
I'm starting to hate these discussions, I can feel my heart hardening in my chest.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Treso,
Probability that any probability that holds true in the past will hold true tommorrow:
99.9999999999999999%
Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that probability won't become 0% tommorrow either, since as I said, probabilities are useless without first assuming the future will be like the past. Furthermore, you just made that number up.
quote:How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you?
No, actually this is what reason and logic has given me - Hume's reasoning and logic to be specific - a line of reasoning generally accepted by most of the philosophers who spend their lives studying these sorts of things.
I live in this world simply by choosing and having faith in the beliefs that seem best, and because I fortunately get enough of them right to survive (so far.)
quote:Oh, by the same logic, how can you know that the past has stayed constant?
I can't.
quote:How can you know that the laws of physics and of reality haven't changed, repeatedly, in the past week, or month, or year?
I can't know that either.
quote:In fact, you can't even know that there was a past.
Yes. (I've made that argument many a time )
quote:Or, in more direct terms: what is the value of a belief system that holds that nothing is predictable or constant?
I believe in many constants and in predictability. I just don't know them. There's a degree of faith that is necessary.
quote:Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.
No - God's got nothing to do with it. And we have more than faith. We have observations which, although possibly unreliable, still count for something.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
The good thing about philosophy is that there are so many different definitions and ideas about reason and logic that they all cancel each other out into a big, jumbled mess of rat droppings.
It's my personal philosopy that there's some sort of contest going on to see who can get the most people to believe the most retarded concept. The bar is being raised every day.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Ssywak, I would want to see proof of claims like the ones you mentioned too. But proof isn't always available when and where you want it to be. And even if you have a proof, it isn't always transferrable to other people. Suppose you saw a man rise from the dead--with plenty of life-support monitors attached so you know it's for real--but I'm not around to see it. How are you going to prove it to me? Can you make it happen again? Does your inability to prove it to me mean it didn't happen?
All tests have this problem--the only way to be certain of avoiding false positives is to risk false negatives, and vice versa.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: What sort of world do you live in? What in that world has led you to think that things can or will just randomly change?
How do you live, from day to day, in such a world? Is this what your religion has given you? We are all here at God's capricious whim?
You’re continuing to make the same mistake in thinking that we believe the world will change from day to day. We have not.
All we have said is that there is no proof that it will not, pointing out that there are some things you choose to believe without objective proof. In fact, that there are things you believe that are not objectively provable.
The odds of the universe developing in such a way as to produce human intelligence are staggeringly small. Yet despite this small probability you choose to believe that this event occurred by chance, not by someone’s design.
quote:ssywak said: Or does the arguement go like this: since knowledge is inherently unreliable, all we have is faith. Since belief is nothing more than faith with the addition of supposed facts (which we now know, of course, to be totally unreliable), again--all we really have is faith. And since we have no proof that anything really exists, or can continue to exist, therefore we must have faith in God.
Maybe there are some people whose ancestors never really ate from the tree of knowledge, after all.
Snarkiness aside, our arguments here have not been to say that “we must have faith in God.” Rather, it has been to state that your beliefs are founded on unprovable principles at least as unlikely as ours. I hope I’m not speaking out of turn by saying those on this side of the argument here all believe in the stability of physical laws that the usefulness of the scientific method relies on. We just acknowledge the method’s limitations, both in explaining the universe and in its utter inability to answer the question “Why?”
Our belief in the stability of the physical laws is just one part of the set of beliefs we hold that are objectively unprovable. You put yourself in a false position by claiming to not believe anything objectively unprovable, but failing to objectively prove underlying assumptions.
Remember, this whole line of discussion came from someone making the bald claim that only atheism is logically consistent, with no backup. This is all a refutation of that claim, not a proof of Theism.
All the counterarguments from your side have been attempts to show why Theism is illogical. So far no one has even attempted to explain how Atheism is logically consistent.
Dagonee
[ January 04, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Atheism is not logically consistent or rational. When confronted with unknowable questions concerning time beyond recorded history and beyond any evidence other than scientifically-based speculation, the only purely logical recourse is agnosticism.
Of course, if you do that there's less room to sneer and patronize those chumps who believe in God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Atheism is not logically consistent or rational. When confronted with unknowable questions concerning time beyond recorded history and beyond any evidence other than scientifically-based speculation, the only purely logical recourse is agnosticism.
On the other hand, agnosticism only achieves this by being a largely useless belief. After all, the fact that God may or may not exist doesn't really help you decide how to live your life.
Along these lines, if you really want to be a perfectly logical person you could always refuse to believe in anything whatsoever. In this way, you will never make an error. However, it also means you'll have no beliefs to base decisions upon, and thus forced to act blindly in everything you do.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
So, it appears that a large contingent here supports Solipsism as a philosophical basis.
In other words--we cannot know anything except what we personally experience. And even then, we have to acknowledge that the information we receive could be tainted.
quote:Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists'...And as a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense
The site then goes on to explain it in greater detail, and to discuss its importance as a point of view worth considering in the discussion of philosophy, but--in the end--it is an impractical and contradictory theory.
I reject solipsism. If we are to have any meaningful discussions, I would recommend that we all reject solipsism, and start to agree on what we all commonly accept as "real."
[dig]If the only way "the other side" can justify religion and the existence of God to itself is to deny the meaningfulness--even the existence-- of "the real world" through a direct appeal to solipsistic theories, then they must not have much of a leg to stand on.[/dig]
To quote Bill Clinton: "What do you mean by 'is'?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dagonee, I am really only a little bit familiar with the details of being a "practicing Ben No'ach" -- for lack of a better term. There are many many web sites; I just chose a few that looked reasonable. So I really don't know if that website (or its writers' beliefs) is representative. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
ssywak, I also reject solipsism--in practice. That is, solipsism (and related somewhat to it, idealism) is not a useful concept in everyday life. Assuming that other people are automatons, or illusions with no existence except in my sensorium, will get me nowhere; I will learn nothing and probably cause myself a good deal of unpleasantness. Saying that what I sense is an illusion does not allow me some other means of perception--it just disallows the one I have. I had not taken a good look at rejecting solipsism on any other basis, but your link is interesting and I will give it a closer look when I have more time.
But it is not solipsism, or even idealism, that I am talking about or that I think the others here are talking about, but empiricism. What we are saying is that because each of us lives distinct lives with distinct (but related) experiences, it is inappropriate to make a judgement about what one person can perceive based on what other people perceive. Just because I have never seen something--or even if I have never seen any evidence of something--does not mean it does not exist. For millennia, no European had ever seen a platypus, and when the first specimens were brought to Europe several prominent biologists dismissed them as hoaxes. They would not allow themselves to believe in a creature that did not match their acquired concepts of what living beings were in existence. Obviously, their experience was too limited.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
You cannot prove one theory by disproving another, which is why the Creationists will always lose. If you disprove a competetive theory by lack of evidence you have not proved your contrast.
Lack of opposing evidence is not positive evidence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And creationists aren't even particularly close to disproving evolution (one might suggest they better get started soon).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't believe anyone is supporting solipsism here.
I am just arguing for a form of weak skepticism - the notion that we do not know and cannot prove a lot of the things we believe, such as laws of the universe, etc.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: [dig]If the only way "the other side" can justify religion and the existence of God to itself is to deny the meaningfulness--even the existence-- of "the real world" through a direct appeal to solipsistic theories, then they must not have much of a leg to stand on.[/dig]
Once again you miss the point of what we’re saying. No one has denied the meaningfulness or existence of the “real world.”
What we have done is insist that you justify your position that the real world consists solely of that which can be observed, or particular events that are observed must be repeatable to be true. This is the underlying assumption behind all your arguments.
Again, note that the original statement being refuted was “only atheism is logically consistent.” Yet not once have you or Robespierre explained this supposed logical consistency.
And Ryan, no one here is trying to say, “You haven’t proven atheism, therefore God exists.” We are trying to say, “Atheism relies at its core upon just as many unprovable assumptions Theism.” Also note that evolutions disproves nothing about whether the world was created by an intelligent Creator.
I note that you have continually misstated our position in this argument, equating it with positions we have not taken. First you insist we are saying that the physical laws of the world are unstable. Next you twist our arguments to try to make them support Solipsism.
Are you unable to address us head on? Again, please simply show that atheism does not rest on assumptions that cannot be proven objectively and we’ll all declare you the winner.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Both atheism and theism at their cores rely on exactly the same number of unprovable assumptions: ONE. (God exists, or God doesn't exist)
The difference is that simple theism rarely stands by itself. So while you only need exactly one assumption to be a theist, it's a pretty rare theist that doesn't carry around a bunch of related assumptions as well. That's why there are so many religions.
For some reason, atheism is frequently associated with "evolution." Since most people who believe in evolution are theists (including Darwin and the Pope) this seems strange to me.
It also seems strange that the "Big Bang" is less controversial in religious terms than evolution is, since there are several alternative scientific theories to the big bang, but no scientific alternatives to evolution.
