 |
| |
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
I prefer the divinity thing, even though I am a scientist. It is a comfortable feeling to believe we are not alone. |
This raises two points:
1. I think humans as a whole has come a long way in the last several thousand years. It is about time to lose this mental crutch and stand on our own.
2. Suppose that there is a deity or a group of deities, what makes it that Christianity is the correct religion? Nothing whatsoever. As I raised the point earlier in this thread, Christianity is no different from other religions fudamentally. Why can't it be Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Celestial Emperor, Ralph the Snake God, Umguf the Invisble Unicorn, the Ten Foot Hare, the Gigantic Banana, etc., etc.? |
1. Who said believing in God was the crutch. Perhaps the real crutch is believing that we as insignificant human beings have any right to say we know enough about the universe to tell someone else he's wrong, much less we're right.
2. Your definition of "no fundamental difference" may be a little strange. If you mean that Christianity is no different because it argues an order for the universe and an explanation perhaps it is also similar to some forms of atheism. Otherwise, if your only definition of a religion is a belief in some form of divinity, then by that limited definition you are correct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnM2433
Yes, I've thought of that. But I still don't think that the grief that even those who believe in an afterlife feel upon a loved one's parting with them in the physical world equals that which they feel upon a loved one's parting into the spirit world. I don't have any actual evidence to back up that claim; it's just a gut feeling, and I'll freely admit that it could be quite wrong. |
I know a lot of religous people they are upset at the loss, but give off the mental attitude of "they've gone to a better place". I would disagree with your gut based on my experiences (which may be atypical).
quote:
Similarly, I think that almost everyone fears their own death, and not because it will separate them from their loved ones or because they might go to hell. If I'm right about that, it's either because their faith is less than 100% certain, or because an abstract belief in the afterlife doesn't translate itself into the appropriate emotion(s). |
I don't have a fear of death, the only thing I fear is the pain associated with death. I have no pre-conceived notions of an afterlife yet it doesn't scare me. Once I'm dead what do I care - unless the afterlife is a hellish place.
quote:
Although no doubt some people have faith genuine and deep-rooted enough that the prospect of death doesn't trouble them at all. |
It doesn't trouble me, and I have no deep rooted faith.
quote:
What term, if any, is there for "people who believe in an afterlife"? I find it tiresome to repeat that phrase over and over. |
Not sure what they are called, probably a word similar to eschatologists.
quote:
You know, I just thought of something, and I'm going to relate it, because it seems so relevant to what I'm discussing: I never got over my childhood fear of darkness. I still imagine monsters lurking in it, and pull the covers up over my head. I know they're not there, but that doesn't keep me from being afraid of them. I imagine that that sounds absolutely absurd and childish to a lot of you; yet I bet that most of you still find books and movies scary, despite the fact that you know they're not real. It's as if there's an emotional part of the brain that has "beliefs" of its own, and doesn't care what we rationally decide is and is not true. As the above example demonstrates, these "emotinal beliefs" may be irrational ones, so if we react emotionally as if death = oblivion, that doesn't indicate that the subconscious part of us that believes that is that smarter part, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that. I only wished to point out that this internal division, as it were, does indeed exist.
"I have a healthy respect for many forms of danger, but only one truly irrational fear."
-Scott Adams, on his fear of water, in The Dilbert Future |
If it makes you feel better I have a minor irrational fear of telephones and my own heart beat. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
I think it might be the other way around. We, being the imperfect beings, have trouble understanding Him. Us athiests are just stubborn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
Actually, gsmoove23, it sounds to me like you and Lorizael are saying the same thing, but in different ways. God is too advanced to communicate with humans = humans are too primitive to understand God.
monkspider, don't give me that "free will" nonsense. Can you explain the concept of free will in a logically coherent way? I doubt it.
When I was a child, I thought I understood the concept of free will. It meant that the mind controlled the body. But now I take it to mean that the behavior of our minds themselves is not determined by law or by chance, but by something else entirely. WTF? Look, given some fairly reasonable definitions of the terms, natural law determines all the possible outcomes of any interaction, giving a probability to each one, and chance determines which one actually happens. There is no mysterious third element. Or to put it another way, "free will" is a contradiction in terms, insofar as the term "will" refers to a force that determines our actions, and the term "free" denies any such determination. To the extent that our actions aren't determined, they're random, and vice versa. The existence of a soul doesn't change this at all, since the supernatural world is governed by law and chance in the same way as the physical world, due to the same logical necessity.
