Thanks, I still like the 2 god version. Or one god divides into two equal parts, one good and one evil(positive & negative). Neither can do in the other guy and they don't dare come in contact. Better quit before someone starts to believe it.
Does God have a God?
- Thread starter 11parcal
- Start date
Thanks, I still like the 2 god version. Or one god divides into two equal parts, one good and one evil(positive & negative). Neither can do in the other guy and they don't dare come in contact. Better quit before someone starts to believe it.
Not at all.
It is natural for humans to dislike having problems - we prefer being happy and content.
This aversion for problems can go so far that we even settle for all sorts of simplistic, reductionist notions of ourselves and the Universe, in the hopes that this will make us happy and content.
Pete
chaos does not
If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
given the throngs of IT specialists that congregate around the latest high tech computers amidst hordes of burgeoning populations of everything from fruit flies to humans, we can safely put the score at something like AI - O, natural consciousness 99999 gazillion
quite a complex explanation is required in the complete absence of such replicators (as well as the complete absence of repeatable experiments that can give rise to them)
chaos = we don't know
god has an explanation
chaos does not
evidence within oneself is only half the equation - kind of like the evidence within oneself in regard to the pursuit of science could well be a degree from a credible institution etc ...... further analysis reveals that there could be other issues outside of oneself (after all, there are plenty of crackpots with a PhD after their name)
you suggested
If consciousness is materially reducible, then these fields should be able to verify it - correct?
given the throngs of IT specialists that congregate around the latest high tech computers amidst hordes of burgeoning populations of everything from fruit flies to humans, we can safely put the score at something like AI - O, natural consciousness 99999 gazillion
because our best arrangements (either in reality or illusion) are totally fallible
11parcal,
Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs,
Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?
Religious extremism hurts everyone, 9/11 for example? I feel concern that religious lunatics will mess up this world more than it already is.
Then question "religious extremism".
True, I'm not saying that it's all religions fault I'm just saying that it is often a catalyst to terrible disasters.
Politics is the catalyst to most terrible disasters, including 9/11, so why not question politics?
It seems to me that you are jumping on a bandwagon.
jan.
Not me in particular but many people have been hurt in many religious affairs,
Many people have been hurt through alcohol, automobile accidents, patriotism, and the list goes on, why aren't you questioning the origins of these things?
Religious extremism hurts everyone, 9/11 for example? I feel concern that religious lunatics will mess up this world more than it already is.
Then question "religious extremism".
True, I'm not saying that it's all religions fault I'm just saying that it is often a catalyst to terrible disasters.
Politics is the catalyst to most terrible disasters, including 9/11, so why not question politics?
It seems to me that you are jumping on a bandwagon.
jan.
Sometimes that seems so. Often the opposite seems so. People say they want to be happy but do things which make them & others unhappy. Many I've known who insist they're happy & YOU can be happy too are the grumpiest grouchiest who are disturbed by superficial things.
The Antimatter God could cast positrons. Oh dear. Fear Him.One matter, and one antimatter. The matter God has the upper hand now, but the fight continues!
Automobiles are necessary religion isn't. Patriotism is a feeling, we cannot stop feelings. And go ahead and destroy all the alcohol in the world, but I have a feeling that will only create more anger and death.
I have: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=86318
Once again, politics and governance is necessary, without it the world would be in shambles and the crime rate would rise exponentially.
11parcal-you do know they got around before the 20th century, right? I'm sorry, but patriotism is just a word. Feelings are pretty unimportant without actions, dontcha think?
Politics and governance necessary? If everyone would simply declare me Emperor there'd be no concerns with that. Then again, if we just disband all nations and authority, we achieve the same result, in anarchy the strongest, and smartist usually build from the ash.
Wait, I thought this was "Does God have a God?" My answer-Why should I care? If he does, we have poorly defined the word God. If he doesn't, the word God is still in need of some work, I'd say.
Politics and governance necessary? If everyone would simply declare me Emperor there'd be no concerns with that. Then again, if we just disband all nations and authority, we achieve the same result, in anarchy the strongest, and smartist usually build from the ash.
Wait, I thought this was "Does God have a God?" My answer-Why should I care? If he does, we have poorly defined the word God. If he doesn't, the word God is still in need of some work, I'd say.
There is no one number that comes before the creation of 1.
.9999... is equal to one.
(1/9) = (0.1111...)