Which, I guess, is the real reason atheism is associated with evolution. Since atheists operate under the assumption that there is no god, belief in evolution is the only available position.
That is to say that even though more theists believe in evolution than there are atheists, the correlation between atheism and belief in evolution is 100%.
Still seems like a weird thing to pick a fight over though.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
two comments on evolution i want to reply too,
Dagonee: "The odds of the universe developing in such a way as to produce human intelligence are staggeringly small. Yet despite this small probability you choose to believe that this event occurred by chance, not by someone’s design."
and
fugu: "And creationists aren't even particularly close to disproving evolution"
firstly, i'd like to point out that evolution isn't really something which is up for debate, that would be like trying to say that sublimation was all a hoax or that digestion was a figment of the dang liberal's imaginations. macro-evolution and the origin of life is really a completely different subject than evolution itself.
which brings me to dagonee's quote. if the odds of me hitting a baseball are a million to one and i swing a million times it's pretty likely that i'll hit the ball at least once. carl sagan has an interesting section in Cosmos about the probability (as best as the science at the time could tell) of there being a planet in our solar system with intelligent life capable of radio communication. i think he estimated that there could be like 10 planets meeting his criteria. and that's just in our solar system... and of course if a sentient species were to evolve naturally it would look at itself in the mirror and say "where am i from, who made me, why am i here". or more importantly "what are the chances of me being on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy".
here's a better question which i feel the creationists have completely failed to even acknowledge: if God created a universe in which it was POSSIBLE (even if highly unlikely) for life to develop without direct intervention, why would he then break the rules of the universe he had created to do something manually which could have happened anyway? is he just lazy? even better, how is it that we can understand that when anything we create is created a process is involved (dinner doesn't just appear on the table, we have to make it and put it there), yet for some reason when god created man it was done completely devoid of process; god decided it would be nice to have a universe and pop!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, I am rather amused now because I know several atheists who do not believe in evolution. They "believe" various things among them, with some of the highlights being: "I really don't care" and "the universe just popped out of the sea of probability one day".
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Kerinin, I should emphasize that my post was rather tongue in cheek, as I have made the same point about provability and evolution before.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Mac,
Sorry--empiricism. Please change my references to solipsism to empiricism.
And I believe that the European scientists were wise to originally reject the platypus as a hoax. How long did it take them, BTW, before they accepted it? (I think, from a quick search, that it was about 40 years--yikes!) The Piltdown Man wasn't rejected as a hoax, though, even though it was. Should we also accept the Paluxy man and the dinosaur tracks? What about the unicorn skeletons? Or the Ark I read about in the Weekly World News, up on Mount Ararat?
I would love too, except your side has stated that there is no objective truth. How can I prove anything objectively?
You have stated that there is no objective proof that the laws of the universe will not change from day to day. The logical outcome from that concept is that, since the laws of the universe may constantly change (and, of course, there is nothing to oppose the concept that they may change without our being aware of such a change), then all knowledge is without value.
Or, am I not even allowed to use logic, since Godel (and Hofstader) showed us that there isn't even a way to objectively proove that logic can provide us with objective information?
What am I to do, then, in your universe? I cannot use any data, since it is suspect, I cannot use information I have read, because it is also suspect, and if for a moment I accept any daya whatsoever, I cannot extrapolate from it because even logic is suspect...
All snarking aside--you do appear to be making an argument for ignorance.
And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
And again, I re-state: why go to such great lengths to discredit knowledge (if the universe is, through your defence of empiricism, inherently unpredictable, and hence unknowable--what value is any knowledge?), unless that goal is somehow important to you.
Or are you just going the debate team route, and defending a concept which you do not believe in?
So...
Do you believe in this empricism, or don't you?
If you do, then by your own points, knowledge has no value. Further discussion is meaningless; let's stop.
If you don't, then drop the argument, and let's get on with it.
Monty Python:
quote:For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.
Treso
quote:I am just arguing for a form of weak skepticism - the notion that we do not know and cannot prove a lot of the things we believe, such as laws of the universe, etc.
I love your sense of humor. You are kidding, right?
[ January 04, 2004, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Are you kidding about thinking I'm kidding, or what? You must have gotten my point by now.
quote:And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
Well, for one thing it's dangerous to think you know things you don't. There used to be some folks who thought they knew the planets revolved around the earth - so much so that when it turned out they were wrong they refused to believe it, and instead attacked those who discovered their error.
In addition, presumably knowing the limitations of our knowledge will help us understand how to produce knowledge, or at least useful beliefs.
But, in the context of this thread, the point is that attacking religion because nobody can prove God's existence is a mistake. After all, there are all these thousands of things we trust in every day that we can't prove or know. If even atheists and agnostics take beliefs on faith every day in a fundamental way, one could hardly make the claim that basing beliefs on faith is a mistake.
[ January 05, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: I would love too, except your side has stated that there is no objective truth. How can I prove anything objectively?
No one has said there is no such thing as objective truth. We have said that not all things that are true are subject to objective proof. Do you really not understand the difference? If not, say so now and we can all save a lot of time ignoring each other, because you are incapable of grasping clearly stated points.
Let’s rehash this whole discussion:
Robespierre: Atheism is the only logically consistent way out of the dilemma of a purely good God requiring obedience v. an evil Satan “freeing” humanity.
Dagonee: Presents sample syllogism that logically consistent does not equal true (unrefuted to this point), explains why the good/evil seeming paradox is not logically inconsistent (unrefuted to this point), and states this is not an attempt to prove God exists.
Robespierre: Asks if Dagonee is bothered by lack of objective proof of God’s existence.
rivka: There is plenty of subjective evidence; objective evidence is irrelevant.
ssywak: Misstates a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs about the nature of eternity. Misstates concept of subjective evidence as “majority opinion determines scientific rules.”
Dagonee: Points out the difference between objective proof and objective truth. Mentions the lack of objective proof with regards to the constancy of physical laws.
Dagonee: Asks Robespierre why personal testimony does not constitute evidence.
ssywak: Takes Dagonee’s example of lack of objective proof of constancy of physical laws to mean Dagonee believes physical laws are not constant.
Dagonee: Informs ssywak that Dagonee does not believe that physical laws lack constancy, because Dagonee can accept truths that are not objectively provable. The requirement of objectively provable truth is imposed by ssywak, who does not have any for one of his core beliefs. Also points out that subjectivity is a matter of interpretation caused by imperfect understanding and does not change the underlying truth.
ssywak:Added to an earlier post at a later time. Insists that Dagonee’s argument amounts to a discrediting of “objective knowledge” as valueless. Points out many wonderful things science has done.
Dagonee: Points out that he is not saying objective knowledge is valueless, but that both objective and subjective knowledge (i.e., knowledge not subject to object proof) has value. Points out that the subjective knowledge of what is good is necessary to recognize science’s accomplishments.
ssywak: Asks for a clarification of Dagonee’s beliefs, still insisting that Dagonee thinks physical laws can change arbitrarily and extending the phenomenon to moral laws.
Dagonee: Points out that neither rivka nor Dagonee have stated that objective proof is irrelevant in all situations; the statement of relevance applied solely to the discussion about the existence of God. States again that he does not believe that physical are changeable, and that morality is not changeable either because it exists outside space-time. Points out again that the unchangeability of physical laws was given as an example of a truth accepted by ssywak/Robespierre yet not objectively provable.
Robespierre and Dagonee have a side discussion about the value of science’s adaptability and measurability. Dagonee admits he can’t objectively prove God exists but points out that he was not attempting to do so, but rather to show that atheism is not logically consistent. Also includes an interesting sidebar on whether morality can exist absent God.
ssywak: Lists the probability of the sun coming up and physical laws not changing, claiming they’re based on direct evidence. Does not supply any of the evidence.
ssywak: Again restates his opponents’ arguments to be that all knowledge is unreliable, and that such unreliability mandates a belief in God.
Dagonee: Points out again that no one has said they believe the physical laws of the world change day by day. Points out again that the constancy of physical laws is not objectively provable, which means that according to ssywak’s philosophy it is not true. Points out that we are comfortable with the idea of objectively unprovable truths. Asks again for the argument supporting the original claim of the discussion that Atheism is logically consistent.
ssywak: States that the people on the other side of the argument from him must believe in Solipsism.
Dagonee: Points out that no one has denied the meaningfulness or existence of the “real world.” Again asks for justification of ssywak’s position that the real world consists solely of that which can be observed, or that particular events that are observed must be repeatable to be true.
ssywak: States that his opponents’ have stated that there is no objective truth, that the universe is inherently unpredictable, that the logic is invalid.
Dagonee: Makes one last desperate attempt in this post to get ssywak to understand that:
NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
quote:ssywak said: And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
And again, I re-state: why go to such great lengths to discredit knowledge (if the universe is, through your defence of empiricism, inherently unpredictable, and hence unknowable--what value is any knowledge?), unless that goal is somehow important to you.
