What do you lot think of this?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The real trick, of course, is that the whole "You can't disprove it" argument is worthless, because aside from pure mathematics, you can't prove a negative.
Oh, come on. In fact, you can prove a negative, even in the real world. By its nature, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative. Proving it proves a negative, which disproves itself. I can prove that I can prove a negative: Make positive conjecture that can only be true when the negative is true. Prove the positive. The negative is proved if the positive is proved. negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm There aren't even tigers in this room. But in your house, not only is there no proof the tiger isn't eating your arm, you can't even prove you can't prove it. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html">Whenever we find a positive statement to be true, an infinite number of negatives are also proven simultaneously. Determining that the sun is a ball of Hydrogen automatically rules out the possibility of the sun being made of Cheese Whiz or the souls of flushed gold fish. These things are 'proven false' when the one idea is proven true.</a>[<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] If I might quote that famous non-theist, Carl Sagan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan">"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] You are pulling the kind of argument atheists bitch about theists pulling. I got to get some sleep, I've got an early morning, and it already is early I'm gonna have to school you on the rest of your post tomorrow. :) :zzz: [edit I had my wording wrong: true for false, disproved for proved, vice versa for both. cleaned up unclear wording and syntax written too late at night. If you got email notification of t
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The real trick, of course, is that the whole "You can't disprove it" argument is worthless, because aside from pure mathematics, you can't prove a negative.
Oh, come on. In fact, you can prove a negative, even in the real world. By its nature, you can't prove that you can't prove a negative. Proving it proves a negative, which disproves itself. I can prove that I can prove a negative: Make positive conjecture that can only be true when the negative is true. Prove the positive. The negative is proved if the positive is proved. negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm There aren't even tigers in this room. But in your house, not only is there no proof the tiger isn't eating your arm, you can't even prove you can't prove it. <a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html">Whenever we find a positive statement to be true, an infinite number of negatives are also proven simultaneously. Determining that the sun is a ball of Hydrogen automatically rules out the possibility of the sun being made of Cheese Whiz or the souls of flushed gold fish. These things are 'proven false' when the one idea is proven true.</a>[<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/515075/proving\_a\_negative\_is\_it\_really\_impossible.html" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] If I might quote that famous non-theist, Carl Sagan <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof">"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_proof" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan">"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know."</a>[<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl\_Sagan" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>] You are pulling the kind of argument atheists bitch about theists pulling. I got to get some sleep, I've got an early morning, and it already is early I'm gonna have to school you on the rest of your post tomorrow. :) :zzz: [edit I had my wording wrong: true for false, disproved for proved, vice versa for both. cleaned up unclear wording and syntax written too late at night. If you got email notification of t
RichardM1 wrote:
negative....Prove tigers are not eating my arm. positive....if the skin on my arms is intact, no tigers can be eating my arm. proof........Skin on my arm is intact, therefore no tigers are eating my arm
Well, obviously it's an invisible, microscopic tiger, so the puncture wounds are so small that you can't see them with the naked eye :) OR The skin on your arms only LOOKS like it's intact, because the invisible tiger is using an illusion spell combined with a local anesthetic... (Of course, that one is going to get REALLY ridiculous REALLY fast). That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc." So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc."
Are those the arguments I'm using, or are you arguing with someone else? I'm good if you want to argue with them, but can you do it in that thread? I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
So I have clarity... Can you prove anything, positive or negative, if the definition can change? In the phrase "the sun is not a ball of kumquats", can I substitute anything for kumquats, as long as it isn't hydrogen? What do you know? Looks like a non-rigidly defined parameter in a negative argument. But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is? Are you saying if you can't conceive it, or it isn't well defined in your head, it can't exist? Please explain how you move something from the 'can't exist' category to the 'can exist' one, based on a description you understand. If you are able to understand it at some times, but not others, does it phase in and out of existence? Can we rid the world of hunger, just by making you not understand it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's how the "god" argument works... "No, he's invisible, and in a place you can't see... Yeah, those dinosaur bones aren't proof, because he magically put them there... etc etc."
Are those the arguments I'm using, or are you arguing with someone else? I'm good if you want to argue with them, but can you do it in that thread? I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So I'll clarify... You can't prove the negative if the parameters aren't rigidly defined.
