Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Poll

What's your opinion on free will?

I am religious and believe in free will
- 71 (27.7%)
I am religious and do not believe in free will
- 10 (3.9%)
I am not religious and believe in free will
- 114 (44.5%)
I am not religious and do not believe in free will
- 61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251


Pages: 1 ... 300 301 [302] 303 304 ... 525

Author Topic: Railgun and Spirituality Discussion  (Read 681288 times)

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4515 on: January 11, 2016, 05:10:22 pm »

Idle curiosity Dwarfy, doesn't that mean that you must per force believe in some form of deity? Seeing as presumably the universe originated somewhere. Not that there's any scientific way of testing that, I suppose.
Nah. If a deity could appear out of nothing and be the origin of the universe, the universe can appear out of nothing and need no outside originator -- they're roughly equally unprovable in their assumptions, though the latter has less of them. If you're already presupposing the existence of something from nothing or something that "just is" in the form of the deity that creates everything, there's nothing really stopping you from just... not assuming the middleman existed.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

martinuzz

  • Bay Watcher
  • High dwarf
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4516 on: January 11, 2016, 05:10:38 pm »

That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.

I'm not sure that I agree with Robert Flint's view there. I'd say that the atheist man, convinced that there is no god, after coming to the conclusion that the existance of god is incapable of proof, ceases to be an atheist, and becomes an agnost, and not an atheist agnost. Because if you're uncertain, you are no longer convinced.

But then I guess, if we stick to the definitions as they are set right now, you are right.

EDIT: although, from the wiki link you gave: "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview."
« Last Edit: January 11, 2016, 05:18:25 pm by martinuzz »
Logged
Friendly and polite reminder for optimists: Hope is a finite resource

We can ­disagree and still love each other, ­unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist - James Baldwin

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=73719.msg1830479#msg1830479

TD1

  • Bay Watcher
  • Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4517 on: January 11, 2016, 05:15:21 pm »

Your prescriptive use of language hardly matters. What people think is what counts.
Logged
Life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination
  TD1 has claimed the title of Penblessed the Endless Fountain of Epics!
Sigtext!
Poetry Thread

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4518 on: January 11, 2016, 09:23:43 pm »

Assuming the universe started somewhere, I'd put it down to some form of force, as much a deity as gravity is. I suppose I should edit my definition - a god is a creator ex nihilo which has sentience.

No, sentience is not really necessary.

(admission: Hard agnostic mode ON)

From what I have seen/read about Christian god, and various other gods in other pantheons, a god need not be sentient, awake, or active. Passive gods exist in several pantheons.

Take for instance, the role of the DF.EXE process in world creation in dwarf fortress.  It runs "extra dimensionally" to the world(s) it generates and manages. It knows everything. Oversees everything. Everything obeys the order it demands, and deems everything that obeys its ordered mechanical rules as being good. (When working correctly anyway)  The process is the actual "god" to dwarf fortress worlds. The player represents an input to that god. The process is static. It does not change itself on disk unless you update to a new version.  It creates worlds ex nihilo.

It is not sentient.

Similar arguments could be made (in a vacuum anyway) about Old Testament god.  Old Testament god exists prior to the creation of the universe. (Exists extradimensionally to our universe, by necessity.) Old Testament god asserts that he is inside all of creation. (The same is true of DF.EXE, with DF worlds. Everything (in the game) exists inside the process's allocated memory footprint. Thus, everything in the game represents a part of that process-- the statement is literally true.)  OT god is static and unchanging (like the DF process), and "Timeless"; The beginning and the end. (As is the DF process to DF worlds.) OT god is omniscient and omnipotent (As is the DF process to DF worlds.) but seems to be either unwilling or unable to disclose itself to its creations. (The DF process does not go out of its way to tell Urist that yes, he is running inside a simulation, and here's how to manipulate his own simulation logic either.)   