Or are you just going the debate team route, and defending a concept which you do not believe in?
I have never been “debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change.” I have repeatedly and pointedly told you this is not my belief.
What you have done is create a straw man argument to attack. In case you missed it before, NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! We have not discredited knowledge. We have said that knowledge is not limited to those few things that can be measured and repeated in labs. You’re the one who is limiting knowledge by excluding a vast set of subject matters from it.
You are also setting arbitrary limits on what sorts of knowledge require objective proof to be true. Existence of God must be objectively provable to be true; constancy of physical laws does not have to be objectively provable. Or its it that the consequences of inconstant physical laws are so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
Our whole point has been that something can be true and not be objectively provable. This seems to place a greater value on knowledge and truth than you do.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Robespierre reads Dagonee's distillation of the conversation and chuckles.
Science holds a monopoly on useful views of the universe. Religious theory will never allow us to advance technology or even understand our world in any meaningful way.
Religious theory is fundamentally un-testable. I then question its origins, how did man come to posses religious "knowledge"? The popular answer seems to be through revelation by God. One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
There has not been a single case of such knowledge coming from religious texts. They all seem to mirror the current technological state of whatever civilization they were revealed to. More importantly, even the philosophical concepts expressed in these revelations are rarely out of step with the civilization of the receiver. There is no objective reason to believe that said religious documents are anything but creations of man.
I would say that with religious texts in doubt, there remains no reason trust in religion's answers to questions about the universe but personal whim.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Robespierre reads Dagonee's distillation of the conversation and chuckles.
I was summarizing the portion of the conversation that dealt with ssywak’s continual misstatement of the Theist position. You have not done that very much, which is why I glossed over your portions of the argument. It was concentrated on making one very particular point – you can probably figure out what it is from the previous post.
quote:Robespierre said: Science holds a monopoly on useful views of the universe. Religious theory will never allow us to advance technology or even understand our world in any meaningful way.
Doesn’t this view beg the question of what constitutes a “useful” view of the universe? Science can allow us to accomplish things. Who defines if these things are “useful?” Science?
quote:Robespierre said: One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
Why would one suppose this? Since humanity has been gifted with the ability to examine the natural world scientifically, why would revelation be necessary to obtain information about the natural world? Revelation has been limited to those portions of knowledge which are not subject to objective proof, because those portions that are subject to objective proof do not require revelation.
The point remains, Your original statement that “only Atheism is logically consistent” contains two propositions:
1.) Atheism is logically consistent. 2.) Theism is not logically consistent.
You have made continual attack on Theism’s logical consistency and accuracy. You have never attempted to demonstrate the first proposition.
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
There has not been a single case of such knowledge coming from religious texts.
What about all the supposed miracles, and all the successful predictions recorded in the Bible? All of those are cases that fit that bill.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Predictions made after the fact, are not predictions, but postdictions. Nostradamus made many predictions, none of which were specific enough to be considered right or wrong. To say "A great man will be struck down" is not a prediction of JFK's assassination. People dig through previous predictions and find ones that somewhat fit current events in a roundabout sort of way. The bible makes no observable predictions. If it did, there would be an objective way of evaluating it.
What miracles?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: What miracles?
Given your previous definition of miracles, there’s no point in us discussing this topic. Tresopax and I and billions of other people believe that at some point God intervened in the world, altering the normal laws of nature to accomplish some desired affect. There are numerous written accounts of these events which you disbelieve. We have no other evidence to offer you, so this portion of the conversation can go nowhere.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Science can allow us to accomplish things. Who defines if these things are “useful?” Science?
Useful things which science alone can do, include but are not limited to the following:
-curing disease -acurately describing the motion of the planets -describe the nature of matter WRT atoms and quantum theory and all uses derives therefrom -explain how diseases become immune to treatments over time -correctly predict time dialation when travelling at high speeds -calculate the circumfrence of the earth -computers and all related technologies
I guess the simple way to do this would be to compare a society with little or no science, say New Guinea Aboriginal tribesmen, with a western technical society like the US. Lifespan, quality of life, relative safety, protection from the elements, etc etc all come with this package called science.
What useful things can religion provide us with today? A description of the cosmos that makes no testable predictions and suggests nothing about our place in it? Doesn't sound very useful to me. I understand your point about usefulness being relative, but would remind you that we would not be having this conversation were it not for computer science.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Useful things which science alone can do, include but are not limited to the following:
-curing disease -acurately describing the motion of the planets -describe the nature of matter WRT atoms and quantum theory and all uses derives therefrom -explain how diseases become immune to treatments over time -correctly predict time dialation when travelling at high speeds -calculate the circumfrence of the earth -computers and all related technologies
I guess the simple way to do this would be to compare a society with little or no science, say New Guinea Aboriginal tribesmen, with a western technical society like the US. Lifespan, quality of life, relative safety, protection from the elements, etc etc all come with this package called science.
But this presupposes that the purpose of human existence is to live longer and more comfortably. How do you know this in an objectively provable way?
I agree these are good things (although too much emphasis is placed on comfort), but there is more to life than this.
quote:Robespierre said: What useful things can religion provide us with today? A description of the cosmos that makes no testable predictions and suggests nothing about our place in it? Doesn't sound very useful to me.
It’s certainly not useful in a materialist sense. But knowledge of the purpose of existence and the way we should live our lives is hardly “useless.”
quote:Robespierre said: I understand your point about usefulness being relative, but would remind you that we would not be having this conversation were it not for computer science.
I wish people would quit saying that because some people think there is knowledge beyond science, we are questioning science’s usefulness. You keep throwing these things up as smokescreens. No one has said science is bad. No one has said improving the standard of living is bad. We are saying that useful knowledge does not end with out ability to manipulate matter and energy.
I still await any analysis or support of your original contention that atheism is more logically consistent than theism.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But this presupposes that the purpose of human existence is to live longer and more comfortably. How do you know this in an objectively provable way?
Presupposing what now? I make no claims about the purpose of human existence. You are the one who claims to know this.
I am of the opinion that there is NO PURPOSE to human existence other than one we make up for ourselves.
quote: But knowledge of the purpose of existence and the way we should live our lives is hardly “useless.”
Well, now you beg the question, what uses DOES this knowledge of yours give you? Does it allow you to survive better than those who don't understand? Does it give you any special powers? Anything at all that can be observed while you are here on earth?
quote: We are saying that useful knowledge does not end with out ability to manipulate matter and energy.
I would ask you for an example of this knowledge and a reasoning of WHY it useful.
(edited for spelling)
[ January 05, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: Presupposing what now? I make no claims about the purpose of human existence. You are the one who claims to know this.
You listed certain things as being useful. Usefulness involves some underlying purpose. A hammer is useful for pounding in nails. But pounding nails in and of itself isn’t useful; it is useful because doing so can attach one piece of wood to another, which is useful because it allows us to build shelter, which is useful because it allows us to live longer.
But why is living longer a useful purpose? I know why I think it is; I don’t know why you think it is, since any statement of purpose will ultimately go back to a proposition not subject to objective proof.
quote:Robespierre said: I am of the opinion that there is NO PURPOSE to human existence other than one we make up for ourselves.
And this right here is the heart of the logical inconsistency of your position. This is a proposition that is not subject to objective proof. How, then, can you be of this opinion, since all truths require objective proof in your philosophical framework.
quote:Robespierre said: Well, now you beg the question, what uses DOES this knowledge of yours give you? Does it allow you to survive better than those who don't understand? Does it give you any special powers? Anything at all that can be observed while you are here on earth?
I would ask you for an example of this knowledge and a reasoning of WHY it useful.
Is usefulness limited to survival and power? I would contend that religion leads to better living conditions on earth, but you’ll talk about the crusades and the inquisition and Galileo, and I’ll bring up Hitler and Stalin, and no one will be happy at all. So let’s leave that aside and suppose that religion does not lead to any benefits that can be observed while here on earth.
Assume for a minute Christianity is true (let’s use the minimal portions of the doctrine held in common by almost all Christians). If so, then there is an eternal life after this one. The manner of this eternal life is determined by choices made in this current life concerning the acceptance of Grace. If all this is true, then this knowledge is the most important knowledge you could possess, since choices made for less than a hundred or so years will have eternal effects.
I still await any analysis or support of your original contention that atheism is more logically consistent than theism.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BTW, I do understand the difference between OBJECTIVE TRUTH and OBJECTIVE PROOFS. I also understand the concept of SUBJECTIVE TRUTH and SUBJECTIVE PROOFS.
The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is what Scully is constantly refering to as the thing that is "Out There." As a science/engineering-based person, my assumption is that, one way or another, the objective truth can be discerned either by direct observation, or indirectly through objective proofs.
