U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-21-2015, 05:01 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,020,147 times
Reputation: 1368

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
This is a restatement of the first paragraph of your post so it can be replied to in isolation. And I entirely agree with it. The limitations we have cognitively as a species are very real and very apparent. And you do not even have to talk about things like infinity to demonstrate it. You can demonstrate failures in human intuition and reasoning quite effectively with very real world examples - such as the monty hall problem or the birthday paradox. When numbers or concepts get big or small - not even that much bigger or smaller than our common day to day experience - human reasoning breaks down remarkably fast.

The issue is that many people make a career - monetary or merely verbal like yourself on this forum - out of exploiting that - and playing "god of the gaps" in areas of genuine human ignorance - or even simply in common failure of human reasoning. Through the misuse of science buzz words the lay person can quite quickly become bamboozled and the Deepaks of this world essentially pay off large mortgages off the exploitation of it.



Again we are in agreement. We can make no "definite" conclusions on the idea of whether there is a god or not. But there is no requirement to do so in the first place. In science we make no "definite" conclusions on any subjects. We say in speech that we know the speed of light in a vacuum for example. In reality however what we mean is every attempt to measure that has come up with the same result - this is as close to "definite" as we can get - but we acknowledge that the next test _could_ give a different result - or somewhere else in the universe this value is different.

So we do not go around making definite conclusions in the first place. On the subject of "god" or anything else - so pointing out this fact here is useless.

What we can make definite statements on however is whether we have been given any evidence to think a given proposition is true. So far on the idea there is a god - we can quite clearly say no - you have done no such thing here on this forum ever. It has been god of the gaps from you all the way down to the bottom of the turtles - and linguistic games jumping from one definition of "god" to another as and when suits.
as we learn more why wouldn't we "jump" to a new description of god? I personally think that is a requirement. It is not ok to hold to a description of god from 2000 years ago anymore than it is to insist that the sun is a big wood pile.

I would slightly disagree with you on what we can say about " no god". what we can say for certain is "That your description of god is wrong at this point." Or "that your type of god does not exists".

Mystic description is based on unknowns. The idea is sound in that there may very be a base field, but we have no idea what that could be or have any proof of it. so that's all we can say. People usually engage in a debate with people that know less than them. I do it too I guess, but I just love learning so I'll do it anyway I can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2015, 08:21 AM
 
39,237 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5100
That god was always there. The God of Spinoza, the God of the Deists, the "God" of Einstein and indeed the possible sortagod of all religions or none - the god of the agnostics, including Dawkins and myself. always a possible explanation where ever there are gaps in our knowledge. But that means we can't believe in what we don't know, let alone start describing it.

We really don't mind, nor care, about such possible gap-gods. It is the specific -religion -related personal gods with twhich we have a beef, plus their believers declaring that all the varied and contradictory ideas that pop into their heads are Inspired by this invisible truth -giver and that we should do whatever He says -as interpreted by his appointed mouthpiece.

Is it any wonder that this pernicious tendency must be countered, whether it is as internet -dude level or funny hat -wearing pontificater -level, and even when they are not exploiting the gullible for their own benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2015, 04:17 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,020,147 times
Reputation: 1368
Weather one believes or not they can be anti-over organized organizations. But Alas, most people are to stupid to see past their own personal belief based on emotional needs convoluted into the illusion of logic that's best for all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2015, 06:20 PM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
AS usual, you overstate your position in a very tenuous default that has serious issues with what we DO know . . . not just what we don't. Actually the misunderstanding is on both sides of this debate. We are dealing with entirely human cognitive constructs that may or may not have any structural equivalence with our reality. As finite creatures, we are not capable of envisioning an infinite reality . . . without a beginning and an end. When we drive our mathematical models backwards we seek to find the beginning . . . and instead find mathematical non-entities (infinities or singularities). We attempt to interpret them as best we can in our finite perceptual rubric . . . and fail. We also have to employ imaginary numbers in some of our mathematical formulations (wave functions) because the entire process of going backward in time IS imaginary. There is no such thing in our reality.

