Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
As a bit of an apologetic and a sentimentalist as far as human beings are concerned - I'd like to share this poem...I believe that poetry is not merely for it's own sake, but also introspective too - and has a reason to 'be'...
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th’ empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God;
As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule—
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!
Love this poem - it's what it's all about I think. This dialogue will always be underlying.0 -
As a bit of an apologetic and a sentimentalist as far as human beings are concerned - I'd like to share this poem...I believe that poetry is not merely for it's own sake, but also introspective too - and has a reason to 'be'...
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Placed on this isthmus of a middle state,
A Being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest;
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer;
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err;
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much;
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself, abus'd or disabus'd;
Created half to rise and half to fall;
Great Lord of all things, yet a prey to all,
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd;
The glory, jest and riddle of the world.Go, wondrous creature! mount where science guides,
Go, measure earth, weigh air, and state the tides;
Instruct the planets in what orbs to run,
Correct old time, and regulate the sun;
Go, soar with Plato to th’ empyreal sphere,
To the first good, first perfect, and first fair;
Or tread the mazy round his followers trod,
And quitting sense call imitating God;
As Eastern priests in giddy circles run,
And turn their heads to imitate the sun.
Go, teach Eternal Wisdom how to rule—
Then drop into thyself, and be a fool!
Love this poem - it's what it's all about I think. This dialogue will always be underlying.
Is that Sufism wisdom ?0 -
-
-
Very Christian oriented isn't it lol
No, it's a few pearls cast out that's all, a little laying bare - and possibly it could be open to ridicule - a 'poem' on this thread of all threads.
Then it's an 'anon' forum - yet, some people I agree or disagree with will always just be people at the end of the day, real people at the end of a real keyboard, with real ideas, and real intentions - I can't help seeing them that way.
If one can't share, and inject a little poetry than you might as well suppose it never existed. I beg to differ - it does, it's really simple, but it does exist
0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it's a few pearls cast out that's all, a little laying bare - and possibly it could be open to ridicule - a 'poem' on this thread of all threads.
Then it's an 'anon' forum - yet, some people I agree or disagree with will always just be people at the end of the day, real people at the end of a real keyboard, with real ideas, and real intentions - I can't help seeing them that way.
If one can't share, and inject a little poetry than you might as well suppose it never existed. I beg to differ - it does, it's really simple, but it does exist
Have you read any of John Donohue's poetry ?
http://www.johnodonohue.com/0 -
Metaphysical Claims #1
This will have to be several posts as I have limited free time on my hands at present. I think its important to define terms, at least to try and avoid confusion around semantics.
In a modern context metaphysics to me is our concept of reality based on rational thought. The historical definition just asks the questions what is there and what is it like? Within this hazy definition, there are so many metaphysical worldviews these days that I think the choice is to 1) engage in the subject and try and rationalize your way to a metaphysical position, or 2) ignore everything that is not science, and thus ignore metaphysics.
Science in the modern context is a method of inquiry based on empirical evidence. Simply put if a hypothesis cannot be tested against predictions then it is not science. There is debate about grey areas between physics and metaphysics which leads to much confusion. The discussion regarding the idea of a multiverse is a good example of this. If we are discussing universes that are outside our observable region and came into being due to inflation, then it can be argued that perhaps we can develop techniques to observe these, and this is within science. However, a multiverse defined as an infinite number of possible universes that have different physics to ours, different histories, etc. is very different. Although there are scientists who believe this is science, there are many others who deny it is science, and I would agree with the latter. The same issues arise with the multiverse as our observed universe in terms of whether it arose because of necessity, chance or purpose and you are immediately back in metaphysics land. As George Ellis say "If we abandon the testing requirement, we weaken the requirement for solid data, and we weaken the reason why science has been so successful for the past centuries" So for me the multiverse, or at least potential universe with different physics to ours is in the realm of metaphysics.
I will have to get back to this.0 -
Metaphysical Claims #2
Having considered the various existing modern metaphysical claims, I would describe my own as of today as closest to Reflexive Monism. Briefly defined reflexive monism states that there is only one kind of fundamental "stuff" at the deepest level of the universe, and it is psychophysical. From wiki "it is a modern version of the ancient belief that the basic stuff of the universe manifests itself as both physical matter and conscious experience". In this sense it is related to panpsychism which holds that everything in the universe, even at a very primitive level, has some aspect of consciousness or the sense of "what is it like to be".