The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
Subjective truth is an oxymoron, then, as is the phrase "subjective proof." One person can convince themselves of anything. One person's feelings about a subject will not make it true (or reveal it to be true). And, as I mentioned earlier, which you then discredited, whether it's one or a thousand with this same subjective thought--it gets you no closer to the objective truth. Subjective truth is what? The feeling, or belief, that a thing exists? The thing may or may not actually (objectively) exist. What a person (or group of people) feel about it will not bring it any closer to objective existence.
As an atheist, I have amassed sufficient objective information to form a rational basis for my belief in the non-existence of God (or Satan, for that matter). It would be foolish to say that I know the non-existence of God to be an objective truth, but it is truth enough.
If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc. What criteria shall I use to reject those beliefs, and accept one particular* God?
*I don't mean "God as a particle." We all know that God is both a particle and a wave...
(Edited because I accidentally hit the ENTER key after the first sentence)
[ January 05, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
(OK - responding now.)
[ January 05, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(While you were typing, so was I)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I don't mean "God as a particle." We all know that God is both a particle and a wave...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BTW, here are my main assumptions.
Please feel free to tell me the other ones I forgot to include:
1) The universe exists. How it got here, I don't know. Smarter people than I are working on it, but until I know how it got here, I don't know how it got here.
2) The universe will continue to exist, following the same laws or constraints that it now follows, for a substantial period of time. At least until al the stars die out, and there's no one around to worry (or do anything) about it any more.
Your turn to list your assumptions.
(Edited to add a snarky comment at the end)
[ January 05, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dagonee,
quote:Or its it that the consequences of inconstant physical laws are so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
In all fairness, I would turn that quote around, and ask you to answer it:
quote:Or its it that the consequences of a universe without God is so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
We may be even on that count.
Edited to review for snarkiness: SQ* = 0
*Snarkiness Quotient
[ January 05, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is what Scully is constantly refering to as the thing that is "Out There." As a science/engineering-based person, my assumption is that, one way or another, the objective truth can be discerned either by direct observation, or indirectly through objective proofs.
Fine, but this assumption is very likely not subject to objective proof or direct observation. If it’s not subject to objective proof, then it’s not true according to its own mandates. So why does this assumption get special treatment over all other possible objective truths not subject to objective proof?
quote:ssywak said: The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
We just flat out disagree here – the problem may be at its core the definition of subjective being used. I consider subjective to be an individual’s understanding of the truth – whether physical, moral, or otherwise. This does not mean an individual’s subjective interpretation cannot be wrong (or, if you will, farther from the truth). This is easily seen in physical phenomena: The earth doesn’t really revolve around the sun – it follows the geodesic “straight line” caused by the Sun’s distortion of gravity. But saying it revolves around the sun is a useful shortcut, and many people’s understanding of the matter does not progress beyond that point. They are not “wrong” so much as their understanding is incomplete.
Some subjective interpretations of the truth are flat out wrong. “The earth is the center of the universe” could be considered true in the sense that all other motion could be described mathematically in such terms. But besides making the math impossible to calculate, it also represents an unnecessarily complex description of the motion, which can be much more simply described as a succession of smaller bodies orbiting larger bodies.
“Gravity is repulsive, not attractive,” on the other hand, would probably be considered flat out wrong. Not even the tortured mathematical calculations can make this statement true in any sense.
I agree objective truth cannot be discovered perfectly through subjective means, but I also don’t think it can be discovered perfectly by objective means. We’ve seen continuing reevaluation of fundamental scientific theories for thousands of years now. I think this is a good thing, but I don’t think the process will ever stop. Something as radical as relativity and quantum mechanics is waiting for us to discover it.
quote:ssywak said: Subjective truth is an oxymoron, then, as is the phrase "subjective proof." One person can convince themselves of anything. One person's feelings about a subject will not make it true (or reveal it to be true). And, as I mentioned earlier, which you then discredited, whether it's one or a thousand with this same subjective thought--it gets you no closer to the objective truth. Subjective truth is what? The feeling, or belief, that a thing exists? The thing may or may not actually (objectively) exist. What a person (or group of people) feel about it will not bring it any closer to objective existence.
But I don’t think subjective truth exists except in the very limited sense of an individual’s imperfect interpretation of the objective truth. In essence, I would do away with the term subjective belief. People have beliefs that certain things exist. Those beliefs may be absolutely right, absolutely wrong, or an imperfect interpretation of the actual thing, with some interpretations being less perfect than others.
I think there is an objective truth about God. I don’t claim to know it perfectly – I would be surprised if there is any religion on earth that does not contain some accurate reflection of the objective truth. Obviously, I believe that my understanding is close enough to the truth that I base my life on it. Each person must select the individual interpretation they actually believe – hopefully after thoughtful contemplation. But the fact we can’t know them perfectly does not change the fact that there is an objective set of truths about God and the nature of existence.
quote:ssywak said: As an atheist, I have amassed sufficient objective information to form a rational basis for my belief in the non-existence of God (or Satan, for that matter). It would be foolish to say that I know the non-existence of God to be an objective truth, but it is truth enough.
So are you saying that the existence of God is not subject to objective proof? I just want to be clear what you mean here.
quote:ssywak said: If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc. What criteria shall I use to reject those beliefs, and accept one particular* God?
Again, see my notes about “subjective truth” above. Hollow earth and aliens are ultimately objectively provable – each person sets their own standard of proof whereby they decide if they will act as if a particular belief is true or false.
Some things have nearly universal agreement on accepting them as true – it’s best to act as if physical laws won’t change, because experience teaches us they won’t. Besides, what could we possibly do about it in advance? Some things, such as the existence of aliens (in the purely physical, natural world sense as beings from another planet), could be objectively provable, leaving someone free to evaluate the objective and subjective evidence for and against them. Subjectively we have the testimony of some people in favor. Objectively we have the size of the universe (which would suggest it’s at least possible) and the light speed limitation (which suggests it’s unlikely they could get here even if they existed).
Zeus and unicorns could either be totally made up, could have existed at one time without leaving a physical trace, or could be subjective interpretations of some objective truth we understand imperfectly.
Things that aren’t objectively provable require drawing inferences from things that are, reliance on testimony of those who have experience them directly, and whatever promptings the inner heart may provide. This is why individual interpretations will vary. However, as stated above, this does not mean that these subjects do not have objective truths – it means we don’t know the objective truth fully.
There are several quantities in quantum physics, such as the charge and mass of an electron, that can be determined experimentally but cannot be predicted by the theory. (Or, any predictions of these values would rely on using values for other physical phenomena that cannot be predicted, such as the mass of a proton.) Other values, however, can be predicted by a theory and confirmed experimentally. I would suggest that scientists are much more comfortable with the second type of value, even though the first has just as much objective proof.
quote:ssywak said: *I don't mean "God as a particle." We all know that God is both a particle and a wave...
I agree with rivka.
quote:ssywak said: 1) The universe exists. How it got here, I don't know. Smarter people than I are working on it, but until I know how it got here, I don't know how it got here.
2) The universe will continue to exist, following the same laws or constraints that it now follows, for a substantial period of time. At least until al the stars die out, and there's no one around to worry (or do anything) about it any more.
Your turn to list your assumptions.
1.) The universe exists. It is a self-contained unit comprised of space-time, matter, and energy. Scientists are discovering more about it every day. Whichever of the current theories regarding the origins of the universe (or more likely, new theories) is found to be correct will be limited in its applicability to events which occur in this universe. Call this the “natural world.”
2.) The natural world exists (alongside, within, some other location word which does not translate well outside space-time) a “supernatural world.” Here supernatural is almost literally correct – the supernatural world somehow contains the natural and is hence in some way “above” it.
3.) The universe came into being through the will of a Creator who did so with certain underlying purposes. The physical mechanism used to achieve these various ends, including the big bang, evolution, or anything else do not eliminate the Creator’s intent nor the fact that he is the ultimate cause.
4.) Man is a creature with both animal and spiritual aspects, distinguished from pure animals in this respect. The spiritual aspect was granted by the Creator at some point in the history of the natural world.
4.) The abilities of ideation and subcreation are in some sense supernatural, not determined exclusively, but possibly limited by, the physical laws of this universe. This is the basis for the existence of free will.
6.) Physical laws are “constant” in some sense. For example, the speed of light is considered constant based on current measurements. However, “Variable Speed of Light” theories do exist that posit that the speed of light changed at some point in the universe. If this is found to be true, there will be some law which embraces both of these findings that will be “constant.”
7.) There is a set of knowledge that applies specifically to the natural world. Given perfect information and understanding of the laws governing the natural world and its current state, it would be possible to predict the future states of the world with a precision limited by three things: a.) Inherent limits of the physical world (the uncertainty principle). b.) Physical action instigated by the ideation or subcreation of human beings. Animals may possess some level of free will, or their behaviors may be wholly deterministic (this is unknown to me). These physical actions are constrained but not determined by the physical laws. c.) The purposeful intervention of supernatural entities from outside the natural world (miracles). At the point where the miracle ends, physical laws could predict the subsequent states of the universe subject to the same limitations.
