So did anyone else see that ABC God debate thing?
-
Are you really that comfortable with having one, and only one algorithm for thinking about the universe?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
I've just eliminated one algorithm out of a nearly infinite amount of algorithms. (I'm not entirely sure what the heck you mean with "algorithm" in this context) For instance, I've eliminated the algorithm leading to the conclusion that a pink unicorn created the universe.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Religion must be some kind of drug for the mind
Damn, you'll have Stan calling us Marxists again. :doh:
I don't think anything would stop him from doing that. If I knew him, I'd go buy him a copy of the communist manifest, a t-shirt with Che on it, rum & coke (Cuba Libre por favor!) and a red flag for his birthday. Since I cannot convince him that I'm not a Marxist, I'd just play along.
-
I don't think anything would stop him from doing that. If I knew him, I'd go buy him a copy of the communist manifest, a t-shirt with Che on it, rum & coke (Cuba Libre por favor!) and a red flag for his birthday. Since I cannot convince him that I'm not a Marxist, I'd just play along.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I don't think anything would stop him from doing that.
Not likely, I guess.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
rum & coke
I don't think that would mix well with all the zinfandel I've had tonight. :~
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I'd just play along
Yes, just humor him until someone can drop a net over him. :laugh:
-
Nice try, but my head was built with paradox-absorbing crumple zones! [/Futurama]
Cheers, Patrick
I am not alone!
-
string name = "" wrote:
What ever happened to simply having faith and obeying God?
The apple was tastier. :)
-- This episode performed entirely by sock puppets
Who said it was an Apple?
-
Which is why (no matter what some boneheaded theist says) science and theism is irreconcilable. Science is a tool to describe the natural world using natural explanations, while [pan]theism is an attempt to describe the natural world using supernatural explanations. The latter is quite ludicrous because it implies that you - a natural being - can say yea or nay about things outside the natural universe. Not caring about this is just asking for an endless supply of cans of worms... I bet it is possible to put forth a scientific explanation for the reason why some people cling on to supernaturalism.
-- Mr. Bender's Wardrobe by ROBOTANY 500
I prefer to keep my scientific view for the world I exist in and deal with, and my theories and beliefs regarding the 'real' origins of the universe etc. for my private, mental entertainment.
-
I prefer to keep my scientific view for the world I exist in and deal with, and my theories and beliefs regarding the 'real' origins of the universe etc. for my private, mental entertainment.
Brady Kelly wrote:
and my theories and beliefs regarding the 'real' origins of the universe etc. for my private, mental entertainment.
The problem is that most don't. I wonder how many politicians are motivated by god. It's like me being motivated by pink unicorns. It's preposterous! Especially so if I'd be running a country!
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
and my theories and beliefs regarding the 'real' origins of the universe etc. for my private, mental entertainment.
The problem is that most don't. I wonder how many politicians are motivated by god. It's like me being motivated by pink unicorns. It's preposterous! Especially so if I'd be running a country!
So true! I could write pages, maybe even books, on my theory of Music being the smallest hint of the intent of another intelligence to communicate with us, but having no paradigm for our concept of material cause and effect, it has taken millennia for it to make the smallest impression on us, but I would never assert or teach that in favour of us liking music because it sounds nice and makes us feel good.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is a silly argument also, however, because it is just as logical that god could be self created, or simply eternal, as it is that the universe could be.
Why is it that I'm silly for asking these questions, while it is perfectly alright to claim that the universe was created by a god?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is fundamentally did intelligence create the universe or did the universe create intelligence?
Yes, and all the evidence points to the latter. It is downright silly to claim that the universe was created by an intelligent being. I'm gonna leave it at that, for now. :)
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it that I'm silly for asking these qu
Because you're applying properties and dimensions of our universe to something different altogether. Time is a property of the construct of our universe, so applying that or even comprehending timelessness to something beyond our universe just doesn't make any sense.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why is it that I'm silly for asking these qu
Because you're applying properties and dimensions of our universe to something different altogether. Time is a property of the construct of our universe, so applying that or even comprehending timelessness to something beyond our universe just doesn't make any sense.
Red Stateler wrote:
or even comprehending timelessness to something beyond our universe just doesn't make any sense.
Exactly. Then why believe in something you can't even comprehend?! It boggles the mind...
-
Red Stateler wrote:
or even comprehending timelessness to something beyond our universe just doesn't make any sense.
Exactly. Then why believe in something you can't even comprehend?! It boggles the mind...
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Then why believe in something you can't even comprehend?!
Do you believe in General Relativity?
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Then why believe in something you can't even comprehend?!
Do you believe in General Relativity?
