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.
-
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.
-
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.
You're still dancing around it... It's not circular logic. In the old days, "god" was credited for everything that wasn't understood. Go back far enough, and a storm was just Zeus/Jupiter throwing down thunderbolts. As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left. Science is not "chipping away at god". That would require a "god" to be present to be chipped. Science is revealing, bit by bit, that we don't need one to exist. You're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective. You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god." I look into a telescope, and I don't see "god." I see stars. At least, I would, if I wasn't living in the middle of Manhattan now (Threw away my telescope when I moved here... sigh). I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're still dancing around it... It's not circular logic. In the old days, "god" was credited for everything that wasn't understood. Go back far enough, and a storm was just Zeus/Jupiter throwing down thunderbolts. As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left. Science is not "chipping away at god". That would require a "god" to be present to be chipped. Science is revealing, bit by bit, that we don't need one to exist. You're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective. You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god." I look into a telescope, and I don't see "god." I see stars. At least, I would, if I wasn't living in the middle of Manhattan now (Threw away my telescope when I moved here... sigh). I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?
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're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective.
No, I'm not. I have made asides about my belief, but I have never used it as part of the logical argument.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god.
No. I keep referring to "God's universe" and I did not say "seeing God", I said "if that is how you see God", where "see" was reasonably seen as "understand" :rolleyes:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Manhattan
Funny, I thought you were in UK.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Threw away my telescope
That sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?
:laugh: Nope. Well, I didn't. But YMMV. [shrug]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left.
You do keep saying that, but I don't do that. You don't do it either, as you don't credit God with anything. Between the two of us, I don't see this trend, at all. Out in the wild, I don't see Christians saying it, only atheists. I don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him. I also credit Him with the underpinnings that we don't understand, why there are the number of quarks, why there is mass. As you drive physics down to its basics, you get to a bunch of "it works like this" statements, on which the rest is built, but why does it work like that? Why is Planck's constant what it is? I credit all of it, the laws, the underpinnings, the results, this argument. He gets credit for it all. And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. When I write "god", I am referring to the concept, as I have during the logical argument about whether "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Since you keep trying to drive from the concept of a god to using God as an example, it is proper, both grammatically and logically, to differentiate them. You wrote Zeus/Ju
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're operating from the basic assumption that one does exist, and trying to tackle a logical issue from that perspective.
No, I'm not. I have made asides about my belief, but I have never used it as part of the logical argument.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You keep referring to this as "god's universe" and saying that we're just "seeing god.
No. I keep referring to "God's universe" and I did not say "seeing God", I said "if that is how you see God", where "see" was reasonably seen as "understand" :rolleyes:
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Manhattan
Funny, I thought you were in UK.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Threw away my telescope
That sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm supposed to "see god" just because some preacher or book tells me that it's there, yet can't offer a single shred of proof?
:laugh: Nope. Well, I didn't. But YMMV. [shrug]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
As more and more becomes understood, "god" is instead credited for whatever's left.
You do keep saying that, but I don't do that. You don't do it either, as you don't credit God with anything. Between the two of us, I don't see this trend, at all. Out in the wild, I don't see Christians saying it, only atheists. I don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him. I also credit Him with the underpinnings that we don't understand, why there are the number of quarks, why there is mass. As you drive physics down to its basics, you get to a bunch of "it works like this" statements, on which the rest is built, but why does it work like that? Why is Planck's constant what it is? I credit all of it, the laws, the underpinnings, the results, this argument. He gets credit for it all. And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. When I write "god", I am referring to the concept, as I have during the logical argument about whether "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Since you keep trying to drive from the concept of a god to using God as an example, it is proper, both grammatically and logically, to differentiate them. You wrote Zeus/Ju
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him.
Fact: In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans attributed nearly all aspects of nature to their pantheon of gods. Fact: Before Darwin came along, many people thought that "god" created the world 6,000 years ago. Some people STILL think so, though they recognize the natural processes behind things like weather and changing seasons. Evolution is pretty much a given now, so you're crediting "god" with the creation of the basic laws of the universe. Now, I'm no historian... If I was, or if I did a bit of research, I could fill in a few more points on that trend line, but I think you get the point.
RichardM1 wrote:
And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.
Personal preference, and intentional. I only capitalize Zeus and Jupiter, because everyone pretty much agrees that they're fictional characters... And I happen to like Greek and Roman mythology, from an entertainment perspective. I actually refer to "god" as "the g-word" when speaking aloud.