So I have clarity... Can you prove anything, positive or negative, if the definition can change? In the phrase "the sun is not a ball of kumquats", can I substitute anything for kumquats, as long as it isn't hydrogen? What do you know? Looks like a non-rigidly defined parameter in a negative argument. But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is? Are you saying if you can't conceive it, or it isn't well defined in your head, it can't exist? Please explain how you move something from the 'can't exist' category to the 'can exist' one, based on a description you understand. If you are able to understand it at some times, but not others, does it phase in and out of existence? Can we rid the world of hunger, just by making you not understand it?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My claim is that given what we DO know, non-existence is much more likely than existence, so it's logical to assume non-existence unless new proof arises to the contrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is?
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
[Shakes head] Well, Hawking would be proud you are willing to use it in your fiction. M-theory has been able to give a better frame work for unifying QM and GR than the alternatives. As it turns out, most of the alternatives are special cases of it. So, it's most probably true. By your argument, that makes it truth. Given your "probability of no god" argument, you've proven that there are extra dimensions. But then there is room in these extra dimensions for a god that is a creator of a thing like our universe. 'Proof by probability' doesn't return internally consistent answers, so is unreliable.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
I am not saying any particular god exists. I am saying that a god can exist. We would have no evidence, either for, or against. Your picking at individual cases is like using enumeration of integers in a proof: Have fun doing it, but I'm not holding my breath while you type it up. I'm not making any claims of fact. You are claiming, based on statistics you can't site, that there can't be a god. I'm good with that, as long as you are willing to admit that you believe the statistics support your argument, without knowing them, and that you believe there can't be a god, based on those statistics you don't know.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
So there are only three religions in the world? But any particular religion is an aside, I have been careful (I think) to keep this a lower case 'g' god, of which, for you, the Judeo Christian God is one of many possible mythical examples. I see, now, that you did not read that. By the same token, I didn't read what you were saying as God. But as talking past each other goes, this isn't too bad.
You can apply a similar argument to any theistic religion... Do any of them have actual PROOF in the existence of their deity, other than books that may easily be fictitious?
RichardM1 wrote:
The same way that surface is 2+T embedded in 3+T, the universe is a 3D+T object, embedded in 9 or 10 +T. Anything offset in those other dimensions does not intersect us, and we have no capability to sense it, unless it moves to intersect in all the other dimensions.
Multiple dimensions, huh? Well, that could be the case. I actually like that concept, and use it heavily in my novels (Though rarely explained in detail). The question is how likely it is to be true.
RichardM1 wrote:
Something, nominally an intelligence, and on purpose, creates this 3+T object, that is our universe. Or not. We have no evidence either way. No evidence, no conclusion.
We have no direct evidence, but like I said, we can infer probabilities from what we DO know. Here, I thought of another analogy... Take a black box (Black as in sealed - To hell with the color)... You can't see inside, and you're not allowed to touch it. Someone tells you there's a cat in there. Do you believe them? How do you decide whether they're right? The box isn't shaking, and there's no sound that would indicate something moving around in there. Well, the cat might be sleeping... So you wait a while, and there's still no sound many hours later. It could be lying very still. Let's give it some more time... Hmm, still no sound. Wouldn't it be hungry by now? Maybe it has food in there. We don't hear it eating, but maybe it just eats really quietly. See where I'm going with this? You can keep making up excuses, but sooner or later you have to acknowledge that the box is probably empty.
RichardM1 wrote:
Theism and atheism are conclusions, agnosticism isn't.
True. Agnosticism is the lack of a conclusion.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My claim is that given what we DO know, non-existence is much more likely than existence, so it's logical to assume non-existence unless new proof arises to the contrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is?