Yes, and no, I can't say I understand it fully. I'm not that smart. Still, that theory can be explained and verified by observation. Just because I'm too stupid to understand it fully, doesn't mean it can't be comprehended. I know for a fact that people have demonstrated it to be true. God can never be explained or understood by anyone (except himself). To do so, you'd have to escape causality, and that is something no man can ever begin to comprehend.
-
Yes, and no, I can't say I understand it fully. I'm not that smart. Still, that theory can be explained and verified by observation. Just because I'm too stupid to understand it fully, doesn't mean it can't be comprehended. I know for a fact that people have demonstrated it to be true. God can never be explained or understood by anyone (except himself). To do so, you'd have to escape causality, and that is something no man can ever begin to comprehend.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
God can never be explained or understood by anyone (except himself). To do so, you'd have to escape causality, and that is something no man can ever begin to comprehend.
So then not being able to comprehend General Relativity, you still accept it? Yet since you and others are unable to comprehend God, you therefore reject it? Speaking of verification, can you verify the assertion you just made (that comprehension of things beyond the properties of our universe are impossible)?
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
God can never be explained or understood by anyone (except himself). To do so, you'd have to escape causality, and that is something no man can ever begin to comprehend.
So then not being able to comprehend General Relativity, you still accept it? Yet since you and others are unable to comprehend God, you therefore reject it? Speaking of verification, can you verify the assertion you just made (that comprehension of things beyond the properties of our universe are impossible)?
Red Stateler wrote:
So then not being able to comprehend General Relativity, you still accept it?
Yes, because I, or anyone else, can demonstrate its predictions. Also not that it is not blind faith. If you can come with a theory which trumps GR, and is verifiable, then I'd be happy for your discovery.
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet since you and others are unable to comprehend God, you therefore reject it?
Yes, because you cannot demonstrate what you claim. One has to have faith.
Red Stateler wrote:
Speaking of verification, can you verify the assertion you just made (that comprehension of things beyond the properties of our universe are impossible)?
Personally? No, I'm not smart enough. Nor do I remember enough to quote.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So then not being able to comprehend General Relativity, you still accept it?
Yes, because I, or anyone else, can demonstrate its predictions. Also not that it is not blind faith. If you can come with a theory which trumps GR, and is verifiable, then I'd be happy for your discovery.
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet since you and others are unable to comprehend God, you therefore reject it?
Yes, because you cannot demonstrate what you claim. One has to have faith.
Red Stateler wrote:
Speaking of verification, can you verify the assertion you just made (that comprehension of things beyond the properties of our universe are impossible)?
Personally? No, I'm not smart enough. Nor do I remember enough to quote.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Yes, because you cannot demonstrate what you claim. One has to have faith.
Neither can you claim that General Relativity is consistent with observation without having faith in others.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Personally? No, I'm not smart enough. Nor do I remember enough to quote.
As somebody who claims to base his atheism on the claim that a deity cannot be verified, why do you so frequently rely on things that cannot be verified?
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Yes, because you cannot demonstrate what you claim. One has to have faith.
Neither can you claim that General Relativity is consistent with observation without having faith in others.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Personally? No, I'm not smart enough. Nor do I remember enough to quote.
As somebody who claims to base his atheism on the claim that a deity cannot be verified, why do you so frequently rely on things that cannot be verified?
Red Stateler wrote:
Neither can you claim that General Relativity is consistent with observation without having faith in others.
It is not faith. It is a reasonable assumption. There are no indications that Einstein tried to pull our legs, nor are there any indications that his successors too are pulling our legs.
Red Stateler wrote:
why do you so frequently rely on things that cannot be verified?
Oh it can be verified (that I've indeed read how the supernatural is beyond our comprehension). You just don't make me conjure up the energy to find the book. I *think* it was Atheism - A case against god, but I'm not sure, nor am I willing to use any of the little energy I have still left this Friday evening.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Neither can you claim that General Relativity is consistent with observation without having faith in others.
It is not faith. It is a reasonable assumption. There are no indications that Einstein tried to pull our legs, nor are there any indications that his successors too are pulling our legs.
Red Stateler wrote:
why do you so frequently rely on things that cannot be verified?
Oh it can be verified (that I've indeed read how the supernatural is beyond our comprehension). You just don't make me conjure up the energy to find the book. I *think* it was Atheism - A case against god, but I'm not sure, nor am I willing to use any of the little energy I have still left this Friday evening.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Oh it can be verified (that I've indeed read how the supernatural is beyond our comprehension). You just don't make me conjure up the energy to find the book. I *think* it was Atheism - A case against god, but I'm not sure, nor am I willing to use any of the little energy I have still left this Friday evening.
:laugh: Yeah...I would LOVE to see how somebody verified that it's not possible to comprehend the supernatural! I just find it very ironic that the reason you stated as the foundation for your atheism is apparently ignored in so many other instances.