I’ve never done this exercise before, so I’m reserving the right to revise as the implications of this list sink in (or as you point out inconsistencies within it).
quote:ssywak said: Or its it that the consequences of a universe without God is so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
Absolutely. I can say yes to this without weakening the consistency of my argument (although leaving myself open to psychological attacks on religious beliefs). But it’s pointless to say a physical phenomenon happens the way it does because otherwise its effect on humanity would be too devastating, unless there is a reason to think the universe takes humanity into account.
So I can posit that one of the reasons God may physical laws consistent is to make the universe more suitable for humans; you have no such underlying proposition on which to rest the constancy of physical laws.
Dagonee
[ January 05, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
Keep in mind that ALL scientific discoveries are made through subjective means, as well as all information we know about the natural world around us. After all, the only access we have to these worlds are through our senses - sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. These senses are subjective, as they are available only to ourselves and can easily mislead us. Thus, if objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means, we cannot determine ANY objective truths about the natural world.
quote:If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc.
Why aren't these things possible? I don't believe in them, sure, but they're still possible. What's the problem with admitting they are possible?
quote:Your turn to list your assumptions.
I would tend to agree with your assumptions. The point is, though, that they are just assumptions - not proven fact.
[ January 05, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Are we going to have to get into "levels of subjectivity"?
Or are you going to claim that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, since all we can ever know is either a subjective experience, or mental (perhaps logical--if logical counts for anything) manipulations of subjective experiences.
And Dagonee said that none of you guys were Solipsists! Ha!
Treso, Dagonee? Which will it be? Will we allow ourselves to objectively know anything, or it is all one big solipsistic nightmare?
Listen (or should that be "Read"?)--I'm well aware of the limitations to our knowledge, to our sense organs, to our ability to logic things out, and all of that. But sooner or later we have to agree that something exists (specifically: the Universe, and All of Us), and since (or that) we exist, that our senses are reliable enough to give us a facet of the true, objective world.
Because it's either that, or one of us is just a brain in a vat, and the others are figments of that person's (obviously limited) imagination.
I'm soooo tired of this stuff!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you’re so tired of this stuff, why do you continually misstate my position.
Repeat to yourself slowly: Dagonee and Tresopax do not believe “there is no such thing as objective knowledge.” We’re the ones saying it is possible to discover objective knowledge through subjective means. We’re the ones saying something does not require objective proof to be true.
Of course “we ... agree that something exists (specifically: the Universe, and All of Us), and since (or that) we exist, that our senses are reliable enough to give us a facet of the true, objective world.” We just happen to hold that in addition to the knowledge you describe here, there are facets of the world that are objective and true that will never be objectively provable within the natural world. You’re the one artificially limiting the scope of knowledge, not us.
You’ve create a false dichotomy between two propositions, attempting to force us to choose between 1.) Either things that are true must be objectively provable or 2.) There is no objectively provable knowledge at all. We choose neither.
Dagonee
*Edited to correct typo.
[ January 05, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Might I suggest, having been in a thread with Tresopax and Ssywak before, that it’s probably a bad idea to conflate Dagonee’s and Tresopax’s positions?
[ January 05, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Are we going to have to get into "levels of subjectivity"?
Or are you going to claim that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, since all we can ever know is either a subjective experience, or mental (perhaps logical--if logical counts for anything) manipulations of subjective experiences.
I'd prefer to avoid both these options by simply dropping your assumption that we can't learn about objective truth through subjective means.
quote:Which will it be? Will we allow ourselves to objectively know anything, or it is all one big solipsistic nightmare?
Neither. Instead we BELIEVE a lot of objective truths about the external natural world, even if we don't KNOW them. Or, in other words, just because you don't know the external world exists, doesn't mean you have to believe it does not exist.
Nobody here believes solipsism.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
A question for ssywak and Robespierre, if I may.
Do you believe that dark matter exists? If so, why -- it's never been observed, and current theory maintains that it may not be possible to observe it? If not, how do you explain the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dagonee,
I didn't say that you (or Treso) believe that ther is no such thing as objective truth. I said that Treso's last position was that there is no such thing as objective knowledge.
I thought that we had all agreed on the definitions of objective truth vs. objective proof. Objective knowledge is not objective truth. Objective knowledge is nowledge gained through objective means (or, is it knowledge of objective truths, gained through whatever means? Hmm...)
On a more interesting note:
Rivka, as I've stated before, I think this whole "Dark Matter/Dark Energy" thing is a load of crap. I think that the astrophysicists' reliance on it merely reveals the level of their lack of knowledge of higher-order physical laws, certainly on a large (galactic) scale.
It's a fudge factor--a huge one, at that. They're not making up for the last 2 or 3% of "required mass" for the universe--they're making up for about 90% of the "missing mass."
I've either got to learn a heck of a lot more about current theories in astrophysics before I'll accept it, or they've got to sharpen their pencils a hell of a lot better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought that we had all agreed on the definitions of objective truth vs. objective proof. Objective knowledge is not objective truth. Objective knowledge is nowledge gained through objective means (or, is it knowledge of objective truths, gained through whatever means? Hmm...)
I was using the parenthetical definition. It explains the confusion at least. I'm too tired to think of the implications now, so I'll consider it tomorrow. I've largely been using knowledge to be a synonym of truth throughout this debate.
Although I still disagree with you pretty much down the line on this, at least I understand why we've been talking past each other for 3 pages .
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dark matter sounds a lot more mysterious than it is. There's evidence that stars of a certain size will continue fusing until most of the matter is iron, then cool into a solid mass. Such a star would be considered "dark matter."
When I first heard the term, I thought it referred to some new phase of undetectable matter, raising the specter of phlostigen and "ether."
The fact that 90% of it is missing makes me wonder what the hell we're missing in our theories, because to stop the expansion to the levels we've calculated, the matter must be relatively evenly spread out throughout the cosmos. Which means we should be able to detect some of it somehow.
Cosmological constant, anyone?
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Do you believe that dark matter exists? If so, why -- it's never been observed, and current theory maintains that it may not be possible to observe it? If not, how do you explain the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
I don't have any data on the question of dark matter. Something that has been predicted my mathematical models is FAR from proven or observed. I hold such ideas as dark matter and string theory as interesting but meaningless until someone determines a way to test or observe them in same way. The basic difference between these ideas and the idea of god being that there is never a way to observe god. The possibility of observing string theory or dark matter is still up in the air. If it turns out that one or the other is un-observable in any way, that theory would cease to be a theory, and become a philosophy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So neither of you believe that dark matter exists. Fine. I have serious doubts as to its making up 90% of the universe myself. The fact that the cosmologists can't even decide if the most likely candidates are (from here)
quote: . . . undetected brown dwarf stars, white dwarf stars, black holes, or neutrinos with mass (neutrino, fundamental nuclear particle that is electrically neutral and of much smaller mass, if any at all, than an electron), or indeed exotic subatomic particles, such as WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) or MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects).
But then how do you explain the fact that the universe's rate of expansion has been observed to be accelerating? The reason why dark matter has received so much consideration is because of the absence of any other serious contenders to explain this very odd phenomenon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: If it turns out that one or the other is un-observable in any way, that theory would cease to be a theory, and become a philosophy.
What a cold, cramped, little world you live in, where nothing exists except what you can see using your eyes or their proxies.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What a cold, cramped, little world you live in,
Welcome to the pale blue dot, buddy.
Seriously though, the supposedly warm, comforting, large world in which you live, is a figment of the imagination, it does nothing to change the cold cramped smallness of the real world.
quote: But then how do you explain the fact that the universe's rate of expansion has been observed to be accelerating?
Is science on trial here? I don't think science needs to explain that to be right about everything else. Science doesn't claim to be all-knowing.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Rob, calm down. They're questioning dark matter, not science. Though science can be worth questioning, you know. As you said, science doesn't claim to be able to answer all questions--though I have known a few people who claim it can.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Seriously though, the supposedly warm, comforting, large world in which you live, is a figment of the imagination, it does nothing to change the cold cramped smallness of the real world.
Fine, we entirely disagree. But at least admit you have no more proof that it is a figment than I do that it is not.
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Science is not on trial. I happen to think the scientific method is a very useful tool.
But that's all it is -- a tool. Not the only tool, not even the best tool in all cases. A tool that cannot possibly answer all the mysteries of the universe. Not even, it seems, the entirely physical ones.
You may think the world view of others is figmentary. But even were that so (and I whole-heartedly believe that it is not), I prefer it to the narrow view you espouse.
You prefer your view -- that is your right, and I do not debate it. I do wonder why you seem so invested in declaring other views wrong.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Not the only tool, not even the best tool in all cases.
I am willing to accept this, but what examples would you suggest for demonstrating a situation where science is not the best tool?
quote: You may think the world view of others is figmentary. But even were that so (and I whole-heartedly believe that it is not), I prefer it to the narrow view you espouse.
What is narrow about my view? I won't harangue you any more about the scientific method, because I know you understand it. So tell me how a view that updates itself with the latest and most acurate of human knowledge is narrow.
