Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

Does anyone else get a bit irritated with all the philosophical jargon like "NextTuesdayism" and "True Scotsman" and all that stuff? A lack of clarity of terminology and dryness of sentence is making the philosophical discussion quite impenetrable.

Well, as said further down, once you know the name it's a handy shortcut for referencing a concept.  Recognising that it might not be obvious[1], I then actually explained it, so not sure what the complaint is about in this instance.

The big problem is when you have differing opinions of what terms like Atheism actually mean (witness further up the thread), whether someone understands "Ad Hom" at all, even when it's spelt out and are (as I recently put it) "holding Occam's Razor in the other hand".  Then you have incidents of people thinking there's agreement where there isn't, disagreement where it actually is agreed, and confusion as someone wonders why it's been suggested they might try to wear a kilt.

I think I'm more at fault for over-explaining things, but YMMV.

Plus, it is nothing at all like that.

I was pointing out the similarities (we all exist as a mental simulation), rather than saying it was actually equivalent[2].  After I wrote it I regretted writing that part so pithily that it might be misinterpreted as it has been.  Don't mind me, though.


[1] It's not as widely talked about as LastTuesday/Thursday/Whateverdayism (so much so that I'd refute it as being "Jargon", because I've not even seen it used at all in those discussions that feature the IPU and FSM quite regularly, never mind (slightly) more serious discussions), although anyone who knows about this other probably should have understood the one I gave above.  As such, I treated you all as idiots by explaining it, I know.

[2] There's no promise of any extra-neural existence for us, at all, and I assume you mean we're actual the substrate of the brain/mind rather than the abstractions 'run upon' it.  (i.e. the stones in A Bunch Of Rocks, not the world(s!)that they end up representing).

[Owlbread]

I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.

Gods, technically. The evidence doesn't support the existence of a single divinity (depending on how you define that divinity, of course).

And I believe, because the evidence leads me to believe. It is not guaranteed - I only work with the knowledge I have - so an agnostic theist, I suppose? I'll run through it again, though I've done so on the board before.

My beliefs are a bit weird, but the basic logic is as follows: We know universes are capable of creating additional less complex universes through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the universe we know about that has created sub-universes has created many.

It stands to reason, then, that most Universes are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the universes creation.

Hypothetically, it is possible to create far more advanced universes than we have so far. It is theoretically possible for us to create universes with inhabitants that can create their own universes, given time and resources.

Thus, it stands to reason that many universes would be capable of having more complex universes above them and more simple universes below them.

By the odds, we know we do not dwell at the bottom. The next most common location would seem to place is in the middle - as a constructed universe with one or more creators, of sufficient complexity to create our own sub-universes.

As such, I believe in the existence of gods, because it seems like the most likely outcome. It is by no means guaranteed, though, and I'm obviously working off limited information, but it may be the best we can do.

Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.

[Starver]

Whether or not it's related to that person's ideas, I might as well reveal here an (unused) short-story idea of mine, from a long time back in which scientists are conducting experiments that mean 'intimate' contact with another universe...  and when a Mummy Universe and a Daddy Universe love each other very much...


(I'm not even sure which universe would have had the wormhole device and which has the particle accelerator...  Or whatever it might have been that differentiated which of us got to internally gestate the baby universe, before birthing it into the metaverse.  Whichever one it was, it would have been criticised by one set of readers or another.  I was thinking of referencing seahorse reproduction to trip up both camps.)


But, basically, we (humanity, or our galaxy or something) were the gonads of our universe.  Whatever gender they might be.  I liked the idea that we weren't even the thinking bit of the Universe Organism.


Oh yeah, and babies aren't (certainly by the time they grow up) simpler than their parents, on the whole, and given we know how the tree of life has gone arguably they're (on average) a tiny bit more complex than either of their parents.  And it's also not required in this sequence of events that there's a conscious creation by those responsible.  It just so happens that in my tale we worked out what was happening, after we had already gotten most of the way down the path, and thus found out that our position in the scheme of things was basically as 'dumb biology', at the meta-scale.  And that only because I thought it would make a better story for the protagonists to give the reader the necessary exposition than hiding the events behind "that's odd, the accelerator's gone heywire... and now there's a region of strangely different space residing in the stellar neighbourhood" or whatever, and making a meta-story for the reader's eyes only.  But it could have gone a lot of different ways had I persevered.

This does not totally relate to GG's philosophy, I know.  I mention it only because of some of the parallels in the background theory of both scenarios.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.

two hundred years from now, someone like toady is born. he has access to more computational power in one of his shoes that the whole world has today, and he rents a small uninhabited island in the pacific to build this supercomputer supercomplex to run this neat simulation he's thinkking of...

[10ebbor10]

I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.

Please define the following words:
-Religious
-Person
-Believe
-their chosen God
Also,
In,tell, why, they,...

[Fenrir]

It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.

The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.

[10ebbor10]

It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.

The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.

I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.

For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.  What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.

[Owlbread]

It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.

The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.

I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.

For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.  What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.

So are you trying to find a way of being able to explain your belief in virgin birth by trying to answer my question? That's fine, but I'd rather you just told us why. I mean, we can already have virgin birth can't we? In so far as they'd still be inseminated but you know.

[MagmaMcFry]

I would like a religious person to tell me why they believe in their chosen god.

Gods, technically. The evidence doesn't support the existence of a single divinity (depending on how you define that divinity, of course).

And I believe, because the evidence leads me to believe. It is not guaranteed - I only work with the knowledge I have - so an agnostic theist, I suppose? I'll run through it again, though I've done so on the board before.

My beliefs are a bit weird, but the basic logic is as follows: We know universes are capable of creating additional less complex universes through the intentional actions of sapient species. We know that the universe we know about that has created sub-universes has created many.

It stands to reason, then, that most Universes are artificial, and thus have deities - a race with a member or members responsible for the universes creation.

Hypothetically, it is possible to create far more advanced universes than we have so far. It is theoretically possible for us to create universes with inhabitants that can create their own universes, given time and resources.

Thus, it stands to reason that many universes would be capable of having more complex universes above them and more simple universes below them.

By the odds, we know we do not dwell at the bottom. The next most common location would seem to place is in the middle - as a constructed universe with one or more creators, of sufficient complexity to create our own sub-universes.

As such, I believe in the existence of gods, because it seems like the most likely outcome. It is by no means guaranteed, though, and I'm obviously working off limited information, but it may be the best we can do.

Please, treat me like an idiot. I would like you to explain to me how our universe can create another universe.

Well, we can create a universe by simulating it on a computer. An example that would actually be recognizable as an universe is Conway's Game of Life.

[10ebbor10]

It isn’t clear what point you are trying to make.

The best I can imagine is that you are accusing someone of being obtuse.

I'm asking a genuine question. I'm asking what he means with his question.

For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.  What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.

So are you trying to find a way of being able to explain your belief in virgin birth by trying to answer my question? That's fine, but I'd rather you just told us why. I mean, we can already have virgin birth can't we? In so far as they'd still be inseminated but you know.

See, this was what I was trying to avoid by asking those questions.

The dogma of the virgin birth has nothing to do with the biological explanation of conception and all that stuff. It isn't even clearly stated in the Bible. It's just a way of reinforcing the idea that Jezus was no mere human.

The dogma of the immaculate conception is related. It states that Maria had no part in original sin, it doesn't claim anything about the conception and such.

((Even wikipedia gets these right, mostly))

[Leafsnail]

It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.

[10ebbor10]

It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.

But I'd like to see what the other side thinks.

[Fenrir]

What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.

Considering the fact that, no matter what words you choose to shuffle around, it doesn’t change what you actually believe, so there isn’t a set of definitions that you could use that would let you actually communicate to us that you believe in virgin births without suffering the laughter of biologists. The best you could do is obfuscate what you are saying and defeat the purpose of telling us in the first place.

For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.

He isn’t asking about the particulars of your belief. He isn’t asking about the virgin birth or whether your god likes pancakes for breakfast. He even used the words “your chosen god” which permits anything from Tyr to Yahweh.

It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.

If the terms used are common words in the English language, and there has been no tampering done, and there is no sign of any rogue connotations, or any other lingual duplicity, it’s probably best he just answered the question.

[10ebbor10]

What I'm hoping for is a set of definitions that allow me to say that, for example I believe in the Dogma of the virgin birth without being laughed at biologists.

Considering the fact that, no matter what words you choose to shuffle around, it doesn’t change what you actually believe, so there isn’t a set of definitions that you could use that would let you actually communicate to us that you believe in virgin births without suffering the laughter of biologists. The best you could do is obfuscate what you are saying and defeat the purpose of telling us in the first place.

Reading comprehension 101.  I said I believed in the Dogma of the virgin birth. I did not say I that I believe in the possibility of a virgin birth. As said before, the dogma of the virgin birth has nothing to do with the biological implications and mechanics of pregnancy.*

*Except the fact that they're both talking about the same subject of course

For example, there's a large difference between a fundamentalists belief in his God, and that of someone else.

He isn’t asking about the particulars of your belief. He isn’t asking about the virgin birth or whether your god likes pancakes for breakfast. He even used the words “your chosen god” which permits anything from Tyr to Yahweh.

Say, I believe in God, but I don't believe we should burn the gays or whatever crazyness the fundamentalists are up to today.

For the fundamentalists I'm a heretic, for others I might be a believer, yet we're talking about the same holy book, and the same God.

It'd probably be best if you defined those things in your answer.

If the terms used are common words in the English language, and there has been no tampering done, and there is no sign of any rogue connotations, or any other lingual duplicity, it’s probably best he just answered the question.

They are common used words in the English language, but you often see them having vastly different implications depending. Let's use the wikipedia defenitions then.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true

In Christianity, God is the eternal being that created and preserves the world. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (i.e. wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (i.e. involved in the world).

Under these sets of definitions, you could say my answer would be yes. (Probably).

However, just in order to screw with definitions a bit more:
I believe the Biblical story about the creation of Earth to be true
I don't believe the creationists are right
I believe the principle of evolution to be true (with the appropriate margin of error for scientific theories)
.....

The whole thing essentially boils down to the definition of truth, and the different possible interpretations of a single story. (There are a lot, believe me).

The problem we have is that many people seem to think that religion and myths are some kind of protoscience, that they are succesive phases in a search for knowledge, and that they are mutually exclusive. None of this is true.

[Siquo]

None of this is true.

No. But it can be thought to be true (and, IMNSHO, wrong) in two ways that I vehemently oppose:
- Religious people thinking that their beliefs supercede scientific data in some way
- Scientism, or the belief that "what science says" (or their interpretation of it) is somehow "true"
The first one pitches me neatly with everyone else versus the religious fundies, the latter gets me in trouble with the atheist scientism fundies.