While at first reading this sounds a bit daft, it is actually quite complementary to the way scientists view the physical world in terms of materialism, that everything we observe as physical is built up from the smallest fundamental aspects of matter to the complex structures we see around us. Panpsychism holds that even these fundamental aspects of matter have a primitive aspect of "mind" and these mind elements combine to produce more complex "minds".
What reflexive monism essentially states is that matter is irreducible to mind and mind irreducible to matter. It is a sort of middle ground between realism and idealism. The reality that is out there and the conscious experience we have of reality are integrated. An easy way to think about it is that a human mind when viewed from the perspective of an external third party appears as a brain, while from the first person perspective a mind is conscious experience. What seems the most compelling evidence to me is that while consciousness appears to emerge from the brain and can be thought of as some kind of software (it is of no physical substance we are aware of), and yet an emergent consciousness can be utilized to physically change the same brain (neuroplasticity). Just like a software program can run on any kind of computer (and some interesting ones have been built of run of the mill materials), there is no reason to suspect mind cannot run on something other than a brain.
In the classical view of the world nature is essentially fundamental matter interacting, based on the laws of nature. Random processes, under the influence of the laws of nature, eventually gave rise to a universe and eventually gave rise to life. According to reflexive monism we should interpret our universe in terms of a self organizing process, including conscious experience. Consciousness is thought of as seamlessly integrated into the universe, and in this sense we "participate in a process whereby nature observes itself" (Max Velmans, the founder of Reflexive Monism).
For someone considering a deist position, the concept of God as nature observing itself is quite compelling. It does not mean you have to believe in God, but it is entirely rational to consider the likelihood of God based on this metaphysical position.0 -
Metaphysical Claims #2
Having considered the various existing modern metaphysical claims, I would describe my own as of today as closest to Reflexive Monism. Briefly defined reflexive monism states that there is only one kind of fundamental "stuff" at the deepest level of the universe, and it is psychophysical. From wiki "it is a modern version of the ancient belief that the basic stuff of the universe manifests itself as both physical matter and conscious experience". In this sense it is related to panpsychism which holds that everything in the universe, even at a very primitive level, has some aspect of consciousness or the sense of "what is it like to be".
While at first reading this sounds a bit daft, it is actually quite complementary to the way scientists view the physical world in terms of materialism, that everything we observe as physical is built up from the smallest fundamental aspects of matter to the complex structures we see around us. Panpsychism holds that even these fundamental aspects of matter have a primitive aspect of "mind" and these mind elements combine to produce more complex "minds".
What reflexive monism essentially states is that matter is irreducible to mind and mind irreducible to matter. It is a sort of middle ground between realism and idealism. The reality that is out there and the conscious experience we have of reality are integrated. An easy way to think about it is that a human mind when viewed from the perspective of an external third party appears as a brain, while from the first person perspective a mind is conscious experience. What seems the most compelling evidence to me is that while consciousness appears to emerge from the brain and can be thought of as some kind of software (it is of no physical substance we are aware of), and yet an emergent consciousness can be utilized to physically change the same brain (neuroplasticity). Just like a software program can run on any kind of computer (and some interesting ones have been built of run of the mill materials), there is no reason to suspect mind cannot run on something other than a brain.
In the classical view of the world nature is essentially fundamental matter interacting, based on the laws of nature. Random processes, under the influence of the laws of nature, eventually gave rise to a universe and eventually gave rise to life. According to reflexive monism we should interpret our universe in terms of a self organizing process, including conscious experience. Consciousness is thought of as seamlessly integrated into the universe, and in this sense we "participate in a process whereby nature observes itself" (Max Velmans, the founder of Reflexive Monism).
For someone considering a deist position, the concept of God as nature observing itself is quite compelling. It does not mean you have to believe in God, but it is entirely rational to consider the likelihood of God based on this metaphysical position.
I think you have over thought. An atom does not have a mind. A dolphin does. Species with brains are made up of atoms that form complex molecules and cells that perform tasks. The whole idea of consciousness is purely an electrical experience created by our neural network and evolved from a very basic point into what it is now.