So far as I'm concerned, we're "free" in the relevant sense if our conscious decisions determine our actions. Thus a being's behavior can be both completely free and completely determined. Since an omnipotent being could create only creatures that never wanted to sin, we're not sinners because God made us free; He could have had it both ways, assuming He's omnipotent. I think the most obvious answer to the question "Why would a perfect being have created our clearly imperfect universe?" is "One never would have; no such being exists.". Granted, the most obvious answer isn't always the correct one, but it's awfully difficult to reconcile the existence of an infinitely powerful, wise, and loving God with, say, the existence of suffering. If there is a Creator, it seems most likely that He is something less than the ideal individual for the job. (I mean out of all possible beings, not just out of all real ones.)
So, if there is no "free will", whatever that means, how can we hold people responsible for their actions? Well, we can, theoretically at least, justify incarcerating, or even executing, criminals in order to deter crime, and to prevent them from committing more crimes. But I do not personally feel that vengeance, in and of itself, justifies inflicting suffering on anyone, no matter how despicable.
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I don't have a fear of death, the only thing I fear is the pain associated with death. I have no pre-conceived notions of an afterlife yet it doesn't scare me. Once I'm dead what do I care - unless the afterlife is a hellish place.
It doesn't trouble me, and I have no deep rooted faith. |
Actually, I have no rational fear of death either. But I think I might develop an emotional fear of death if I were actually faced with the prospect of dying some time soon.
I think that in Buddhism, oblivion is actually regarded as good thing, something to strive for. Or maybe I just completely misunderstand the religion.
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
If it makes you feel better I have a minor irrational fear of telephones and my own heart beat. |
The irrationality of my emotions doesn't bother me; I have more important mental defects to worry about.  But thank you for your concern.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
What makes the supernatural world super is the fact that is above our natural, logical laws and ideas. So a soul of supernatural origins could have free will, because it is not bound by the laws that govern our body and mind. |
So in the supernatural world, 1 + 1 can equal 3 and something can be true and false at the same time? Sorry, I don't buy it. I believe that logical truth is absolute; I don't believe in type III gods.
For those of you unfamiliar with that terminology:
- A type I god can do anything allowed by the physical laws of our universe.
- A type II god can do anything logically possible; he/she/it can rewrite the laws of physics to order, and probably created our physical universe.
- A type III god can alter the laws of logic themselves, and can do absolutely anything, whether it's logically possible or not. Want 1 to equal 0? A true contradiction? No problem!
I think I have those right. These terms are important for clarifying what one means by "omnipotent". Does it mean being as powerful as anyone even theoretically could? Or does it require being even more powerful than that?
quote:
Originally posted by Lorizael
And emotions aren't irrational, we just don't know enough about them yet to predict and control them, therefore they appear irrational to us. Everything has a reason, everything has a cause, even whatever's locked up in our mysterious little hearts. |
Doesn't that contradict what you just said about the supernatural world: that it need not make rational sense? Or maybe you meant that you don't believe in the supernatural. Personally, I think that something other than our physical universe could exist, at least theoretically, but it would have to follow rational laws. Of course, you could bizarrely redefine one of the terms and argue that only the "physical" universe can behave rationally or that the "supernatural" world cannot. But let's not, and say we did. 
Anyway, while the fundamental laws governing our reasoning may make perfect sense, our reasoning itself may not. If you think that a contradiction is true, that's surely irrational, but it doesn't indicate that the particles in your brain aren't obeying the laws of physics, or that the laws of physics don't make sense. While sufficiently low-level behavior is always rational, sufficiently high-level behavior may not be. Or do you hold that people don't really hold contradictory beliefs, or engage in other irrational forms of thinking?
When I said that emotions are irrational, I just meant that I have feelings that seem to be based some irrational, or at least stupid, "beliefs" which I do not actually believe. I certainly don't mean that the low-level behavior of my mind is governed by anything but precise and (theoretically) understandable laws.
"The brain is rational; the mind may not be."
- Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R. Hofstadter
Last edited by JohnM2433 on 15-11-2002 at 05:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
1. Who said believing in God was the crutch. Perhaps the real crutch is believing that we as insignificant human beings have any right to say we know enough about the universe to tell someone else he's wrong, much less we're right. |
Maybe, but the fact remains that there is no evidence for an infinite personal being. In the last two thousand years, whenever science advanced, religion espically Christianity retreated. Things used to be in the realm of the supernatural now have perfectly natural explanations. Still, people are pointing to the gaps in our understanding and yell, "Look, God!"