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
You are sure, in the sense that you believe it. I'm not 100% sure God exists, but I believe it, and belief without evidence is faith. OK, how do you know these probabilities (not the random numbers) that you are using to infer this? What goes into the the evidence for and evidence against columns that make you assign non-zero probabilities to either? The 99 and 1 were just pulled out, I understand, but what do you base the numbers you do use? There is not evidence available, in either direction. In other words, there is an equal amount of evidence for and against - zero. There is a lot of belief in evidence, for and against, that does not hold up to scrutiny. What facts are there that support no god? [moved from where I put it by mistake]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
You are sure, in the sense that you believe it. I'm not 100% sure God exists, but I believe it, and belief without evidence is faith. OK, how do you know these probabilities (not the random numbers) that you are using to infer this? What goes into the the evidence for and evidence against columns that make you assign non-zero probabilities to either? The 99 and 1 were just pulled out, I understand, but what do you base the numbers you do use? There is not evidence available, in either direction. In other words, there is an equal amount of evidence for and against - zero. There is a lot of belief in evidence, for and against, that does not hold up to scrutiny. What facts are there that support no god? [moved from where I put it by mistake]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The evidence FOR existence comes from the various religious texts, and the evidence against comes in the form of a trend... R: "He lives in the sky and he created everything and controls everything." S: "Well, we can see into the sky now, and he's not there." R: "Oh, he's invisible." S: "Why can't we detect him with our various technological means?" R: "Because he doesn't want you to." S: "Alright, moving on... He didn't create the Earth. We have geological records that show how it was made." R: "Nope, he made the Earth and the Sun and the heavens and--" S: "No, the Sun was formed by a coalescing cloud of gas thrown off from the big bang, and the Earth was just a little bit of that on the side." R: "But... but he caused that to happen!" The trend is pretty clear... As science advances, "god" retreats from prominence into obscurity... As I see it, "god" is peoples' way of filling in the part we don't know yet, which really kills its credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
The evidence FOR existence comes from the various religious texts, and the evidence against comes in the form of a trend... R: "He lives in the sky and he created everything and controls everything." S: "Well, we can see into the sky now, and he's not there." R: "Oh, he's invisible." S: "Why can't we detect him with our various technological means?" R: "Because he doesn't want you to." S: "Alright, moving on... He didn't create the Earth. We have geological records that show how it was made." R: "Nope, he made the Earth and the Sun and the heavens and--" S: "No, the Sun was formed by a coalescing cloud of gas thrown off from the big bang, and the Earth was just a little bit of that on the side." R: "But... but he caused that to happen!" The trend is pretty clear... As science advances, "god" retreats from prominence into obscurity... As I see it, "god" is peoples' way of filling in the part we don't know yet, which really kills its credibility.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture. Some theist people are locked into a 'flat earth' view of the universe, as are some atheists. A wrong theist's argument doesn't effect mine anymore than a bigoted atheist's argument effects yours, Right? Or if any atheist is screwed up, you are too? As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him. You are still only referencing a particular god, not proving the whole issue of whether are not there could be a god. The trend you attempt to wring out of your examples is of wrong people, or even wrong descriptions. Until you prove nothing created the laws that govern the universe, and the created it, you have not excluded all gods. You have to disprove all gods. A positive proof only needs to show one god.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture. Some theist people are locked into a 'flat earth' view of the universe, as are some atheists. A wrong theist's argument doesn't effect mine anymore than a bigoted atheist's argument effects yours, Right? Or if any atheist is screwed up, you are too? As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him. You are still only referencing a particular god, not proving the whole issue of whether are not there could be a god. The trend you attempt to wring out of your examples is of wrong people, or even wrong descriptions. Until you prove nothing created the laws that govern the universe, and the created it, you have not excluded all gods. You have to disprove all gods. A positive proof only needs to show one god.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture.
Those aren't trends. A trend is a gradual change over time.
RichardM1 wrote:
As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him.
But again, look at the trend... It started with "God created man, animals, plants, etc"... Then Darwin came along, and it became "God created the Earth, and started evolution." But then we learned how the Earth was created, so it became "God created the universe, which let Earth be created, which let evolution start, which created man." See the trend?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
There are trends that evolve over history that are misinterpreted by both sides for their own reasons. Doctors used to think letting blood (and 57 worse things) was good and good for you. Yet medical understanding has increased. We did not used to think electricity had anything to do with magnetism. Understanding advances. People used to think heaven was above and hell below, but that is not required by scripture.
Those aren't trends. A trend is a gradual change over time.
RichardM1 wrote:
As we know more, we find that God put everything together by defining what we call physical laws, and letting them play out, with some intervention from time to time. He isn't falling into obscurity, we are learning more about how He created the universe, which gives us more insight into Him.
But again, look at the trend... It started with "God created man, animals, plants, etc"... Then Darwin came along, and it became "God created the Earth, and started evolution." But then we learned how the Earth was created, so it became "God created the universe, which let Earth be created, which let evolution start, which created man." See the trend?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
See the trend?
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation. Of course, there are Luddites everywhere, gosh, even in religions. It takes time for individuals and institution to change. It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom. Things got ugly, but eventually, they were freed. They had to deal with racism, discrimination, violence. Things slowly got better. The UK was following a path from ignorance to understanding. When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it? :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
See the trend?
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation. Of course, there are Luddites everywhere, gosh, even in religions. It takes time for individuals and institution to change. It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom. Things got ugly, but eventually, they were freed. They had to deal with racism, discrimination, violence. Things slowly got better. The UK was following a path from ignorance to understanding. When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it? :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation.
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
RichardM1 wrote:
It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom.
What does this have to do with anything?
RichardM1 wrote:
When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it?