I would suggest that your view is narrow. You have already decided the truths of the universe without so much as a shred of evidence. The religious outlook strives to fit new data into old assumptions, rather than reform a possibly flawed outlook.
quote: I do wonder why you seem so invested in declaring other views wrong.
Isn't that what this board is about? Discussing issues which people deem important enough to talk about? I am not merely here to declare you wrong, I am here to represent my side of the debate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laughs* I have hardly "decided the truths of the universe" -- I learn new things, and re-examine things I thought I knew, all the time. And it's not "without a shred of evidence." It merely happens to be evidence that you find wanting.
And since I think we're going in pointless circles, I will leave it at that, Horatio. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet
[ January 06, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I am willing to accept this, but what examples would you suggest for demonstrating a situation where science is not the best tool?
There are many, but here's one: Evaluating mathematical theories. Sure, you can experiment scientifically and run a number of trials to see if the theory holds true each time. However, you often can do it much quicker and which much greater certainty if you prove the theory using logic instead.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Thanks, CT.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(((((CT))))) Yay! Someone gets my obscure jokes!
Have you whupped the germies yet?
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
Can we not just aceept that there is some unseen, mysterious force out there that created all this---whether it be Science or Deity?
I mean--blue hell--this thing's turned into a monster in less than a week.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:I mean--blue hell--this thing's turned into a monster in less than a week.
Where is the objective evidence that hell is in fact blue? You people keep on making blanket statements as if they were fact without even trying to bring up your evidence. Your belief in a Blue Hell offends me, because Neutonian Physics has certainly proven that, if there were any sort of hell to exist at all, it would most likely be violet with flourescent orange polka dots.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yellow.
The polka dots are YELLOW!
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Given that hell is exothermic, it should be possible to calculate its color, given sufficient data on its temperature.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"If we accept the postulate given to me by Theresa Banyan during freshman year, that, "It'll be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and taking into account that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then [A2] cannot be true... thus, Hell is exothermic."
Interestingly enough on that is Hell endothermic or exothermic quiestion, I have attended classes at the U. of Oklhahoma, with Dr. Shambaugh as a prof. While I love the proof I don't believe that urban legend actually started there, because I know Dr. Shambaugh would have bragged about it. Plus he doesn't give essay questions in his classes, they are all problem solving with numbers and symbols. There is another version stating that it originated from Cal-Tech, which I believe is more plausible.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's such a great story, every college wants to claim it. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I've been working on this for a while....
Objectivity into Subjectivity
I guess the best place to start is with the assumption that we exist in an objective universe: The universe exists, and we exist within it.
The state of the universe (its condition) is its objective "truth" (it is "THE" objective truth, if you will). Aspects of this truth that we understand are objective "knowledge."
But it's how we gain this knowledge, I think, that has lead to the majority of our disagreements.
The primary way we gain knowledge of the universe is though perception--our senses. That makes the path "subjective"--subject to modification. But even before the objective truth of the universe can be perceived by us, it passes through filters--modifiers, if you would. Filters of time, for starters, filters of speed (think: red shift/blue shift/one shift/two shift), gravitational distortion filters, atmospheric filters, radio telescope filters, optical telescope filters, CCD/Photomultiplier sensing array filters, cosmic-ray- detection-array filters, data storage filters, etc., etc., etc. And I'm not even talking about real "filters" filters--like red filters, polarizing filters, anti-smog filters, bandpass filters, all the corrective filters and refocusing manipulations performed on the Hubbell Space Telescope, etc. I'm talking about the fact that you have to use a telescope at all (or any sensor), and the fact that whatever media the data passes through will modify the data simply by "handling" it.
And, as I said--that's even before this information gets to us! We then add additional filters (modifiers) to this data. We can't see most of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can't hear most of the audio spectrum. We can manipulate the incoming data to help us improve our range, but even that's "more filters." And who's to say that our five senses are all there is? There could be data out there that we can't even conceive of.
And then there's the perception filters we impose on this data. When we study photons, we perform tests--the results of these tests address our concerns as to whether light is a particle or a wave. When we see a statue bleeding from the eyes, we perceive it as either a miracle or a fraud.
Once we finally perceive this data--once it gets to our ego/soul/sense-of-self for interpretation, it's gone through so many "transport layers" that it's only a shell of what it started out as. And it's only then that we start to try to figure out what it all means.
So, you don't have to worry if I know about the subjectivity of sensing/perceiving and interpreting otherwise (or originally) "objective" data. I know.
But there's nothing in that multi-layer filtering of data to indicate that "anything is possible," or that it all might change without warning. Scientists, engineers, and technical folk all acknowledge that the data we perceive is, at best, second-hand. We also acknowledge that the "laws" we create to model the universe's actions are interpretive and (hopefully) predictive--they are not somehow the "drivers" of reality. So far, when our laws have failed to properly describe some goings-on in the universe, it's been a failing of our laws to interpret the universe correctly. I believe that it's never been the case that the the universe suddenly "changed direction" and invalidated our interpretation of it.
Quantum physicists acknowledge that it is possible that all the atoms that make up a particular telephone, for instance, might suddenly change position, causing the phone to disappear from its first spot and somehow appear 6 feet to the left. Possible, but not probable. No one wastes their time waiting for it to happen, starting a betting pool as to when it will happen, or [insert appropriate snarky comment on how the probability of physical laws changing, or God existing is far, far, less than that for the phone shifting 6' to the left]
Let's say you park your light blue Volkwagon Jetta in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and go in to do some shopping. When you come out, your Jetta is gone, and a light blue Porsche is sitting in its spot.
What has happened here? Has the Jetta changed into a Porsche? You know that it's possible (well, it certainly can't be proven that it's impossible), but...has it? You try the door--it's unlocked. You go in, and put your key in the ignition--it fits. As you're about to turn the key, there's a rap on the window. It's the cops.
Do you tell them about how, without any true objective means of determining that--or if--the laws of the Universe cannot change in a moment, your Jetta has therefore changed into a Porsche, or do you make up some really lame excuse?
"You better think quick," says the cop, "because that 350 pound linebacker coming this way with the two baseball bats and a Porsche key-ring thinks this is his car."
"That's not a 350 pound linebacker," you think, "I know just how subjective my perceptions are--I wonder, perhaps if it's just a 90-pound little old lady, looking for her Toyota Echo..."
Thwack Thwack
It's a linebacker.
These are really cute theories, guys, but highly impractical.
I accept the limitations, but I really need something I can work with. Saying that because there are uncertainties in our data stream, our perception of the universe is invalid is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. To say that nothing is impossible (everything is possible) is just not supported by the known data. Moreso, to accept things so far out of the ordinary as to be considered "miracles" (or, at least "miracles" as defined by the Weekly World News), and somehow feel that they do not need to be subjected to intense scrutiny just smacks of intentional, self-imposed gullibility (which, in most circles would be called "foolishness.")
I put in that list: Bleeding Statues, the Bat Boy, Aliens hell-bent on anal probing and/or meeting with Bill Clinton, People rising from the dead, Dark Matter, plus God, Jesus, Jonah, etc. Unfortunately for Jesus, Jonah, etc., all the good data is lost. All we have left is a SINGLE written document, which has gone through many translations (read: filters, modifications), and has thus lost a substantial amount of what might have been some original validity (as proof or evidence).
And this is all I have to say about that. I feel that I've been fair, and that I've made proper fun of myself in those few areas where I've gotten a little snarky.
So either you believe me or you don't. But if you don't, then you're all a bunch of poopy-heads.
--Steve
[ January 07, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Great - and I doubt anyone would act as if the Jetta turned into a Porsche (although if the key fit, I'd be hard pressed to come up with another explanation).
There are three problems with your post: 1.) No one is saying they think the universe changes a lot or all the time. Of course the less something has happened in the past the more evidence we would want. So your example introduces nothing new to the conversation.
2.) There's little or no objective reason to think the Universe (the natural world) "just happened." It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurance. So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, atheism stands on no better grounds than theism given your criteria.
3.) You're definition of "objective truth" excludes the possibility of anything existing beyond this Universe. Isn't that begging the question? Any definition of "miracle" contains an aspect of the unusual. Otherwise the event wouldn't be considered remarkable enough to give it name.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurance.
What are you basing this on?
quote: Any definition of "miracle" contains an aspect of the unusual. Otherwise the event wouldn't be considered remarkable enough to give it name.
Unusual does not imply supernatural.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurance."
How do you know? How often are universes created, and how do you tell?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(Volkswagons and Porsches are made by the same parent company. Makes Audis, too. Not that I've ever owned any of them, but if ever a key from one car had a chance of fitting into another...)
I know you are not saying that the universe is changing "all of the time." But if you are saying it can change, then either it won't ever change, or it will change at least once. I thought your point was, in part, that you would probably never know in advance if or when (or how) it would change.