The typical arguments against omniscient and omnipotent gods usually boils down to an implied fallacy-- That these beings need to adhere to a creed about "benevolence" that caters to human pleasure centers. This implication is not a requirement. Instead, the goal appears more to be self-consistency, with self-affirmation and consistency of the systems they manifest as being the primary objective "Good" these entities strive for. The benevolence of these beings is that they create and maintain systems that enable humans and human thoughts. (Much like DF enables dwarven thoughts. It is not that DF.EXE needs to always assure that Urist is bathed in alcohol, and that goblins never invade-- Even though the game engine is quite capable of doing this. INVADERS=FALSE does nearly all of that in the config section. Does the game do that by default? No- What is considered "Proper behavior" by the game is for Urist to have his brains splattered across several tiles when the trolls come and bash down the door, and smash his head in with a giant club.) OT god seems to have created the universe to reaffirm his own views about how an orderly creation should be operated and maintained. The creation of humans is to reaffirm the authority and integrity of the OT god-- Not to bathe humans in pleasure up to their eyeballs.

With that in mind, other arguments against the omnipotence angle become tautologies. "A god that is capable of anything is capable of self destructing!" etc.  Yes. and DF.EXE is capable of initiating self-termination. That does not mean that self-termination is a good thing, or is the intent of the omnipotent god.  Termination of the simulation is against the ethos of the creator-- which creates the simulation, to have a simulation. Self termination destroys the simulation.  The god is capable of this, but does not wish it/does not consider it a very useful thing to do. Pretty much all arguments in this intellectual bent hit this block when viewed this way.


The more I have contemplated the possible modes of existence of an actual divine creator, the more I have come to favor the idea of a completely non-sentient process, such as this.  It makes decisions, but is not sentient. It operates entirely on its own internal order and mechanics, and is not "willful".   It all at once explains the seemingly capricious nature such a divine creator must have (Really, as long as the laws of physics are obeyed, anything goes-- and why seemingly contrary things are considered "good") as well as why the creator appears indistinguishable from a simple force of nature.  Philosophical question: Is DF.EXE "natural", or "artificial"? To the simulated dwarves living inside its process, would it not just appear to be nature itself?

Granted, this is a completely different kind of theism to the human-like gods of nearly all religious pantheons. It however, is a valid interpretation of a divine creator god.  It has similarities to the "Sleeping god creates universe by dreaming" archetype, but being non-sentient, is not actually dreaming. The existence of the universe is instead the result of the active machination of this god, which does what it does for its own reasons, completely divorced from what the child processes inhabiting its simulation want or feel.

After a rather long time cogitating this, this appears to fit the "holy spirit" incarnation of the OT god perfectly.  Pretty much any descriptive verse of this entity can be explained through this mechanic. The existence of the "divine savior", the christ, can be explained as an error correction routine being spawned to herd misbehaving subprocesses back into line, rather than simply terminating them.

"Machine god" is a perfectly valid kind of god. The fact that you cannot sway the machinations of machine god with politics is inconsequential. That machine god does not have actual desires or wants, is also inconsequential.  The fact that worshiping machine god does not change machine god's mind is inconsequential. Machine god has already decided everything, and does not need to change its mind.

I cannot discount the existence of such a wholly self-consistent, deterministic, mechanical 'god' being behind our universe's physics.  To us, its active machinations would be indistinguishable from fundamental forces of nature. The parameters it has set for the simulation simply are. (Why does an electron have the spin and charge that it does? et. al.) From machine god's POV, our debate about machine god is moot-- We obey its rules, regardless, and that is good. If you choose not to believe machine god is a god-- machine god does not care. If you choose to believe that machine god is a god, machine god does not care. It is only when you try to break physics, that machine god cares. The closest thing to direct imaging of machine god in action is going to be things like spontaneous symmetry breaking, and the fact that at the deepest level, our universe exists in a quantized fashion, with discrete quanta of energy. (when you try to say, go smaller than the plank length, you see machine god's hand slapping you, saying "no, plank length is the smallest allowed length.")---Everything else derives from the simulation maintained by machine god, and machine god thinks this is good.

I cannot prove that machine god is "a god."  That appellation is moot.  The universe exists, and is quantized in nature. That is all that I really need to know or care about.