So basically consciousness only exists in the mind not in the building blocks of the universe. What does exist in the building blocks is huge energy and of course potential. This however is stuff that science will someday explain and stick neatly into an equation.0 -
I am critical of your posting style.
Address the post/topic not the poster please. I will stick to the relevant content such as it is and ignore the rest. Your claim is that there is evidence suggesting we are living in a VR or simulation. I have asked you several times to tell me what evidence you have for this. All I was given was a link to someone explaining what the claim means. Not what supports it.
Again: Is there any argument, data, reasoning or evidence whatsoever outside philosophical navel gazing to support the claim that the universe is a simulation. Yes or no? If no then we are done here, my point is made. If yes please adumbrate in your own words (with citation) what that evidence is.Like a lot of metaphysical arguments it may "fit the observed data" but that is a poor scientific argument.
Which brings us full circle as you have now re-made my original point for me which is that essentially making the argument "It makes sense to me" is possibly the worst offering one can make on a thread related to the existence of a god. You have essentially just re-written my original point in your own words.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you have over thought. An atom does not have a mind. A dolphin does. Species with brains are made up of atoms that form complex molecules and cells that perform tasks. The whole idea of consciousness is purely an electrical experience created by our neural network and evolved from a very basic point into what it is now.
So basically consciousness only exists in the mind not in the building blocks of the universe. What does exist in the building blocks is huge energy and of course potential. This however is stuff that science will someday explain and stick neatly into an equation.
So when you are looking at a flower, is it the flower that causes the effect in your consciousness or is it your consciousness that causes the effect of the flower....
When someone says they seen a ghost, is it the sight of the ghost that causes the reaction in the brain, or is it a reaction in the brain that causes the person to see the ghost. ...0 -
So when you are looking at a flower, is it the flower that causes the effect in your consciousness or is it your consciousness that causes the effect of the flower....
When someone says they seen a ghost, is it the sight of the ghost that causes the reaction in the brain, or is it a reaction in the brain that causes the person to see the ghost. ...
I have no idea what you are talking about. Both you and the flower exist. If you are looking at a flower light reflects off the flower and that reflected light goes towards your eyes to be processed by your brain. Your brain will then do its magic and based on your life experiences and the knowledge you have gained stored in your memory you might say "he that's a lovely looking dandelion". In fact research shows your subconscious is already aware of the flower long before you see it so you brain is so powerful and amazing that its constantly processing stuff your eyes see without you taking any notice.
Now on to the ghost. Firstly they don't exist. Secondly most situations where people claim to see a ghost the environment they are in plays a huge factor i.e a dark hallway, a cold room with dim lights, in a spooky looking graveyard etc. In saying this you could draw the conclusion that the idea of a ghost being present appears in the brain and the eyes are then focused on trying to spot this ghost even to the point of creating one out of thin air. Quietly simply its your eyes playing tricks on you.
In summary the objects you see which are processed by your brain are the result of light hitting off these objects and that light making its way to your eyes. If you are blind you will not be able to see anything but you can touch, taste, smell and hear them.0 -
So our eye's consciously play tricks on us...
Do our eye's have brains ?0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Which brings us full circle as you have now re-made my original point for me which is that essentially making the argument "It makes sense to me" is possibly the worst offering one can make on a thread related to the existence of a god. You have essentially just re-written my original point in your own words.
I have consistently made the distinction between science and metaphysics on this thread (and on other similar threads on A&A). When I say "it makes sense to me" I obviously mean it makes sense from a metaphysical standpoint when considered against other metaphysical ideas. If you refer to metaphysical claims as "philosophical navel gazing" then to me that says you place no value on metaphysics. Which is fine, but it means that trying to debate metaphysical claims with you is fruitless. It does clarify for me why you have never actually engaged in the metaphysical discussion, so thanks for clarifying that and not wasting any more of our respective time.
For the record I didn't just link you to what the philosophical "universe as a computer simulation" argument means. I also discussed and provided a link to scientists that are engaged in research on the subject. This research is going on at the University of Washington and the University of New Hampshire. What these scientists are doing is developing computer generated simulations on very small scales using the known laws of physics. Their hypothesis is that the observable universe is a numerical simulation performed on a cubic space-time grid. I provided a link to their paper in an earlier post.