There's little or no objective reason to think that the Judeo-Christian God (the super-natural world) "just happened." Its creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurence.
This is one of the oldest arguments around: If everything needs a point of creation, then why the Universe, and not God? And if there exist things that do not require a point of creation, then why God and not the Universe?
So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, theism stands on no better grounds than atheism given your criteria. In fact, theism adds another whole layer of complexity--a layer that is both poorly defined and impossible to detect or prove (impossible to prove either way--by its own definition). Theism therefore stands on weaker gound.
By "universe" I should have used "metaverse" (or some such nonsense). I mean all that there is--both natural and (should it "exist") super-natural. If you can't experience something, does it exist? If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one there to hear it, and it strikes a mime, does he make a noise?
I would define a miracle as something counter to all known physical laws, and not explainable except through the direct contradiction of a known law. Finding giant stars at the far side of the universe that defy our known cosmological laws is not a miracle, as we have acknowledged serious limitations to our knowledge in that category. Seeing the dead come to life, or water turning into wine, or sticks to snakes--in the absense of any and all chicanery--would be a miracle.
A related note: my alma mater, Washington University in St. Louis, started up a "Department of PARA-Psychology" in an attempt to verify a few miracles. The only thing they learned was how easy it was for "conjurers" to trick scientists into believing in miracles (eventually, James Randi--who demystifies this stuff for a living-- came and showed the scientists the errors of their ways, after supposedly sending in Penn & Teller to intentionally fake them out!)
[ January 07, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: What are you basing this on?
quote:TomDavidson said: "It's creation was a one-time (or at least extremely rare) occurrence."
How do you know? How often are universes created, and how do you tell?
In the context of events that are rarely observed requiring more proof than events that are commonly things, the creation of Universes can safely be called rarely observed, at least by human standards. I’ve witnessed or seen evidence of some 12,000 odd sunrises. There’s not recorded first-hand testimony of the creation of the Universe (even Genesis purports to be a record of what happened as revealed, not as witnessed.)
If other universes are being created often, we can’t observe them right now. So they are rare.
If our universe was “created” more than once, then space-time was created with it (since space-time is part of the universe). Since we can only observe things within space-time, barring some “supernatural” intervention, it’s safe to say we can only observe one creation per universe from within that universe.
quote:Robespierre said: Unusual does not imply supernatural.
No, it doesn’t. But I wasn’t claiming it was. Basically, I said “all miracles (actual or otherwise) are rare,” not “all rare events are miracles.”
I was explaining why there will never be enough evidence of a miracle to satisfy the standard of proof proposed in the earlier post. If a Jetta did get turned into a Porsche under those circumstances, the driver probably wouldn’t be able to convince anyone it happened, even if the VIN was the same.
Dagonee
[ January 07, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
On behalf of the mimes of the universe, I must ask: Since when is a mime "no one"?! For shame!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: If everything needs a point of creation, then why the Universe, and not God? And if there exist things that do not require a point of creation, then why God and not the Universe?
So with regards to this particular piece of objective proof, theism stands on no better grounds than atheism given your criteria. In fact, theism adds another whole layer of complexity--a layer that is both poorly defined and impossible to detect or prove (impossible to prove either way--by its own definition). Theism therefore stands on weaker gound.
Actually, assuming one uncaused cause makes the argument less complex. Either one inexplicable guiding intelligence exists, or ALL those parameters and events of the universe necessary to lead to the creation of human life happened by chance (the right attractive force for gravity, the right charge for an electron, the close to uniform distribution of matter and energy with just enough variation to create galaxies, stars, and planets, the appropriate size of earth, the appropriate distance to the sun, the appropriate tilt of the axis, the appropriate rotation of the earth, the appropriate chemical mix, especially abundances of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, the accidental creation of DNA and other organic compounds, the formation of bacteria, the creation of oxygen, the evolution of plant an animal life to radically change the earth’s atmosphere, the evolution of more complex organisms, and finally the evolution of primates just a little bit smarter than the rest to create human intelligence) Change to any one would have resulted in non-human life and most would have resulted in a universe unsuitable for life as we can conceive it.
Dagonee
[ January 07, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If other universes are being created often, we can’t observe them right now.
I agree...
quote: So they are rare.
What now? How can you quantify something you admitt isn't observable right now?
ssywak is on the right path here. We are presented with a problem, the nature of the universe. To solve this problem, theists first create another problem, the nature of God. Neither of these are currently solvable.
The way I understand theism, God is never going to be provable or unprovable. So without all the facts being in, theists are basically claiming that the universe was created by something totaly beyond understanding. Why go this extra step? Why not just admit that we don't know the nature of the universe as well as we would like to?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:ssywak said: If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one there to hear it, and it strikes a mime, does he make a noise?
I think it goes “squish.”
Dagonee
[ January 07, 2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think you underestimate the strength of the human cranium. Surely it goes "crack"!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Robespierre said: What now? How can you quantify something you admitt isn't observable right now?
I’m only quantifying it the extent it’s been observed, because the topic was how the rarity of an event being observed affects the level of proof required for it to be believed. So whether it’s happening every second somewhere else or it’s only happened once, no human to my knowledge has claimed to have observed the creation of the universe.
quote:Robespierre said: ssywak is on the right path here. We are presented with a problem, the nature of the universe. To solve this problem, theists first create another problem, the nature of God. Neither of these are currently solvable.
The way I understand theism, God is never going to be provable or unprovable. So without all the facts being in, theists are basically claiming that the universe was created by something totaly beyond understanding. Why go this extra step? Why not just admit that we don't know the nature of the universe as well as we would like to?
We go the extra step because we believe that knowledge about God has been revealed, and we believe the revelation. God is beyond our complete understanding; he has attempted to help us understand a portion of his will.
You asked earlier why scripture contained nothing provable by present-day observation. The answer is that things that can be presently observed require no revelation. That which is revealed, verses observed, provides us with information about the nature of the universe that is not otherwise obtainable.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rivka said: I think you underestimate the strength of the human cranium. Surely it goes "crack"!
I didn’t want to introduce additional facts into the hypothetical. Leftover paranoia from law school exams.
Dagonee
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:(the right attractive force for gravity, the right charge for an electron, the close to uniform distribution of matter and energy with just enough variation to create galaxies, stars, and planets, the appropriate size of earth, the appropriate distance to the sun, the appropriate tilt of the axis, the appropriate rotation of the earth, the appropriate chemical mix, especially abundances of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, the accidental creation of DNA and other organic compounds, the formation of bacteria, the creation of oxygen, the evolution of plant an animal life to radically change the earth’s atmosphere, the evolution of more complex organisms, and finally the evolution of primates just a little bit smarter than the rest to create human intelligence)
I think each of these points makes the next more likely. By the time we get to the first unlikely point--the creation of DNA--we've already assumed that the factors necessary to it's creation have already happened.
Reminds me of a recurring discussion on Fate I have with a good friend. He tries to convince me that we're supposed to be having the conversation, and I try to convince him that having the conversation is just one of an infinite number of possibilities, all of which have relatively equal probability.
Neither of us will give in, so we usually just end up getting drunk, then run aroung NYC screaming at the top of our lungs to confound the Gods of Fate.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Frisco,
So that's you, then.
Shut the hell up, will ya? It's 3 in the frickin' morning!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Saying that because there are uncertainties in our data stream, our perception of the universe is invalid is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Exactly. Just because we can't prove something with complete certainty doesn't mean we should stop believing it. Since you recognize this, you must also understand why religious people object to the suggestion that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says to be true just because we can't prove the Bible to be perfectly accurate.
quote:I would define a miracle as something counter to all known physical laws, and not explainable except through the direct contradiction of a known law. Finding giant stars at the far side of the universe that defy our known cosmological laws is not a miracle, as we have acknowledged serious limitations to our knowledge in that category.
Actually, you just acknowledged limitations to ALL of our knowledge ("I accept the limitations, but I really need something I can work with.") Thus you can't use limitations of our knowledge as some sort of distinguishing feature between miracles and discoveries.
The truth is, your definition suggests that we've had a great many recorded miracles, especially in regards to science. Every great scientific discovery is caused by a direct contradiction of "known" scientific law. Most of these are not even discoveries far off in distant galaxies where we know little. Many are right under our noses. The discovery that continents move, the discovery that Newton's physics doesn't work in all cases, the discovery that matter is neither wave nor particle - all of these are miracles by your definition. Thus, by that definition, miracles are essential to the scientific process (and therefore, I think it's safe to say we should believe in the possibility of miracles.)
The truth is, you cannot separate scientific "surprises" from religious "miracles" in any consistent way. If you are looking just at outlandishness, scientific theories far surpass anything religion has ever thought up. Science claims absolutely absurd sounding things, far more so than water becoming wine. Just read up on quantum physics for plenty of examples.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frisco said: I think each of these points makes the next more likely. By the time we get to the first unlikely point--the creation of DNA--we've already assumed that the factors necessary to it's creation have already happened.