We are encumbered by the very limitations our perceptions and sensory experiences place on us. We use discrete measures of things that are not discrete and are themselves measurement events that actually reflect the quantum formation time of our instantaneous awareness. We then model these discrete entities (events) using our created artificial rules and procedures in our "measured time" in the hope that we can mimic the outcomes we see in our reality. We have been very successful at the macro level in doing so . . . but we run into difficulties in the micro world. This causes us further grief in interpreting and we get silly things like indeterminacy and virtual particles and the like . . . besides coming up against limits and constants . . . like the planck length and the speed of light.

The confidence necessary to make ANY firm conclusions about origins or ends for our reality exceeds our capabilities or extant information, period. Engaging in semantic terpsichore around terms like nothing, something, vacuum, virtual, emergent, etc. is simply foolishness. Despite the arrogance of the likes of Hawkins . . . we can make no definitive conclusions either way . . . God or no God . . . using science. Any speculation on the beginning of our reality is just that speculation . . . because the very concepts of beginning and end are entirely human and based on our finite existences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
This is a restatement of the first paragraph of your post so it can be replied to in isolation. And I entirely agree with it. The limitations we have cognitively as a species are very real and very apparent. And you do not even have to talk about things like infinity to demonstrate it. You can demonstrate failures in human intuition and reasoning quite effectively with very real world examples - such as the monty hall problem or the birthday paradox. When numbers or concepts get big or small - not even that much bigger or smaller than our common day to day experience - human reasoning breaks down remarkably fast.

Again we are in agreement. We can make no "definite" conclusions on the idea of whether there is a god or not. But there is no requirement to do so in the first place. In science we make no "definite" conclusions on any subjects. We say in speech that we know the speed of light in a vacuum for example. In reality however what we mean is every attempt to measure that has come up with the same result - this is as close to "definite" as we can get - but we acknowledge that the next test _could_ give a different result - or somewhere else in the universe this value is different.

So we do not go around making definite conclusions in the first place. On the subject of "god" or anything else - so pointing out this fact here is useless.
It is good to ee agreement fromyou, monumentus. It is such rarity. But you always leave out most of the more important parts of my posts to give the impression there is nothing there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The difference between us is that I started with NO EXPECTATIONS of God . . . just the inexplicable reality that God exists. It instantly erased my atheism . . . but left me with a serious intellectual deficit. I spent the next 40 years trying to explain it to my intellect. Mordant, OTOH had many expectations all of which eventually were not met. He has a thoroughly understandable (and widely shared view) that God should present SOME kind of advantage or whatever . . . or God is irrelevant. The unconditional love, joy and acceptance I encountered was so overwhelming and unambiguous . . . I didn't need a reason for God to exist. I just needed to find out why I existed.

My search led me eventually to the Christ narrative as the most evolved of the many narratives in the spiritual fossil record. The descriptions of Christ's agape love perfectly matched the consciousness I encountered and that was enough for me to BELIEVE. The idea that we are children of God completed the narrative for me. We are reproducing God . . . but we were doing a very bad job of it . . . still are. Christ was needed to bring the consciousness of God to a HUMAN consciousness so that the collective human consiousness would be forever connected to God's consciousness. He was our "designated hitter" and He hit a Grand Slam . . . loving even His torturers and murderers through horrendous scourging and crucifixion. "No greater love . . ." and it was an unambiguous revelation about the TRUE NATURE of God . . . completely opposite of the barbaric and savage beliefs of our ignorant primitive ancestors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2015, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,870 posts, read 3,797,576 times
Reputation: 4610
^^^^^

Wait. Did hell just freeze over? I think Monumentus and Mystic just agreed about something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2015, 09:48 PM
 
40,168 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
^^^^^
Wait. Did hell just freeze over? I think Monumentus and Mystic just agreed about something.
It did get a bit chilly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2015, 05:53 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,703,069 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
you always leave out most of the more important parts of my posts
I do no such thing - but have fun misconstruing what I do and why in order to dodge actually replying to the content of the posts. Which you have done here by simply not replying to any of the content of it.

I have explained to you multiple times before - I reply to your entire post - but quote only enough of it to direct your attention to general areas of it. I quote just enough to inform you of what general area of the post I am replying to in any given section of mine.

The part of yours you uselessly re-pasted has been replied to in mine. So any time you want to reply to mine - there it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top