Nowhere have I made a claim that science today supports the hypothesis that we are in a simulation. For science to do that there would have to be testable predictions and data produced to support the hypothesis. We are a long way from that, just as we are a long way from supporting the hypothesis that our observed universe is part of a multiverse.0 -
I think you have over thought. An atom does not have a mind. A dolphin does. Species with brains are made up of atoms that form complex molecules and cells that perform tasks. The whole idea of consciousness is purely an electrical experience created by our neural network and evolved from a very basic point into what it is now.
Nobody is claiming that atoms have minds, least of all those who lean towards the reflexive monist view. What is claimed is that there is a primitive aspect of mind that exists at the most fundamental level of reality, along with a physical aspect, and these are the building blocks of the universe. In terms of science neither aspect is understood, the only game in town at the moment for the physical aspect is string theory, which is testable in theory but remains untested.
There is some interesting research in string theory that supports this hypothesis. Dr. James Gates from the University of Maryland is reporting that string theory equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the universe, contain embedded digital codes, and not only that but they are error correction codes. Which begs the question why the fundamental equations that describe fundamental reality would contain error-correction codes. Those familiar with the movie The Matrix will understand this concept, if you want to test whether you are in simulated universe you would search for computer programming codes in your universe.
There is an interview with Dr. Gates on Youtube and this is a Physicsworld article on his research.
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/physicsworld/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=UEhZU1dvZGUvMjAxMC8wNi8wMQ..&pageno=MzY.&entity=QXIwMzYwMA..&view=ZW50aXR50 -
There is some interesting research in string theory that supports this hypothesis. Dr. James Gates from the University of Maryland is reporting that string theory equations, which describe the fundamental nature of the universe, contain embedded digital codes, and not only that but they are error correction codes. Which begs the question why the fundamental equations that describe fundamental reality would contain error-correction codes. Those familiar with the movie The Matrix will understand this concept, if you want to test whether you are in simulated universe you would search for computer programming codes in your universe.
There is an interview with Dr. Gates on Youtube and this is a Physicsworld article on his research.
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/physicsworld/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=UEhZU1dvZGUvMjAxMC8wNi8wMQ..&pageno=MzY.&entity=QXIwMzYwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5
"Matrix" hypotheses are not a challenge for atheism. God would have no need for error codes.
Also, from the article: "It is certainly possible to overstate mathematical links between different systems: as the physicist Eugene Wigner pointed out in 1960, just because a piece of mathematics is ubiquitous and appears in the description of several distinct systems does not necessarily mean that those systems are related to each other. The number pi, after all, occurs in the measurement of circles as well as in the measurement of population distributions. This does not mean that populations are related to circles."
And, of course, it is worth repeating that String theory has no experimental support, and thus the Matrix hypothesis cannot be described as likely.0 -
"Matrix" hypotheses are not a challenge for atheism. God would have no need for error codes.
It depends on your concept of God surely? Do you think an atheist has a better concept of God than a deist or a theist?
As I am sure you know, error correction codes are used in programming to detect errors that appear later and correct for them. There are many reasons why a God would include error correction, for example:
1. As I have responded to you before why would we assume omnipotent means can do anything? God may be constrained by what is possible in an analogous fashion to our being constrained by what is possible. God may have to make do with what is possible.
2. If God created the universe and desires to experience it rather than meddle in it, it would make sense to have error correction. Even the simplest computer programs are subject to harm from viruses etc. and error correction can make sure the program continues to run as written.
3. Error correction suggest good design. It may be there to stop future meddling posthumans trying to meddle with the universe.0 -
The last year or so I've been tormented by the thought of maybe there is no God. When people would say this to me before it didnt matter because I felt the presence of God. I just simply believe there was.
At the moment, I'm losing sleep at the thought! I've 2 beautiful children and if one dies, that's it? That's the end? Surely, it can't be!! But now im not so sure. I've an inner struggle going on that no one sees. I feel different. I argue the existence constantly. Like for instance, something created life, something created the mountains, the rivers and the perfect harmony of everything and how everything is connected by a need (water for trees, trees create oxygen, we use oxygen ect.) but it comes to me, if you don't believe in life after death then life itself is pointless. How can anyone believe that it's the end? How do they cope knowing its the end?
