Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
-
Nishant S wrote: “The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena” That's a good one! What I really can't understand is why people with university studies still are convinced about the real existence of Adan and Eva. Many religions interprets the bible in a strict manner. Poor Galileo :(
Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things . If you accept that the Bible is not the word of God but a guidance , then all christian stories have an element of interpretation in them . The fundemental question is about God and not about any particular religion.After all , all the religions cannot be right can they ? Actually they can , all they require is for there to be more than one reality . Is it 7 dimensions that the string theorists are up to now ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Spot on Daniel. Fear of death will make an otherwise rational human beings believe in any old rubbish. Personally, if someone really, really believes in something, then more power to them - I am full of respect - the problem I have with religiion is the bigotry that it can bring out in people. It amazes me that someone can preach "peace and love for all - unless you're a homosexual, in which case you can burn in hell". Would Jesus of been a bigot? Of course not. Would Jesus have wanted homesexuals to burn in hell for all eternity? Don't make me laugh. Christianity has a decent value system which many people could do well to adhere to, but it has to be inclusive. We are all human beings, and whatever our beliefs, race, colour, gender, sexual persuasion, etc. we are all equal. I don't believe in God myself, but if I did, it would be an all-inclusive God. As long as people live their lifes being decent to those around them, helping others where possible, etc. then they deserve a place in any "heaven" that may or may not exist (hey, even an atheist like myself has to keep an open mind ;)).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: (hey, even an atheist like myself has to keep an open mind). I try to be open-minded too. I have gone to churches when I was much younger, but after thinking about it more, I've decided Atheism is for me. I still change my point of view a little when I come across things that offer better explanations than my current beliefs. For the most part, I look at Christians the same way as Homosexuals (which is ironic): I don't know why they'd want to do that but it's a free country and what they do behind closed doors is their business as long as nobody hurts anyone else. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things . If you accept that the Bible is not the word of God but a guidance , then all christian stories have an element of interpretation in them . The fundemental question is about God and not about any particular religion.After all , all the religions cannot be right can they ? Actually they can , all they require is for there to be more than one reality . Is it 7 dimensions that the string theorists are up to now ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: all they require is for there to be more than one reality You've overlooked the fact that each religion claims their god created reality out of nothingness. Each also thinks their god is the one true god. These are still mutally exclusive. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things . If you accept that the Bible is not the word of God but a guidance , then all christian stories have an element of interpretation in them . The fundemental question is about God and not about any particular religion.After all , all the religions cannot be right can they ? Actually they can , all they require is for there to be more than one reality . Is it 7 dimensions that the string theorists are up to now ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things Yes, I know that. Andrew Torrance wrote: After all , all the religions cannot be right can they Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody.
-
It's not as abstract as that. In the Bible, God offers PROOF that He exists, to any individual willing to give Him a go. On that basis, the two reasons I can see for scientifically minded people such as ourselves to NOT believe in God are that either we have not been told, or we are simple irrationally athiestic. Christopher Lord wrote: But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. The simpler explanation is creation by God, and the analogy you give would only work if the genetic algorithms wrote themselves from scratch. That is to say, in the absence of a man made computer, or programming language. But I'm not keen to argue the existence of God on that basis, because the basis on which He offers to prove He exists is far more compelling than analogies of the universe or programming or anything else. The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Surely this is a circular argument ? God wrote the Bible , the Bible tells us God exists therefore God exists ? Go on admit it , ...... You either got or you havn't got Faith... If you got it then belief it does make ..... I can now more proove that God does not exist as you can proof that he/she does . Perhaps we are both right ,perhaps God exists for you and not for me, perhaps if enough of us beleive something to be true then it will be. After all it seems to work on the stock market. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
I like the bit about the size of the universe , but hey , why think small ? If you can create reality why not make it a big bugger ? As far as Adam and Eve are concerned You are confusing the argument of the existance of God with the argument of the validity of specific religious stories . If you succeed in prooving or disprooving any story in ,say, the Bible all you are doing is prooving or disprooving one story . It may be evidence for or against the existance of God but it is not proof .All it does is help sway what you have faith in , faith being something you beleive as being true that does not require proof. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: all they require is for there to be more than one reality You've overlooked the fact that each religion claims their god created reality out of nothingness. Each also thinks their god is the one true god. These are still mutally exclusive. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Why ? If there are multiple realities then why cannot each religion have created its own ? They are only mutually exclusive if there is only one 'true' reality. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things Yes, I know that. Andrew Torrance wrote: After all , all the religions cannot be right can they Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody.
