Print

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

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Trekkin]

Oh, but knowledge of other quantum instances implies observation, which implies decay of the quantum state.

But if you were omnipotent, you could make it not so.

[TheDarkStar]

In infinite worlds, if at all possible, there will be a version that could do so if at all possible.

Assuming multiworlds leads to an infinite number of universes rather than a large and exponentially-increasing amount. And that the ease of affecting other universes is not affected by things like the time since the two universes diverged. And so on. There just isn't enough information to make a good decision about if other very different universes could influence us.

[Egan_BW]

Also perhaps your many worlds godself has power over the multiverse but can't change things in the past. So that someday you'll randomly become a god because one of your other selves figured out how.

Also just because there is an infinite number of universes and godhood is attainable doesn't mean that any of your infinite selves will attain godhood, just as there are an infinite number of points between 0 and 1, none of which are larger than 3.

[Maximum Spin]

Otherwise, manyworlds asserts that I SHOULD be if it is at all possible, so either many worlds is NOT true (which does not seem to reconcile with some of the more interesting experiments in quantum physics)

Many-worlds theory is not scientifically distinct from any other interpretation. There are no predictive differences, so they're fundamentally equivalent, so this means nothing.

[Trekkin]

Otherwise, manyworlds asserts that I SHOULD be if it is at all possible, so either many worlds is NOT true (which does not seem to reconcile with some of the more interesting experiments in quantum physics)

Many-worlds theory is not scientifically distinct from any other interpretation. There are no predictive differences, so they're fundamentally equivalent, so this means nothing.

Nah, see, then the universe splits again so there's a universe where it is meaningful and a universe where it isn't.

And if there's another problem, the universe splits again.

Sometimes I think the many-worlds theory need simply postulate a staunch defender of many-worlds theory with a lay understanding of quantum mechanics: every time they postulate more worlds, the universe splits again.

[Starver]

How long has that poll been there?

I just voted "Other (please tell!)" because the remaining three fit-but-don't-fit.

• Atheist - yes, because I'm a non-believer (not a disbeliever), but that's not a religion
• Undecided - yes, because I haven't decided, but I'm also not looking for a decision
• Agnostic - yes, because it seems certain that nothing can actually be known, but I don't consider that my 'creed', either.

 

[Dunamisdeos]

•Agnostic - yes, because it seems certain that nothing can actually be known, but I don't consider that my 'creed', either

Not to play the you-must-have-a-label game but isn't that pretty much the definition of agnostic, whether you follow the popular system of agnostic belief or no?

[Egan_BW]

Poll needs a "IDGAF" option, yes. One can care very deeply about no knowing.

[Starver]

•Agnostic - yes, because it seems certain that nothing can actually be known, but I don't consider that my 'creed', either

Not to play the you-must-have-a-label game but isn't that pretty much the definition of agnostic, whether you follow the popular system of agnostic belief or no?

I may be agnostic re: religion, but I am not religiously agnostic. (Much as with the atheism, too. But that one has the added complication of the theistic also presuming me to be antitheistic.)

[Reelya]

Occam's Razor:

If you were an omniscient being (infinite intelligence) then merely thinking about things would in fact be equivalent to simlulating them down the most minute details. e.g. if you think about a clock then it's not the real clock, however God thinking about a clock would be identical down to the subatomic level to the actual clock. So in other words, God's imagination is a perfect simulation of anything that comes to his mind.

e.g say this God thinks "I wonder what would happen if I created a universe". In choosing which possible universe to create, this God would have to enumerate and simulate every possible universe. e.g. in just deciding what to make, this God has already carried out a perfect simulation of the infinite varieties of possible universes he could make - before picking which one he'd like to make. And since he's already run all the simulations out to infinite time, the act of creation would be redundant, hence Occam's Razor would suggest we reject that an all-knowing God needs to create anything. His own mind is sufficient to run the simulation. In fact he already processed every possible simulation just by wondering about it.

[Starver]

Well, we try to imagine a being more intelligent than us, in trying to define God...

[Dunamisdeos]

A better question would be that if that is true, as it logically seems to be, what motive outside of simple creation could be present for such a being? If he is malevolent and wants us to suffer, than his simulation would suffice. You don't need "real people" if you don't consider your "real people" worthy of consideration, which a malevolent God would not. To a sociopath it would be an exercise in outright futility.