When I'm afraid, I believe in God. When I think of past loved ones, I believe in God. When I think of Christmas, I believe in God but in my future, every miracle, every disaster, everything can be explained by science. How do you keep blind faith?0 -
I don't find that a lack of an afterlife makes my life pointless. Personally, I believe that the point of life (a human's, anyway) is to leave the world in a better state than when you were born.
I'll probably sound like a jerk for saying this, but I find it sad when I hear people say that the non-existence of god(s) or an afterlife renders life useless.0 -
It depends on your concept of God surely? Do you think an atheist has a better concept of God than a deist or a theist?
As I am sure you know, error correction codes are used in programming to detect errors that appear later and correct for them. There are many reasons why a God would include error correction, for example:
1. As I have responded to you before why would we assume omnipotent means can do anything? God may be constrained by what is possible in an analogous fashion to our being constrained by what is possible. God may have to make do with what is possible.
2. If God created the universe and desires to experience it rather than meddle in it, it would make sense to have error correction. Even the simplest computer programs are subject to harm from viruses etc. and error correction can make sure the program continues to run as written.
3. Error correction suggest good design. It may be there to stop future meddling posthumans trying to meddle with the universe.
The concept of God you are using is not the type of God atheists argue against. A God, by your definition, could be a human, or an alien. A being that is constrained by material limitations.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, you have not established that the universe is "likely" simulation, (using the definition of simulation in your recent post).0 -
Advertisement
-
Their may be no afterlife, that don't negate the existence of God or make life any more pointless.
I think if you use God as a consolation for all the troubles in the world then you are in danger of God becoming pie in the sky when you die. All well and good but of no use here and now.
I don't think this is what God wants for us.
Faith must be an encouragement to make life better in this world first and foremost, if theirs a reward after that's a bonus.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »I don't find that a lack of an afterlife makes my life pointless. Personally, I believe that the point of life (a human's, anyway) is to leave the world in a better state than when you were born.
I'll probably sound like a jerk for saying this, but I find it sad when I hear people say that the non-existence of god(s) or an afterlife renders life useless.
Very much this.
It saddens me when I see religious people say that life is pointless without an afterlife.
If anything, we should use our lives to do good things, see the world and try to make it a better place for our children.
Just because you don't believe in a God or God's, does not mean everything is over, instead you just love your life as normal and be as good as you can.
Nobody should need the fear of punishment in Hell as a reason to be nice and make the world better.0 -
The concept of God you are using is not the type of God atheists argue against. A God, by your definition, could be a human, or an alien. A being that is constrained by material limitations.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, you have not established that the universe is "likely" simulation, (using the definition of simulation in your recent post).
A posthuman civilization or an advanced alien civilization perhaps, but in reality I have no idea what God might be constrained by or for that matter constrains himself by in his design. I accept that deist beliefs are not normally what atheists argue against, that the argument is against specific religious deity beliefs. There are many flavors of deists as well as many flavors of theists, and indeed many flavors of atheists. The only thing all theists and all deists have in common is a belief in a creator God, just as all atheists have non belief in common. Deists commonly use reason and experience for their belief while theists use faith and revelation (although there are theists who use reason and experience as well, but it appears they are a minority of theists, whereas literally every deist arrives at their belief through reason and experience).
On the philosophical simulation argument and the hypothesis for simulation, there are many deists who would argue this is fruitless as God is unknowable and undefinable. My position is that a metaphysical position should never conflict with established science i.e. a solid scientific theory based on experimental evidence, but I see no problem with a metaphysical hypothesis where there is no agreed scientific theory, or where scientific theories have not been linked in any integrated fashion. A good example of this is the study of consciousness which has dozens of competing hypotheses, but no scientific theory based on experimental evidence. The competing "theories" of consciousness are a little like the competing interpretations of QM, lots of evidence on how systems behave but no clear understanding of what it actually means. One of the most interesting to ponder is the implication of the MMI on individual consciousness.