Excuse me, did I ever say they were wrong for learning? Learning is always good.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
You mean the gradual change over time I was talking about? In this case it is called learning, loss of ignorance, greater understanding of God's creation.
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
RichardM1 wrote:
It started out that blacks were considered subhuman, made slaves, subjected to cruelty. Then some (religious)people started thinking that wasn't right, and started agitating for their freedom.
What does this have to do with anything?
RichardM1 wrote:
When the religious deny science, you say they are idiots. When they learn from science, you say they are ... what? Wrong for doing it?
Excuse me, did I ever say they were wrong for learning? Learning is always good.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
I hear/read this, and I don't see it. There was the Newtonian clockwork universe that "leaves God no room to work", but it was wrong. Now there is QM, which gives God as much room to work as anyone could think is needed. Unless you think randomness for which we find no underlying cause would limit God? Penrose thinks consciousness and free will are derived directly from QM, IIRC. Creation was God collapsing a wave function in a low probability outcome. Evolution was driven as God wanted it. That doesn't mean it isn't natural. A cosmic ray here, some mutation there. Could be the "God gene" is pretty much that. At some point, mutation allowed spiritual life. Could be the brain got complex enough for it, or something else. Someone got it first, Adam. Don't know if it happened twice, or if he passed the genes on to Eve, woman from man. We went from thinking Genesis was literal (while other pieces aren't) to understanding God spent little room explaining creation, because the details didn't matter much to the story. Yet I can show good correlation between Genesis and expansionist BB theories (with the exception of when plants are created). Explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", because I don't see it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yes, learning... Learning more about the universe around us, and leaving less and less room for a "god" to fill in the blanks.
I hear/read this, and I don't see it. There was the Newtonian clockwork universe that "leaves God no room to work", but it was wrong. Now there is QM, which gives God as much room to work as anyone could think is needed. Unless you think randomness for which we find no underlying cause would limit God? Penrose thinks consciousness and free will are derived directly from QM, IIRC. Creation was God collapsing a wave function in a low probability outcome. Evolution was driven as God wanted it. That doesn't mean it isn't natural. A cosmic ray here, some mutation there. Could be the "God gene" is pretty much that. At some point, mutation allowed spiritual life. Could be the brain got complex enough for it, or something else. Someone got it first, Adam. Don't know if it happened twice, or if he passed the genes on to Eve, woman from man. We went from thinking Genesis was literal (while other pieces aren't) to understanding God spent little room explaining creation, because the details didn't matter much to the story. Yet I can show good correlation between Genesis and expansionist BB theories (with the exception of when plants are created). Explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", because I don't see it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us. The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary. Sure, we'll never know how the universe came to be, since we have no way of perceiving outside it, but that doesn't mean we have any reason to assign its creation (Assuming it was ever created) to some supernatural being.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not arguing any of those things with you, I am arguing logic. You are making an unsupportable claim. A claim with no evidence. You make the claim, you must prove it. You haven't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
My claim is that given what we DO know, non-existence is much more likely than existence, so it's logical to assume non-existence unless new proof arises to the contrary.
RichardM1 wrote:
But you did re-frame it nicely: Why are you sure there is no 'god', when you don't know what 'god' is?
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Since you didn't answer in the other arc, let me ask again. You are assigning probabilities to the two sides based on what other than gut? Your understanding of one or two instances of the infinite number of possible god types? You are projecting that onto all of the others?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us. The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary. Sure, we'll never know how the universe came to be, since we have no way of perceiving outside it, but that doesn't mean we have any reason to assign its creation (Assuming it was ever created) to some supernatural being.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary.
The "god" answer has never been required. If it was required, it would be proof, and that isn't how faith works.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us.
Yes, and I've stated multiple times that absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence, and I've addressed the trending directly, but I will do it again, from a different perspective. I think you are seeing the result of institutional lag. It always looks like religions are "behind", because integration of understanding takes time, and there are always examples of those who are never able to integrate it. So you add each step up and say "less and less", going back to "my dad wasn't a monkey" and literal 7 days and such. Plus, people see what they want to see: you throw your lot in with a side, and you look for rationals to prove it. I'm not denigrating you. Everyone, including me, does it. In fact, while some, like you, see science as a limiter on God, and some who will never believe science if it is different from their beliefs, there are some who understand it as a view into what He did and is doing. They work to see how things really are, not how we want them to be. They work and learn to gain understanding. They integrate what they know, understand the interplay. Different fields of science do the same thing. Ideas seem contradictory, at first. People think about them, hash them out, understand them better. If they are lucky, they may reconcile them, but not everything does reconcile, even between two theories that are very successful in the areas they address. There. Your turn, explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", cuz I don't see it. [mod speeeelng]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trend is for the "god" answer to become less and less necessary.