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
2. Your definition of "no fundamental difference" may be a little strange. If you mean that Christianity is no different because it argues an order for the universe and an explanation perhaps it is also similar to some forms of atheism. Otherwise, if your only definition of a religion is a belief in some form of divinity, then by that limited definition you are correct. |
I don't see how Christianity argues for "an order" and "an explanation" for this universe. What it argues for is exactly the opposite. There is no order to this universe, because YHWH can rearrange things whenever He pleases. There is no explanation, because YHWH is forever beyond our comprehension.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
John- I think you misunderstand the purpose of what is considered to be free will. Free will in this context is a general sentience of self, the Descartesian "I" if you will. |
"Free will" is sentience? That certainly isn't the impression I have of the phrase. Let me look it up... Hmm. That's odd. My dictionary only gives it as an adjective, not a noun. But the definition is "voluntary", which fits in with the way I've always understood the term. Anyway, my point was that we can still free, even if our actions are predetermined, or random, or a combination of the two, as indeed they must be.
But anyway, now that I understand what you meant by "free will" (I hope), looking back at what you said earlier, it seems that you were saying that humans sin because they have sentience. Well, sentience may be required to sin, but that doesn't mean that a sentient being can't be created that is guaranteed never to do wrong. I don't see why such a being would be theoretically impossible. If that were the case, then God can sin, which would seem to be very bad news. On the other hand, it would explain a whole lot. Heck, we already know that the universe isn't perfect. Which brings us to our next topic.
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
The purpose for our free will is to learn various lessons in this life that will bring us closer to God. Would you ever get any better in Civ III if you always played it on the lowest level? Or would you ever get any stronger if you never tried benching more than ten pounds? The purpose of an imperfect world is not to torture us, but to teach us. |
The problem with that argument is that so many of the lessons we learn would only seem to be relevant in an imperfect world. For example, in an ideal world, there would be no need to sacrifice for others or to love the wicked (because everyone would have everything they needed and everyone would be good). Why put a flaw into the world when the only lesson it teaches us is how to deal with that flaw? Isn't not having problems in the first place better than knowing how to solve them? And even if it isn't, why don't we just have that knowledge built into our minds from the start, instead of having to so painfully learn it?
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think II and III are in effect the same thing. I think the physical world is the way it is because it can't be any different and remain consistent. |
Ah, yes. Einstein, IIRC, asked whether God really had any choice in creating the universe. This is an interesting notion, but what evidence is there to back it up?
And I'm not talking about whether, for example, the charge on the electron is the only value that fits a particular equation. I'm thinking about universes with entirely different particles and equations (or rather, natural laws that could be described by equations) of their own. I never seem to hear that consideration discussed by the proponents of this theory.
The artificial "world" of a computer simulation follows its own rules. Such a world is internally consistent, as evidenced by the simple fact that it exists -- that is to say, we can extract data from the virtual world through the computer, just as we can extract data from the real world with our senses. I don't see why one of these virtual worlds could not theoretically exist in reality instead of our own, instead of as a simulation. I see no reason to believe that such a world could not support intelligent beings, either. One could argue that such a world requires an underlying substrate in a universe with our laws of physics. But I would ask "Why? Why could such a world not, theoretically, exist in and of itself just as much as our own does?".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnM2433
|
|
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jul 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think that the reason is that the real world is complete and self-contained, the simulated world is not. |
Let's say X is a simulated world and R is the real world. If X were the real world instead of R, I think it would be complete and self-contained, just as R is.
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That is to say that it is theoretically possible to explain why the laws and the constituents of the real world act as they do and are as they are. In a simulated environment you have to input specific variables that have no derivable reason (as far as the simulation is concerned) to be as they are. |
I'm talking about a simulation that requires no input once it starts running. It's initial state and its rules are no less arbitrary than those of our own universe. You could claim that our own universe's initial state and physical laws are dictated by logical necessity, but that brings us back to why I was talking about simulations in the first place -- to show that one can give examples of self-consistent "worlds" other than our own. So, of all these self-consistent hypothetical worlds, why is ours the only real one? (Personally, I think that this is a trick question.)
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I wouldn't be surprised if other realities with unimaginable differences to our own existed. But if they do I'm inclinde to think mathematics (Etc) would be be changed too. This because maths, physical constants and constituent matter are all inter-related. |
I think that things like "1 + 1 = 2" and "A or not A" would be true in any universe, because they don't really have anything to do with the physical world. (I'm talking about the facts that the statements represent, since it's possible to construct a language in which the symbols have whatever meaning you want.) In fact, it's misleading to talk about them being true "in" a world, because they're not implictly talking about a specific location. In a similar fashion, "English is the most commonly spoken language in the country" may or may not be true depending on where you are, but "English is the most commonly spoken language in the United States" is true wherever it is uttered; its truth does not vary from one location to another. While mathematical and logical statements may look simple, they are presented in complex languages carefully constructed to guarantee the truth and falsity of certain statements. Math and logic aren't defined in terms of the physical world, and thus their truths are independant of that world.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2002 16:45
treatment.
|