In my view, speculating on what evidence God might leave behind in the universe if it were designed is no different to speculating on what the universe might look like if it arose by chance. How is searching for signs of a designed universe any less worthy than searching for signs of a random universe?0 -
A posthuman civilization or an advanced alien civilization perhaps, but in reality I have no idea what God might be constrained by or for that matter constrains himself by in his design. I accept that deist beliefs are not normally what atheists argue against, that the argument is against specific religious deity beliefs. There are many flavors of deists as well as many flavors of theists, and indeed many flavors of atheists. The only thing all theists and all deists have in common is a belief in a creator God, just as all atheists have non belief in common. Deists commonly use reason and experience for their belief while theists use faith and revelation (although there are theists who use reason and experience as well, but it appears they are a minority of theists, whereas literally every deist arrives at their belief through reason and experience).
On the philosophical simulation argument and the hypothesis for simulation, there are many deists who would argue this is fruitless as God is unknowable and undefinable. My position is that a metaphysical position should never conflict with established science i.e. a solid scientific theory based on experimental evidence, but I see no problem with a metaphysical hypothesis where there is no agreed scientific theory, or where scientific theories have not been linked in any integrated fashion. A good example of this is the study of consciousness which has dozens of competing hypotheses, but no scientific theory based on experimental evidence. The competing "theories" of consciousness are a little like the competing interpretations of QM, lots of evidence on how systems behave but no clear understanding of what it actually means. One of the most interesting to ponder is the implication of the MMI on individual consciousness.
In my view, speculating on what evidence God might leave behind in the universe if it were designed is no different to speculating on what the universe might look like if it arose by chance. How is searching for signs of a designed universe any less worthy than searching for signs of a random universe?
So what is comes down to then is your speculation is more valid that others speculations because they have found no evidence either ?0 -
I have consistently made the distinction between science and metaphysics on this thread
The distinction tends to blur often in your posts, quite frequently, whether you yourself realize it or not. As morbert very astutely pointed out. Many of these things you are saying are distinct are being fed by you into the other willfully and often. The idea we are in a simulated or VR universe is being drawn often from many things you think are true about a Digital universe in science and vice versa.
And all I keep asking for is that you provide evidence for any of this and adumbrate it in your own words with citation, rather than just link spamming and running. Especially when the link you last gave me contained no evidence but just another re-wording of the base claims. I do not need the claims re-stated or re-explained. I need them substantiated. And every attempt to do so is met with tangents and obfuscation.
You claim it "makes sense" to you and as I said that is the worst possible offering one can give in a thread discussing the actual existence of a god. So I remind you once more of the thread topic and request once again any argument, evidence, data or reasoning you think you have on offer that substantiates the claims being trotted out here.
When you say it makes sense metaphysically all it appears you are saying is that you enjoy imagining it is true while navel gazing but there is no reason whatsoever to think it actually is.
And there is nothing _wrong_ with that. At all. And I do not mean to suggest there is. I just want to clarify and be clear that that is where we are however.0 -
So what is comes down to then is your speculation is more valid that others speculations because they have found no evidence either ?
No Marienbad, the speculation that the observed universe was created is no more valid scientifically (based on experimental evidence) than the speculation that it arose randomly. Both are metaphysical hypotheses and both can be argued from reason.
Deism is based on reason, and experience. The attached summarizes deism and modern versus classical deism.
http://panendeism.webs.com/deism.htm0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The distinction tends to blur often in your posts..
When you say it makes sense metaphysically all it appears you are saying is that you enjoy imagining it is true while navel gazing but there is no reason whatsoever to think it actually is.
A distinction as I have repeatedly said that also gets blurred consistently in cosmology, the branch of science where the simulation hypothesis is to be found. Do you have the same issue with cosmologists who speculate on multiverses, something there is no evidence for?
Getting back to the thread, a deist bases their belief in God on reasoning and experience, not navel gazing.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »I don't find that a lack of an afterlife makes my life pointless.Their may be no afterlife, that don't negate the existence of God or make life any more pointless.It saddens me when I see religious people say that life is pointless without an afterlife.
Entirely agree. In fact I would personally go one step further than you guys. I think the idea of an after life cheapens the value of this life. After all why is gold precious? Because it is rare. If you suddenly had an infinity of gold at your finger tips such as in Terry Pratchetts "The Long Earth" then its value would be like nothing more than water over night.