Juan Carlos Cobas wrote: Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody How can you say all religions are wrong , there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions and reach a conclusion about them all . What I think you mean is that you believe there is no God , and I too share that belief. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Why ? If there are multiple realities then why cannot each religion have created its own ? They are only mutually exclusive if there is only one 'true' reality. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
-
I like the bit about the size of the universe , but hey , why think small ? If you can create reality why not make it a big bugger ? As far as Adam and Eve are concerned You are confusing the argument of the existance of God with the argument of the validity of specific religious stories . If you succeed in prooving or disprooving any story in ,say, the Bible all you are doing is prooving or disprooving one story . It may be evidence for or against the existance of God but it is not proof .All it does is help sway what you have faith in , faith being something you beleive as being true that does not require proof. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: If you can create reality why not make it a big bugger ? Agreed, but really, that big? Andrew Torrance wrote: It may be evidence for or against the existance of God but it is not proof . I take your point, but I'm just trying to point out out ludicrous it all is. Rather than trying to disprove anything specifically, I would rather provide cumulative evidence in order to support my argument. TBH, I find it really hard to understand that people can actually "believe" in something like God especially when you consider the horrendous callousness He shows in the Bible. This is another example of cumulative evidence. I'd also challenge most "religious" people as to their sincerity. At least if there is a God, on Judgement Day I will be able to stand before him and say that I would gladly have believed in him given the chance. It's far worse, in my opinion, to just act the Christian just in case He really does exist. The fact is that I and many other people have not been given the capacity to "believe". I'd actually love to believe it were true because then there'd be an after-life, I'd get to see all my loved ones again, etc. Perhaps like many others before me I will have a revelation on my death-bed and suddenly "find" God. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
-
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
The universe is so big because God used a char[] array and forgot the NULL terminator. So most of the universe is just any old junk found in memory :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
I'm not trying to inflame or incite... I am simply curious on what those here have to say regarding the religion issue (which was brought up a few posts down), and hopefully some helpful criticisim on my views, which are below. I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. Computers and code are good analogies for the universe, in that simple laws produce very complex and wonderful systems. AND, OR, NOT, XOR, etc, applied to a stream of bits inside a chip of silicon produces everything a computer can do. On the grander scale of the universe, simple laws describe vastly complex things in much the same way, and yet... Perhaps this belief in God is valid because if code has a creator, so can the universe. But, this argument is invalidated by code which can be self-written by evolutionary processes, which is a growing industry (look up Genetic Algoritims on google), and so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same. Thus, until we have better information, the simpler explaination must be the one from which we work. And still, if there was a 'coder' of the universe, this being would not be Abrahamic, but more along the lines of a Deist's god. This being would not care of our affairs, or even be aware of our existance. This is so plain a fact that I can not even fathom why it must be defended at all! Are not the abrahamic texts obvious constructs by tribal people? Perhaps my background merely forces me to come to this conclusion... but I think it is at least a possibility for consideration. Hopefully this will lead to interesting mind-opening discussion on both sides of this unknowable part of the human existance.