Since subsequent, conditional probabilities are multiplied, certainly each point succeeding makes the next more likely. And I agree that the DNA step is a major break point in the probability line.
But by no means is the formation of DNA the first unlikely point. There are many more initial states to the universe that lead to either a uniform distribution of matter and energy (hence no differentiation from one point to another) or to a chaotic, ever-changing universe where there is no pocket of stability suitable for long term changes to the state of matter (as needed by evolution) or to a universe collapsing in on itself within nanoseconds of the big bang. So given that there are a huge number of potential universes that could lead to intelligent life, there are many, many, many more that lead to no possibility (at least as we could conceive it).
This is all based on my admittedly layman’s knowledge of Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe and such.
This conversation would be much more fun over beer.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"There are many more initial states to the universe that lead to either a uniform distribution of matter and energy (hence no differentiation from one point to another) or to a chaotic, ever-changing universe where there is no pocket of stability suitable for long term changes to the state of matter (as needed by evolution) or to a universe collapsing in on itself within nanoseconds of the big bang."
Why would you think that all of these universes do not currently exist? There's no conceivable reason for them NOT to. And that makes a universe such as ours pretty much a statistical certainty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, you can't use the word "currently" to describe them because they're outside our space-time. I know, this is more of a nit than a substantive response. But I find the concept mind-bogglingly fascinating.
Second, conjecturing the existence of the other universes to make ours a statistical certainty is at least as complicating as conjecturing the existence of a single Creator who created this universe with human intelligence as one of its objectives.
It comes down to “every possible thing exists, but only the things that lead to a human intelligence are observable by us” versus “a creator capable of creating anything chose to create a universe such that it would produce humans.” I don’t see how the one is any more or less complex than the other.
And both require less complexity than explaining why a single, unlikely universe exists that ended up creating human intelligence.
Dagonee
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Deus ex machina to the highest degree Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It comes down to “every possible thing exists, but only the things that lead to a human intelligence are observable by us” versus “a creator capable of creating anything chose to create a universe such that it would produce humans.” I don’t see how the one is any more or less complex than the other.
And both require less complexity than explaining why a single, unlikely universe exists that ended up creating human intelligence.
What are you using to measure this complexity?
And what's more, who cares which is least complex? If we want to minimize complexity, why not just be solipsist after all? If nothing exists except me, that gives us far fewer things to explain - just one!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tresopax said: And what's more, who cares which is least complex? If we want to minimize complexity, why not just be solipsist after all? If nothing exists except me, that gives us far fewer things to explain - just one!
I don’t buy the idea that the least complex idea is the correct one. I’m simply refuting the claim that atheism is less complex in order to show that complexity is a useful criteria for evaluating worldviews.
I'm responding to a criticism made that accepting the non-understandability of the Universe's creation was a simpler argument, and therefore more acceptable, than positing a Creator. That's all I'm doing.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The least complex argument, as far as I can tell, is this:
"This universe sure seems remarkably unlikely, but it obviously happened, since we're here."
It's the Weak Anthropic Principle. Learn to love it.
Now, we can argue HOW we beat the odds until the cows come home, but the simple fact is that this is purely speculation. And there's considerably more scientific reason to believe in multiple universes than in God....
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No, I'm definitely thinking the least complex possibility is solipsism, especially when you combine it with the Weak Anthropic Principle - then you don't even have to explain why you are having all of these sensations. Positing the existence of all these "external" people and objects that you can't even really prove is just unnecessary added complexity when you can just as easily say you are just imagining them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem with solipsism, Tres, is that it requires one to deny the evidence of one's senses. The Weak Anthropic Principle does not.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I practiced solipsism, once.
Well, I was actually just drunk. But it was much like solipsism in that I woke up in a corner curled in the fetal position and sucking my thumb.
Good times. Simple times.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The problem with solipsism, Tres, is that it requires one to deny the evidence of one's senses.
Not at all. If I see a chair and I'm a solipsist, I don't have to deny I see a chair. I only have to deny there's some physical object making me see that chair - something that we assume, not something our senses tell us.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:ssywak said: Unfortunately for Jesus, Jonah, etc., all the good data is lost. All we have left is a SINGLE written document,
Actually, in the case of Jesus, we have at least 4 accounts in the Gospels alone. You wouldn't be calling the compilation called the New Testament (let alone the Old and New Combined) a 'Single Written Document' now, would you Steve?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Taal,
I will admit to a good amount of ignorance regarding the developmental histories of the Olds and New Testaments.
These four Gospels, though obviously claimed to be the writings of four allegedly independent apostles, were actually written by who, and when?
And if Jesus was a benificent Rabbi, who was attempting to improve the moral lives of his society (in other words--no more a son of God than you or I), then all the apostles would be in on the effort, and hence not reliable "independent sources."
Just the same as if four scientists on the same project were all to write "independently" on how they co-discovered cold fusion.
Treso,
quote:Just because we can't prove something with complete certainty doesn't mean we should stop believing it. Since you recognize this, you must also understand why religious people object to the suggestion that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says to be true just because we can't prove the Bible to be perfectly accurate
There are levels of accuracy. I'm partially color blind. In the early morning, when I'm putting my socks together, sometimes I can't tell the difference between brown and grey, or dark blue and black. All it means is that I can't really tell what color my socks are, sort of. It does not mean that I start thinking that they're really toaster ovens, or apple blintzes. And I certainly would be wrong to start wondering if, because of the color question, that they were really only 3-dimensional projections of large, pan-dimensional beings with amazing but undetectable magic powers.
quote:The truth is, you cannot separate scientific "surprises" from religious "miracles" in any consistent way
I'll have to think about that one to properly refute it. But, at the same time, I don't go attributing scientific surprises to sudden changes in how the universe is run, just my understanding of it. And once I've noticed (and hopefully figured out) the scientific surprise, I can verify that it is, in fact, how the universe works.
Miracles do not ever work that way. They're remarkable free from any means of verification. And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular miracle worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.
I'd love to go visit a backyard to see Jesus in the whorls of a lightning-struck tree, or a monastery to see a statue bleeding from the eyes, or have a doctor at Long Island Jewish Medical Center examine someone for stigmata.
BTW, Cold Fusion was a "miracle," wasn't it? But it turned out to be non-repeatable, and unverifiable. How many cold fusion power plants do you see running today? Science has no problem whatsoever rejecting its own.
[ January 08, 2004, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Miracles do not ever work that way. They're remarkable free from any means of verification. And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.
Most of the miracles reported today fit that mold. A lot of the ones described in scripture certainly don't.
A pillar of fire descending to consume an altar prepared with sacrifices is hard to mistake for anything else.
But someone can always come up with a reason as to why something wasn't a miracle. Humans are born with great capacity to filter information to support their beliefs.
Materialists just have more precisely defined filters.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Fit which mold? That they are verifiable (please include pointers), or that they're not (as with miracles of old--you know, the ones with a SINGLE REFERENTIAL SOURCE, like Sodom & Gammorah (no, not the flying turtle...)).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Steve, the most commonly accepted hypothesis is that there are at least three independent source documents for the four gospels. “Independent” as in “written by people with no contact with each other while they were writing.” John is vastly different from the three synoptics. There are multiple theories on how Matthew, Mark, and Luke relate to each other. There is definitely some relationship, but it’s debated. It’s likely there were at least two sources involved, however, whether or not one of them was the infamous “Q.”
Add in all the Gnostic writings, and it’s definitely not true to say that all we have about Jesus is from a single document.
Most of the time atheists play up the fact that the gospel accounts don’t harmonize very well. You may be the first I’ve ever seen try to conflate them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Miracles that are impossible to prove miraculous, even assuming all accounts of the miracles are true: “And I'm not even looking for an explanation as to how a particular miracle worked, just verification that it is, in fact, a miracle.”
What I’m talking about in scriptures are things that, if the accounts are believed, pretty much have to be miraculous. Or, if you will, are more probably miracles than not. Again, a big bolt of fire descending from the sky just as a prophet is praying for it to do so is much more likely to be a miracle than a random accident. All assuming the accounts of them are believed, of course.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All assuming the accounts of them are believed, of course."
The big issue, of course, is whether those accounts are trustworthy. In order to do this, the only tools we have are historical comparison and philosophical crosschecking. Do the events described seem possible? Are they recorded anywhere else? Are they consistent with OTHER events described by the same source?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with you, Tom. I just wanted to be clear that some events, if they occurred, are more likely to be miracles than random accidents.
The believability of a particular account is another issue entirely.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
talk...![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
Is that the best that 2000 years of religious thought can provide?![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Sorry, meant to do that.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. Anyway... I'd like to point out that not all people belive that morality is something universal or comes from a diety. A good scientist would say that morality is based on the survival instincts of a social species. Horses have morals, but what god gave that to them? Dolphins have morals, where did those come from? I don't mean to be snide, because if you say, "God." I'd be cool with that. But an atheist cannot be thwarted by saying that morality is only a product of godly influence.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)