Logged

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4519 on: January 11, 2016, 09:57:02 pm »

That's because they're both. Agnostic atheists. Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with theism either, just for the record.

I'm not sure that I agree with Robert Flint's view there. I'd say that the atheist man, convinced that there is no god, after coming to the conclusion that the existance of god is incapable of proof, ceases to be an atheist, and becomes an agnost, and not an atheist agnost. Because if you're uncertain, you are no longer convinced.

But then I guess, if we stick to the definitions as they are set right now, you are right.

EDIT: although, from the wiki link you gave: "The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview."

Eh, if you act on the assumption that there is no god, whilst still being uncertain whether there really is one, I'd say that counts as agnostic atheist.

I consider myself atheist mostly because I find whether or not there is a god to be irrelevant. I would not worship the Judeo-Christian god even if I was shown incontrovertible evidence of his existence.

Plus, it's also philosophically unprovable that any of you exist, and that this isn't just a simulation. But Cartesian uncertainty isn't a very useful philosophy, and philosophy can't really be 'true' in and of itself, so...
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4520 on: January 11, 2016, 11:28:20 pm »

Agnostic atheist is a funny way of saying agnostic

Egan_BW

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4521 on: January 11, 2016, 11:32:06 pm »

Agnostic atheist is a funny way of saying atheist
FIFY
Logged
Not true, cannot be proven, true but misrepresented.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4522 on: January 11, 2016, 11:38:22 pm »

I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminati

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4523 on: January 11, 2016, 11:44:36 pm »

I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminati
No offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

Orange Wizard

  • Bay Watcher
  • mou ii yo
    • View Profile
    • S M U G
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4524 on: January 11, 2016, 11:49:58 pm »

I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminati
No offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
UGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIE
Logged
Please don't shitpost, it lowers the quality of discourse
Hard science is like a sword, and soft science is like fear. You can use both to equally powerful results, but even if your opponent disbelieve your stabs, they will still die.

Rose

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Elf
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4525 on: January 11, 2016, 11:51:31 pm »

I'm an agnostic theist, myself.

And agnostic atheist is not the same as atheist.

An atheist will not accept the possibility of God. An agnostic will.

As an agnostic theist, I personally believe there's a God, but I know that it's impossible to know, one way or other, and I accept that I might be wrong.
Logged

origamiscienceguy

  • Bay Watcher
  • WELL! OK THEN!... That was fun.
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4526 on: January 12, 2016, 12:06:12 am »

I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminati
No offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
UGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIE
DON'T TELL ME HOW TO STOP LIVING MY LIFE  >:(
Logged
"'...It represents the world. They [the dwarves] plan to destroy it.' 'WITH SOAP?!'" -legend of zoro (with some strange interperetation)

Rolepgeek

  • Bay Watcher
  • They see me rollin' they savin'~
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4527 on: January 12, 2016, 12:43:56 am »

I'm an agnostic theist, myself.

And agnostic atheist is not the same as atheist.

An atheist will not accept the possibility of God. An agnostic will.

As an agnostic theist, I personally believe there's a God, but I know that it's impossible to know, one way or other, and I accept that I might be wrong.

I would disagree with you about the way you define atheist. But alright.
Logged
Sincerely, Role P. Geek

Optimism is Painful.
Optimize anyway.

Adragis

  • Bay Watcher
  • Edgelady Supreme
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4528 on: January 12, 2016, 01:41:19 am »

I'm totes an agnostic nihilist atheist syncretic hindu jewish ismali sunni methodist practicing illuminati
No offence to you personally, but I hate everybody who follows that religion.
UGH YOU'RE SO JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU SHOULD JUST DIE
thats racist
Logged
thincake

Rose

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Elf
    • View Profile
Re: Religion and Spirituality Discussion: I am Enlightened by my Euphoria
« Reply #4529 on: January 12, 2016, 01:44:06 am »

I would disagree with you about the way you define atheist. But alright.
How would you define atheist?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 300 301 [302] 303 304 ... 525