(0.1111...) * (9) = (9/9)
(0.9999...) = (9/9)
(9/9) = (1)
No I don't think that's necessary. It is enough to say that "we don't know,but we're still looking".
You could consider complex explanations (like an omnipotent intelligent creator)... but as I said before, it's not a satisfying explanation. You're just substituting one origin problem with another.
On a side note, expecting repeatable abiogenesis experiments might be a little unrealistic, unless you have an available timeframe of millions of years.
We do know. The natural development from disorder to order for rainbows, galaxies, and other things mentioned earlier are well understood.
Does chaos need an explanation?
Does god have sufficient explanation?
A necessary half of the equation. The other half on its own does not support the existence of God.
No LG, that's not relevant at all. Having a PhD is just a first-level filter, and not even a necessary one. It doesn't form any part of the evidence for any scientific theory.
No, you vastly overestimate the current technology in comparison to a human brain. We are orders of magnitude short of approaching the required complexity.
Your implied expectation is something like expecting a hammer and chisel to be able to split an atom.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Control. I think there is a judgment that life simply will be up and down and there is nothing that can be done about it. Random events may add a lot to the swings up or down, but again, one can practically try to minimize the downs and maximize the ups, but still there will be both. That I think rides across the surface. My guess is that with many there is a fear of control loss that holds this structure in place. What if something that appears to me to require irrational methodologies was effective or correct? How would I know when to stop? Do I have that kind of skill? Look what something that seems the same to me led to in the past with others. How can I know it would not lead to that with me? I will not be like them. There are two options.
Yes, I thought you'd go that way.
However, the discussion is question was not about problems affecting happiness or contentedness, but rather explanatory problems of the physical world.
Note also, that the exchange was prompted by a theist pointing out potential of problems with materialism.
So like I said, your zinger was irrelevant to the post to which it was in reply.
Again, no. I am saying that the way we approach "explanatory problems of the physical world" has to do with our happiness, contendedness.
It's common to dissociate the two - the explanation of how the Universe is, and happiness. Which leads to standard questions in ethics and philosophy, like "Are truth and morality mutually exclusive?" and "Are truth and happiness mutually exclusive?" From the way we answer these questions -even if just implicitly- depends how we will address matters of "explanatory problems of the physical world".
For a theist, at least ideally, questions of happiness and truth are not dissociated from eachother.
Yes.
Control - Thinking that it is all entirely up to us, the good and the bad, as if we would create it from scratch.
And also: Vanity, intellectual vanity - Refusing to take up another's suggestion. No, leave me alone, I want to figure it out all by myself!
Pete
When (empirical) science starts leaving the arena of direct perception and starts using (so called) logic and philosophy as major playing cards you end up with nutty stuff like Richard Dawkins latest contributions
name, fame, qualities, pastimes etc etc
“
Despite coming to that standard, there are issues about how well grounded one may be in the reality of things ... for instance its not the case that a doctor's opinion about a medical situation is the final last word about it - rather you have the issue of how a particular claim fits into the already existing body of work that surrounds it. This is how they determine who is a medical practitioner and who is a quack - the same system is remarkably similar for spiritual affairs
yes it is necessary.
When (empirical) science starts leaving the arena of direct perception and starts using (so called) logic and philosophy as major playing cards you end up with nutty stuff like Richard Dawkins latest contributions
hence using empiricism as a means for validating things that are beyond the limits of its paradigm has an essential tragicomic element ....
all that is known is a small slice of relative issues, with chaos (ie "we don't know") standing loud and clear at one end of the macrocosm and at the other end as the microcosm
the point is that chaos cannot have an explanation
sure
name, fame, qualities, pastimes etc etc
“
that's my point!
the evidence for "looking within oneself" is to come to a certain standard (whether it is a certain standard for a PhD or spiritual purity .... to say the least, trying to pass oneself off as a medical doctor and being totally ignorant of issues that credible study could clear up poses many hurdles )
Despite coming to that standard, there are issues about how well grounded one may be in the reality of things ... for instance its not the case that a doctor's opinion about a medical situation is the final last word about it - rather you have the issue of how a particular claim fits into the already existing body of work that surrounds it. This is how they determine who is a medical practitioner and who is a quack - the same system is remarkably similar for spiritual affairs
you have more chance of splitting an atom with a chisel then you do of synthesizing life from matter bereft of consciousness