The "god" answer has never been required. If it was required, it would be proof, and that isn't how faith works.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're still dodging the issue of the trend. I've stated multiple times how the historical trend has been for the alleged influence of "god" to, through reinterpretation, become more and more indirect as we find the REAL answers to the universe around us.
Yes, and I've stated multiple times that absence of evidence isn't an evidence of absence, and I've addressed the trending directly, but I will do it again, from a different perspective. I think you are seeing the result of institutional lag. It always looks like religions are "behind", because integration of understanding takes time, and there are always examples of those who are never able to integrate it. So you add each step up and say "less and less", going back to "my dad wasn't a monkey" and literal 7 days and such. Plus, people see what they want to see: you throw your lot in with a side, and you look for rationals to prove it. I'm not denigrating you. Everyone, including me, does it. In fact, while some, like you, see science as a limiter on God, and some who will never believe science if it is different from their beliefs, there are some who understand it as a view into what He did and is doing. They work to see how things really are, not how we want them to be. They work and learn to gain understanding. They integrate what they know, understand the interplay. Different fields of science do the same thing. Ideas seem contradictory, at first. People think about them, hash them out, understand them better. If they are lucky, they may reconcile them, but not everything does reconcile, even between two theories that are very successful in the areas they address. There. Your turn, explain for me why you think He is a "God of the cracks", cuz I don't see it. [mod speeeelng]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You know, you've tiptoed around it quite adeptly, but you haven't actually disputed the trend issue from a logical perspective. As I've said repeatedly in various ways, over the span of history, "god" has always been put in place of "I don't know" as the edge of scientific understanding, and that "I don't know" region is becoming smaller and smaller. That's a pretty clear trend.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Now you're misrepresenting my position. Am I "sure" there's no "god"? No, I can't possibly be "sure." I never claimed to be 100% sure of it. I simply infer that it's very unlikely to exist from the evidence available (or lack thereof). If something has a 99% chance of being false and a 1% chance of being true (Just pulling random numbers), wouldn't you operate under the assumption that it's most likely false?
Since you didn't answer in the other arc, let me ask again. You are assigning probabilities to the two sides based on what other than gut? Your understanding of one or two instances of the infinite number of possible god types? You are projecting that onto all of the others?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Well, since I'm responding to your posts as they come in, late at night or first thing in the morning my time, you already have me at a disadvantage, so let's try to keep this to one arc at a time... Don't feel like typing the same thing twice or having to keep track of which arguments were made in which subthread.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You know, you've tiptoed around it quite adeptly, but you haven't actually disputed the trend issue from a logical perspective. As I've said repeatedly in various ways, over the span of history, "god" has always been put in place of "I don't know" as the edge of scientific understanding, and that "I don't know" region is becoming smaller and smaller. That's a pretty clear trend.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
you haven't actually disputed the trend issue from a logical perspective.
Sure I have. Maybe you don't agree with me, but that is a different issue. The Christian God is not a god of the cracks. He is not stuck in the "I don't know". For me and those I know, science is the study of God. Integration between different views takes time, kind of like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity haven't been reconciled, but people are working on it. You perceive that integration time with a narrowing of your "I don't know" window, but that is not truth. The trend does not exist. I gave you reasons you might perceive it, without it being true. I see your statements about God of the cracks. I hear you saying unknown gets smaller, so the space for God gets smaller. Only if that is how you see God. You think science is not explanation of how God's universe works, so you think it is a chisel that cuts pieces out of the space He could live it. You only see it as true because you have faith in it being true. If you believe God is ignorance of science. But then it gets to be circular logic: God is ignorance of science. Science chips away at God. Since there is less ignorance, you think God is now smaller, reinforcing, for you, that God is ignorance.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Well, since I'm responding to your posts as they come in, late at night or first thing in the morning my time, you already have me at a disadvantage, so let's try to keep this to one arc at a time... Don't feel like typing the same thing twice or having to keep track of which arguments were made in which subthread.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Don't feel like typing the same thing twice or having to keep track of which arguments were made in which subthread.
Me either, plus I have a couple other arcs with other people, making it more confusing as to where I have said what, so we close this one and I respond to you next one on the other thread?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, since I'm responding to your posts as they come in, late at night or first thing in the morning my time, you already have me at a disadvantage
That is true for both of us, so we each have each other at a disadvantage :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.