Take the Jesus Myth for example. We are asked by purveyors of this myth to think that Jesus made some kind of sacrifice. However upon reading the tales you find that Jesus did little more than "Trade up". He traded a relatively infinitesimally short and uncomfortable life for one of eternal bliss and dominion. I see no "Sacrifice" here and this god character did not "Give" us a son so much as "lent" us one for a time so relatively short that the offering hand was returning in less than the blink of a celestial eye.
And the idea that such a god "Gave" us a son is an insult to any parent who has actually lost a child. A parent who would do anything, literally anything, to alleviate that pain or bring that child back. Compare that to a god who has it in its power to do whatever it wants. Its pain and grief reversable in an instant at will. It reminds of the Pulp song "Common People" where the singer admonishes the girl that she will never know what it is like to be "Common People" because at any moment she can pick up her phone, call daddy, and stop it all.
A true sacrifice would be if Jesus had accepted the True Death irreversibly. If he truly did end his life never to live again and his godfather truly did have to suffer grief for all eternity. THAT would have been a tale worth telling that was not an insult to the intellect of teller and listener alike. (Thankfully the former more so than the latter).
The idea of eternal life cheapens for me the actions of those who actually did give their life for a person, place or ideal. A sacrifice made with no promise of an eternal second chance... let alone the promise of bliss and dominion over all. People who gave their life without any belief, let alone expectation, of such things made a TRUE sacrifice in my mind.
Christopher Hitchens in his dying months put it well. Being told you are going to die is upsetting. Akin to being told at a great party that you have to leave but the party is going to go on without you. Being told there is an after life however is akin to being told this party will never end.... you can never leave.... and the host insists you have a good time while you are there.
So no, the lack of an afterlife does not cheapen life in any way for me. I agree. But I go one step further. The lack of an after life and the transience and uniqueness of my life and the lives of others is actually part of what gives life (mine and that of others) value. And I cherish every instance of life I find with an entirely committed heart.0 -
A distinction as I have repeatedly said that also gets blurred consistently in cosmology, the branch of science where the simulation hypothesis is to be found. Do you have the same issue with cosmologists who speculate on multiverses, something there is no evidence for?
Getting back to the thread, a deist bases their belief in God on reasoning and experience, not navel gazing.
I would be more than happy for you to get back to the thread. That would indeed be nice. I hear often that there is reasoning to suggest there is a god. More often than I have had dinners. What I have not heard once is what that reasoning actually is. If I had a cent for every person who told me there was evidence I would have a lot of money. If I had a cent for every person who then did not present a shred of it I would have EXACTLY... to the very CENT.... twice as much money.
I have the same issue with anyone who makes unsubstantiated claims. Regardless of whether they are cosmologists, forum posters, or old men walking around the street wearing placards, screaming about the end of days, and selling pencils from a cup.
If one thinks there is arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there is a god, or that the universe is a digital piece of information sitting on a hardware somewhere being run by some kind of intelligent operator, or that the universe actually never existed before but was only created 1 second ago with everything in place including you me and our memories.... or whatever.... then I merely want to know what they feel substantiates their claim. I am never going to make apologies for asking. Ever.0 -
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »And the idea that such a god "Gave" us a son is an insult to any parent who has actually lost a child. A parent who would do anything, literally anything, to alleviate that pain or bring that child back. Compare that to a god who has it in its power to do whatever it wants. Its pain and grief reversable in an instant at will. It reminds of the Pulp song "Common People" where the singer admonishes the girl that she will never know what it is like to be "Common People" because at any moment she can pick up her phone, call daddy, and stop it all.
So no, the lack of an afterlife does not cheapen life in any way for me. I agree. But I go one step further. The lack of an after life and the transience and uniqueness of my life and the lives of others is actually part of what gives life (mine and that of others) value. And I cherish every instance of life I find with an entirely committed heart.
As a deist I share your views on the value of this life 100%. However, I think you are misstating the Jesus "myth". My understanding of Christianity, and I am not a Christian, is that God incarnated as a human ("the word became flesh and dwelt among us"). The "son of God" in Christianity does not mean that God had a son literally, it means the human incarnation of God. In this context God went though a hell of a lot of suffering to get his point across.
.. and, Common People is a great song, thanks for reminding me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement