Print

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

[k33n]

why not? why would an intelligent being not create rules and regulations, we do it.

The fact that the universe has laws that cannot be broken makes theism impossible by definition. Also, see below.

It's a chicken and an egg thing how ever, if we assume it can be created with out a God, then so could it be created WITH a God
How come the unversed can exist form nothing, but not God, Why MUST the universe just always exist be the awnser?
to use your own words If you say we can not know then you are blinded and chained by your dogma.
 

Firstly, either there are gods all the way up, creator intelligence after creator intelligence after creator intelligence, or God has always existed. If God has always existed, then the argument for the need of designers for complex things is moot. If that argument is meaningless, then the need for a god to justify the existence of the universe disappears. Since the argument from God is not empirical, but based on tradition and religion, any scientific reason for god is now gone.

The bible claims we will be reborn, maybe it means a new body, maybe it means a whole new life with out the memory of this one

The bible says a lot of things, almost none of them good. It is bronze age rantings of murderers, schizophrenics, and tyrants who did not even realize that the earth was round. To read that book as factual borders on mental illness.

Maybe there is something inside our brains, outside, or what not that science cant find yet, just like there was a time we could not find how our brains work (and still cant find out most) dont mean its not there, I'm not saying it is, just that history shows just becuse we cant find how it works dont mean it dose not

The issue is what we do know. What I listed are things that are 100% bound to the brain. If there is a force that is not part of the brain, it is not the religious definition of a soul.

[Starver]

To simulate the universe, would you just take a preposterous point-cloud of planck lengths? And update every single point once for every single planck time?

Shit's crazy. Like, loco.

And yeah, not being able to perfectly predict quantum events would render the simulation merely an approximation of the universe. And it would most likely look and behave radically different than the one we're in.

Had to take a break from the thread for a few hours, and may have lost the idea of the original (also, probably we're several pages further on now...) but...

Are we arguing that a machine in this universe can simulate this universe?  Goedel would like a word with you, methinks.

However, we simulate universes all the time.  Conway's Game Of Life, frexample, or some form of Langton's Ant or a Rule 110 system.  (And here I'm restricting to ones without PRNG...  Although clearly seeded PRNGs would be similarly deterministic, even if 'actors' in the wouldn't have a chance of predicting it themselves.)  Each has a (potential!) universe arising from simple rules but can create complexity.  My favourite analogy is that if there were to be a creature within that 'universe' that (by its own standards) is 'conscious', in some manner that arises out of the 'physical laws' the universe works on, then it probably couldn't perfectly understand the particular environment it is in, let alone know anything about how free electrons float around doped silicon substrates store the data about its universe (which would, if 're-encoded' by the creature's own artisnship into in-universe examples, be too large to store.

Scale that up to what outer Universe might contain our own sphere of knowledge, and be 'simulating' it, and...  And Planck-ticks are Planck-ticks to us, but the FPS of our 'game' in the outer world may be dreadfully slow...  We would't know.

And I do love linking to XKCD strips, but I reckon I've already given the Pebbles one to this thread before.  Look it up, if you don't already know it.  ("xkcd A Bunch of Rocks"->your favourite search engine)

Not that I think there's a "guy in the desert" doing this sort of thing.  It's as likely to be just a complex but spontaneously[1]-formed symmetry-breaking situation in (meta-)space-time.  A bit like a BZ-reaction platter or something.


[1] We can argue over the accuracy of that word later...

[Helgoland]

I liked a point someone made in another thread: If we have free will, there's bound to be something influencing the processes in our brain. That would mean a violation of the law of coonservation of energy would take place; and so we make free will power plants - making power through the sheer force of our will!

[MagmaMcFry]

I liked a point someone made in another thread: If we have free will, there's bound to be something influencing the processes in our brain. That would mean a violation of the law of coonservation of energy would take place; and so we make free will power plants - making power through the sheer force of our will!

Cue the Matrix.

[Helgoland]

That would have made for a much better explanation. "Bioelectricity combined with a form of fusion" - conservation of energy, anyone? Though they could of course have gone with the zeroth/first law.

[Starver]

Yeah, I bet it's like that "you can't..." Like licking your elbow.  You know you can't but you try, just in case...

I can lick my own elbow.  (On a good day, at least.  It's a close call, admittedly.)

I hope you did not severe any body parts to do so. That would be cheating, you know.

I do not have any (particularly) severe body parts, no.  Neither did I sever any them.

Shall I tell you my trick?  You might be able to do it yourself.  Most people when trying to lick their elbow use a "handbell ringing" movement, a given hand in a fist and thrown over the respective shoulder, elbow pointing forward , and then you strain your neck to try to get your chin 'around' your elbow such that your tongue can get to the tip of the elbow.

Instead, point your chosen arm straight out forward (elbow would be downwards).  Then twist your arm inwards.  You can't (or shouldn't) twist it the wrong way, because twisting your hand 'outwards' just twists the forearm.  You're looking for a shoulder-rotation, which brings the elbow round 180 degrees to the top.  Now most of the translational movement is moving your shoulder-blade backwards, bringing the elbow towards where your mouth and tongue wait in (possibly salivating) expectation.

Then you crane your neck forward, and possibly twist a bit, and see where you can get the tip of your tongue (Gene Simmons still probably has an advantage at this point).  I'm betting you can at least get it closer to the nobbly bit that is your elbow bone than when you try it with the bent-armed technique, mapping the same spot on your underlying skeleton.  (If you actually drew a dot on the skin at the tip of your bent elbow with a marker pen/sharpie/whatever, then I'm betting you'll also be able to drag the skin towards your mouth and reach that even easier with the straight-arm technique, if your skin is as loose as mine in that area.)


HTH, HAND.  I just know you'll be a bunch of elbow-lickers in no time.

(GreatOrder... have them shave a bit off your upper arm, while you're getting it reattached and it'll be even easier!)

[Fenrir]

Here is my major problem with atheism: if you don't combine it with any philosophy such as humanism, you end up with people who care more about themselves than others.

I cared about people back when I was a theist, and I care about them now. Of course, I can’t ask you to take my word for it, but I hope you will reconsider your position.

e: I am not really familiar with humanism, and it seems to be varied in meaning, so please be more specific. Well, it seems that “humanism” in general emphasizes human value, so yes, unless atheists value people, then they will be selfish, but this is a tautology that is true for theists as well.

Religion, at it's heart, is about combining faith and reason. It is a set of moral codes based on communal beliefs(faith) combined with stories explaining natural phenomena (reason).

I am not really sure how religious explanations could be considered reason. They aren’t deduced, they aren’t very open to revision, and they are not discarded if the evidence suggests something else.

Further, I don’t think you are using the term “faith” correctly. I have never seen the word used to mean a set of moral codes, and I can’t find a dictionary that supports that usage.

If you abandon faith, you're going to become a bitter person. You see the logical side of things, the pessimist's (realist's) side. But if you continue to see beauty in the everyday world, the beauty in life itself, then you will still have happiness.

Now you seem to be using “faith” to mean something else. If I set aside moral codes, I’ll see the logical side of things and become a bitter person?

I strongly believe in science. I believe science can, and will, explain all natural phenomena. I also believe, however, that science will never be able to give you the experience of standing next to a river, fishing for trout. It will never give you the experience of being in another's arms. It will never give you the experience of triumph, of overcoming significant odds to achieve victory.

I strongly believe in fishing. I believe fishing can, and will, provide tasty trout to eat. I also believe, however, that fishing will never be able to change the oil in your car. It will never clean the leaves out of your gutter. It will never make you a sandwich. It will never find Carmen Sandiego.

Because it was never supposed to do that.

Experience can be explained by science. But science should never be used to replace the experience.

Being an atheist doesn’t mean you have to stop fishing to do science all day.

[Starver]

Your assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is not

Not wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible.  Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so.  Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...

(edited for speeling eroors.)

[Micro102]

Actually theists without humanism would still care about others because their religion tells them to. It's the stoning to death of certain peoples and other immoral actions that are the problems.

[fqllve]

If you're only caring because someone's forcing you to it's hard to call that actually caring.

Most theists who do good things tend also to be humanists.

[Max White]

I find it a bit funny when people decide that the morality comes from faith and faith alone.
A lot of Europe has been getting more and more secular, coupled with a rise in atheism, and crime rates are dropping. This is directly opposed to some of the more highly religious nation, where things are turning to shit.
Big shout out to the Muslim brotherhood. While most theists are pretty peaceful, these guys seem to want the death of everybody who doesn't have a dint in their forehead from banging it on the floor.

[Fenrir]

EDIT: Accidentally quoted a ninja.

Actually theists without humanism would still care about others because their religion tells them to. It's the stoning to death of certain peoples and other immoral actions that are the problems.

Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)

Atheists usually already have the second part, so to tell an atheist that he needs humanism—at least with the general definition that I have here—is simply to tell him that he needs to emphasize the value of human beings. Theists would be selfish too if they didn’t emphasize the value of humanity; it isn’t relevant to my point whether it’s because “Jesus sez so” or not.

[Wolfy]

Your assuming who ever dose this thinks of this as "just a simulation" and is of human feelings which again the bible claims God is not

Not wishing to upset the apple-cart, but what the bible claims doesn't mean anything to anyone who doesn't actually believe in the bible.  Only circular arguments can occur in your attempts to prove that the bible is true because (essentially) the bible says so.  Also, you have to compete with innumerable other (most exclusively self-styled) holy texts from the various Torah/Bible/Quranic variations a lot of us are probably quite familiar with through various Vedas, Sutras, the Tao Te Ching and on and on and on until the likes of the book on Dianetics and whatever the Pastafarians currently refer to...

(edited for speeling eroors.)

so your going to take the bible at the parts you want
(God is all powerful, he allows slavrey etc)
But ignore things that are good because it comes form the bible?

[XXSockXX]

I do not have any (particularly) severe body parts, no.  Neither did I sever any them.

Must have been thinking of "severed". Neither my English nor my typing are as good as I pretend they are.

My tongue is roughly 2 inches too short (or for aesthetic reasons let's say my arms are too long). Damnit, you made me try. But your method is what I instinctively tried first too.

Actually theists without humanism would still care about others because their religion tells them to. It's the stoning to death of certain peoples and other immoral actions that are the problems.

Theism is not a religion, just the belief that there is a god. It tells you nothing about moral values. Religion may tell you about moral values, but these values depend on traditions and interpretation of scripture and vary greatly over time even within a single religion. Religion can tell you to care about others and stone some people to death at the same time and find a "justification" for that easily.

[Grek]

@inteuniso:
Generally speaking, the only way to get the experience of fishing for trout next to a river is to actually go fish for trout next to a river. Likewise the experience of falling in love, of being held in someone's arms and of caring for another human being. You can only experience those things by doing them. Neither religion nor science is an effective replacement for that.

So, yeah. While atheism needs humanism to make people care about each other, so does religion to the same degree. I mean, look at Aztec sacrifice-people-on-top-of-a-pyramid religions. They certainly didn't have any humanistic feelings.