It's only free will and the giving of worship/love that can be gotten through actual creation and giving us actual existence and the ability to make our own choices, including that of rejection of God. You can force all other things from a being but that. I'll go further and say that you can coerce and manipulate (or simulate) those things from a person, but you will always know that it isn't legitimate.

For a being that can create or simulate all other things, this is the only concept worthy of pursuit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Though it is odd for someone of my persuasion, I have to object to this idea of God as inevitably the perfect simulator. One of the best, and indeed in my eyes the only valid answer to the paradox of omniscience and free will besides denying one or the other is that an almighty God is not obligated to exercise maximum knowledge in all circumstances in the same way that it is not obligated to use maximum destructive power all the time even if it has that ability.

This applies to this situation as well. An almighty mind is not forced to imagine things in perfect resolution and may choose to imagine them below simulation level.

Of course this enters all sorts of other problems and God doesn't exist, but you know, as a thought experiment.

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean, how are we measuring that intelligence? We are assuming that there is an objective measure of the concept for that construction. Intelligence is subjective.

Also, I think that the obligation argument explains it neatly, that an omniscient and omnipotent being does not need to suffer anything it does not wish to, and therefore has no actual need of us at all. The question then becomes why. If a being is both omniscient and omnipotent, then that being will only pursue things it cannot otherwise obtain instantly, such as things given freely from another being with free will.

This being can exist without such things, and therefore is still omnipotent. It knows objectively that the concept of worship/love must be given freely and with full knowledge to have intrinsic meaning, and is therefore still omnipotent. It therefore WANTS love given freely, and therefore allows us to exist in a state of free will.

[Descan]

So that trailed off into skepticism pretty quick, but the context was that I was scared and hoping that, you know, I *won't* be damned if I'm wrong.  I've spent more time trying to learn about religion than most people, and I try to keep an open mind about it.  If I'm wrong, am I going to burn despite all that effort?

If it helps, you have literally *no way* of knowing which of the many myriad religions (if any) are actually true! And a great many of them, especially weighted by popularity, will damn you for even marginal non-orthodox thought, let alone full blown disbelief! Aaaand since you literally cannot believe in every single one of them and follow all their strictures. Like. Physically impossible to do this. Then you're pretty much guaranteed to be damned by whichever (again, if any) religion is *actually true.*

Like, you were probably raised in a Christian house, or at least Christian culture, so the Christian "do this or be damned!" is fairly prominent for you; but Islam has pretty much the same punishment for disbelief, is also a "We are the only true ones!" so you can't believe in both or else they'd both damn you for the same heresy, AND even without that, it has contradictions between it and Christianity so trying to fulfil one will almost certainly break the other. And that's just two religions! Imagine trying to do the same with all the rest!

And since pretty much every single religion on Earth has about the same amount of proof (observational, logical, experimental, or whatever way you want to look at it) going for it, you basically have three choices. All, none, or random guessing. All of which pretty much guarantee you being damned by one or another of them.

So personally I don't see the point in bothering with any of them in the first place. I mean, first of all, that's wasted effort. Second, Hell, for me, it's a logical statement to say that any entity that would damn you for disbelief is not something worthy of worship or belief in the first place, it's a complete non sequitor of a punishment. Only a malevolent sadist would do that. Even if I somehow knew without a shadow of a doubt that it existed, I could not bring myself to worship it, any more than I could bring myself to want to, I dunno, shag Hitler or something else equally barbaric.

though granted, looking at the world and the kinds of things in it, let alone the universe in general, "sadist" would be a very apt description of any intelligence that had any hand in it's creation. It's much more comforting to think it was all unthinking natural processes than that, for example, worms that burrow into your eyes for sustenance and water are the product of an actual entity with desires and agency.

Final point: any creator being worthy of worship would have to be one that, having created you and your faculties of thought and consideration, would not punish you for using those faculties and arriving at the "wrong" conclusion, based on the facts of the universe as understood at the time you were alive. After all, not only did this being create the facts, they also created the you that looks at the facts and they created how you would piece them together. To damn you for that would make no more sense than if you got angry at a ball you dropped for hitting the ground. It could not help BUT hit the ground, and the hitting or non-hitting of the ground is pretty much entirely within your control. Same for us and belief or disbelief.

e: clarify: if i somehow KNEW a deity existed, even if I didn't worship it or have 'belief' in it, I would at least acknowledge the reality of it's existence. just realized that my sloppy wording there was. uh. sloppy.