Print

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

[Micro102]

"Fixing" it did not relate to my point at all. The bible contradicts ITSELF, something 99% of peoples writings do NOT do. Like I said they may contradict other books, but rarely themselves; That's just a bad book writer's mistake.

[eerr]

Make no mistake, regardless of who wrote the bible,

Men write it down. Men wrote it down. Men will write down the bible in the future.

[Micro102]

Yes but how can it be considered the most important book in the catholic religion and said to be influenced by god if it is also one of the most flawed books?

[Urist Imiknorris]

Yes but how can it be considered the most important book in the catholic religion and said to be influenced by god if it is also one of the most flawed books?

Easy. God tells us some stuff and expects us to figure out whether he's lying to us for fun.

[Micro102]

that doesn't sound very nice.

Ok now to my thread changing topic...does omniscient-ness leave god with emotions? There would be no use for them, and they would be pointless if you are all knowing. Yet he is also omnibenevolent.

[HideousBeing]

that doesn't sound very nice.

Ok now to my thread changing topic...does omniscient-ness leave god with emotions? There would be no use for them, and they would be pointless if you are all knowing. Yet he is also omnibenevolent.

Only if he wants them; he IS all powerful. This seems to lead to a strange paradox however.

[RAM]

That the bible is inherantly contradictory nonsense because it doesn't even conform to its own internal logic and messages?

Neither do you, or 99% of all text written by man. What is your point?
Phmcw: Agreed. Except that science-believers (something else than practitioners) can fall into that same trap: "Oh, it's illogical/paradoxical/inauthentic, so it's nonsense, so I don't have to think about it".

If the works of gods are equal to the works of humans than that is a point.

If the works of gods are not equal to the works of humans than something that is equal to the works of humans is not the work of gods and therefore cannot be an accurate representative of gods.

People who believe in science as a model accept that they may be wrong. People who believe in science as a series of absolute rules believe in it as people believe in a religion. Study into the source of their beliefs can persuade those who accept the possibility of flaws in their beliefs. Science as a source, at least attempts to correct itself, religion long ago accepted its truths, and only changes those as a means to further its agenda.

But belief is irrelevant, I have believed many things that I no longer believe, and never will again. Belief has been irrefutably proven flawed by my life. So I must ask, if faith is the only path to salvation, why did your god choose to make salvation impossible for me?

[Siquo]

You did. You've got a responsibility of your own, to learn.
Externalising cause by believing in God ("yeah, God wanted me to do that") is weak and no excuse.


I believe in the importance of irrationality, paradoxes and flaws, and that there's more to them than to cold logic that even a machine could do.


Posit:
- Humans are irrational by nature.
- Humans can be rational (takes some effort), and can make rational machines.
- Humans can barely (yay we did it!) make life, nevermind something as complex as another human being. Yes you know what I mean, with their HANDS.
- Evolution can create something as complex as a mammal.

Question:
- If making rational machines is so much easier than making irrational mammals, why did evolution result into irrational beings?

My answer:
Because irrationality is better than rationality.

[Phmcw]

That, or that i's nearly impossible to be perfectly rational in a complex world. Look at our dwarf for instance, they are computer controlled and not too rationals.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Humans are rational beings, faulty behavior comes about as a result of incomplete data and the biological equivalent of hardcoded numbers in selection algorithms, which beat the selection test (accurately predict the course of action that results in death the least number of times, or at least lets you fuck someone first) under specific conditions, but result in undesirable courses of action under modern conditions.

You're definition of rational incorrectly focuses on the results, not the processes that lead up those results.

[Siquo]

You confuse the process with the explanation.

Humans usually act first, and then rationalize their behaviour afterwards. We're so good at it that we don't even notice this. We are not rational, but are capable of it, with 20/20 hindsight.

[Starver]

There's a description of a temple in the Old Testament, for instance, that, when you actually try to build it, makes no sense at all. The inside is bigger than the outside.

Our Doctor Who
 art from Gallifray,
Unknown be thy name,
Thy TARDIS come,
Good will be done,
On Earth as it is in the heavens,
Save us this day from scaly breath,
And rid us our space-monsters,
As we are stopped from enslaving others,
And lead us not into Extermination,
But deliver us from Daleks,
For thine is the Vortex,
The sonic screwdriver,
For regenerations,
Time Lord.

Yeah, needs improvement...

[RAM]

It is easy to make a cell that can detect if it is light or dark, it is difficult to make an eyeball.
A cheetah can outrun anything, climb trees and ambush, and can kill targets larger than itself. For all that a lion can just waltz up a minute later and steal the meal by being bigger.

Logic has a higher minimum threshold and and is less effective, because it takes longer to get a better result, irrational approaches usually provide an immediately satisfactory result with very little thought. Unfortunately, as the number of humans increases the sort of wastage that is required for a competitive environment to flourish will not last long. We need to stop guessing and start putting in the effort to be right...

[Siquo]

We need to stop guessing and start putting in the effort to be right...

At what level of precision does "right" start and "wrong" end?

[Bauglir]

You confuse the process with the explanation.

Humans usually act first, and then rationalize their behaviour afterwards. We're so good at it that we don't even notice this. We are not rational, but are capable of it, with 20/20 hindsight.

No, we're fairly logical. Once we've acted we attempt to apply a conscious rationalization to our actions, but there's still a fair bit of logic in the way our neurons fire, etc. It's all shaped by evolution and immediate circumstances, but it's not immediately apparent why we act the way we do because it's not done on a conscious level (which would take far too long).