I'm a programmer and I believe in god but I don't think about God as the "chief software architect" of the universe :) I can't explain why I believe in it and I can understand arguments against religion, it's not rational and it can't be explained using rational thinking. I like the quote: "Thank god I'm an atheist" :) The important thing is not to use religion as a way to discriminate between people or let "religious" gurus tell you their truth instead of using your own head. P.S. the earth is a program and is runned by the most intelligent form of life and the dolphin are the second most intelligent... (and Douglas Adams was an atheist too...) -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD
-
If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. Let us agree for the sake of this argument , there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Then how do we know which reality we are in within that supergroup , and how do we know that the supergroup itself is not a member of a megagroup of supergroups of reality ? Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. Regards Torrance Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
I'd also suggest that the vast size and complexity of the Universe itself also lends weight to your argument. I've always wondered, if we really were "created", why did our creator bother creating everything else? Why is our planet fairly mundane when compared with rest of "Creation"? We're on the 3rd planet circling a a smaller than average star in an unfashionably backwater arm of a typical spiral galaxy. One star in a sea of billions. One galaxy in a sea of billions. There is nothing special about our planet, its position or anything. In the context of the rest of the Universe, our planet is probably analogous to ordering a white coffee with no sugar in Starbucks. Why did the creator even bother with the rest of it? It's just total overkill! what was he thinking? Then again, in the Garden of Eden, I've always wondered why God had to ask Adam and Eve to come out of hiding because he didn't know where they were. So a few bushes can hide a human from an omnipotent being? And then he acts all surprised when he finds out they're covering their nakedness! Surely he knows what has happened and what will happen. Why is he surprised then? Surely he knew Eve would taste the apple and the Adam would also. Surely he knew he was setting mankind a test he knew they'd fail... :)
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
-
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. I agree, which is why I can never believe in a supreme being. How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc. Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Also, so much if it is all just completely useless in the context of mankind. Why did He bother even making that particular type of bacteria that lives at incredibly high temperatures near volcanic vents on the bottom of the ocean? What use could they ever be to mankind? Why did He have to create so many types of insect when a few hundred would probably have sufficed. Why is man's physical form such a work still in design? You can't tell me that the best an omnipotent being could come up with is our knee-caps! Further, isn't is obvious that the way a woman's pelvis has been designed, limiting the size of a human baby's head, is a huge compromise - something that could only have happened due to evolution? What about mouth ulcers - why are they sooo painful when they're so trivial? This must be a mistake (something an omnipotent being could never make). Then there's the more well-known questions like how could He ever create a being which can be so hideously cruel to itself and other species? How can He watch all the unspeakable suffering that mankind endures? Isn't all this just because we were thrown out of Eden? Just because God set mankind a task he knew they'd fail. It wasn't the Devil that tempted Eve, it was God - He placed the tree of knowledge there in the first place and warned them not to eat of it (knowing full well that they wouldn't be able to resist, and having given mankind insatiable curiosity in the first place). If God really does exists, he is not omnipotent, he is sadistic, cruel, jealous, bigoted and vindictive. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
If I were God I would invent evolution and go down the pub and let the little people c=get on with it ! Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
Juan Carlos Cobas wrote: Well, I believe all religions are wrong, but this is just my very humble opinion. I respect the beliefs of everybody How can you say all religions are wrong , there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions and reach a conclusion about them all . What I think you mean is that you believe there is no God , and I too share that belief. Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: there is not enough time in one persons life to study all religions If you believe there is no god, then you may consider religions have no sense. The concept of religion lies in the existence of a god.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: If there are multiple realities and these realities co-exist (what else can they do?) then they are part of the same reality (or they are aspects of the same reality if you like). Thus there is only one 'real' reality. Let us agree for the sake of this argument , there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Then how do we know which reality we are in within that supergroup , and how do we know that the supergroup itself is not a member of a megagroup of supergroups of reality ? Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. Regards Torrance Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
Andrew Torrance wrote: Please answer after the pubs open as I am having difficulty in getting my brains to flow back into my ear. My grey matter is at 100% utilization and some parts of my memory have been paged out to accomodate this task as well. Andrew Torrance wrote: there is a supergroup of realities within which mutiple realities can coexist ? Are they not all part of the same reality then, as they exist within the same reality? Each of them must have the same fundamental laws, ie the speed of light. The only way I can see having different realities is different observers. Reality is subjective; mine can be different than yours, but I don't think that either of them are the one 'true' reality. Maybe it's like Schroedinger's cat; I thinks it's dead, you think it's alive, but the reality...? Am I still making sense? "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