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 don't see the validity taking of a "trend" in atheist thinking and applying to how Christians "credit" things to God. I credit the laws of physics to Him.
Fact: In ancient times, the Greeks and Romans attributed nearly all aspects of nature to their pantheon of gods. Fact: Before Darwin came along, many people thought that "god" created the world 6,000 years ago. Some people STILL think so, though they recognize the natural processes behind things like weather and changing seasons. Evolution is pretty much a given now, so you're crediting "god" with the creation of the basic laws of the universe. Now, I'm no historian... If I was, or if I did a bit of research, I could fill in a few more points on that trend line, but I think you get the point.
RichardM1 wrote:
And, ian, God, as you are using it, referring to the Christian God, is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.
Personal preference, and intentional. I only capitalize Zeus and Jupiter, because everyone pretty much agrees that they're fictional characters... And I happen to like Greek and Roman mythology, from an entertainment perspective. I actually refer to "god" as "the g-word" when speaking aloud.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)- problem with your "Fact" about Darwin changing people from thinking the world was 6k yrs old is that it isn't a fact. Darwin was not a driver in that arena, he was on the Evolution bus. 2) problem with your trend is you only give two data points - Greek/Roman and Darwin - and they are not on the same line. That makes it hard to do curve fitting. You don't account for how different religions evolve, how many people are involved in them, etc. Parts of Islam do not hold that Allah follows rationality - if Allah says 2+2=5, that is the way it is, even if I put two stones and two stones in a bucket and it is still four. Include them in your trend line, as well. It doesn't go in the direction you want. Evolution is a given, as are the rest of biology, quarks, plate tectonics, whatever. They are better or worse description of what God uses to work the universe. God wrote, and modified, the fitness function. He drove the particles and chemistry that caused mutation. Evolution went where He wanted it. He controls the collapse of each and every wave function. So, I don't see any restrictions on God, based on what we know today, the things we know reinforce my belief in a rational God. So I am another point in curve, and, while you don't effect the trend line, I do. To add to your problem, most people on Earth don't know enough to fit your trend line. You assume understanding that is limited in the intellectualized world. Even there, most people just believe in Relativity, but don't have a clue of what it really describes. Ask them about how a transistor works, most can't answer. Talk to them about the underlying particle physics, and they look at you blankly. Worse, the knowledge is almost non extant in most of the world. For them, a falling star is just that. Weather happens, and they do what they can to make sure the seasons go in the correct order. They have no limits imposed on their view of a god, based on the understanding you bring up. When you base you trend on the knowledge of people, you forget the vast tracts of ignorance that spread across the globe. You give God no space. The unknown is a bounds for where you think others can't find and rationalize God, so you can say "God didn't work in evolution. We see the bones, we know what happened, God didn't do it." Just because you understand what it looked like, why does that restrict God? As I said before, it isn't a correct method to allow a groups opponents to define "truth" for a group. Atheists don't really know the "trends" that are
-
- problem with your "Fact" about Darwin changing people from thinking the world was 6k yrs old is that it isn't a fact. Darwin was not a driver in that arena, he was on the Evolution bus. 2) problem with your trend is you only give two data points - Greek/Roman and Darwin - and they are not on the same line. That makes it hard to do curve fitting. You don't account for how different religions evolve, how many people are involved in them, etc. Parts of Islam do not hold that Allah follows rationality - if Allah says 2+2=5, that is the way it is, even if I put two stones and two stones in a bucket and it is still four. Include them in your trend line, as well. It doesn't go in the direction you want. Evolution is a given, as are the rest of biology, quarks, plate tectonics, whatever. They are better or worse description of what God uses to work the universe. God wrote, and modified, the fitness function. He drove the particles and chemistry that caused mutation. Evolution went where He wanted it. He controls the collapse of each and every wave function. So, I don't see any restrictions on God, based on what we know today, the things we know reinforce my belief in a rational God. So I am another point in curve, and, while you don't effect the trend line, I do. To add to your problem, most people on Earth don't know enough to fit your trend line. You assume understanding that is limited in the intellectualized world. Even there, most people just believe in Relativity, but don't have a clue of what it really describes. Ask them about how a transistor works, most can't answer. Talk to them about the underlying particle physics, and they look at you blankly. Worse, the knowledge is almost non extant in most of the world. For them, a falling star is just that. Weather happens, and they do what they can to make sure the seasons go in the correct order. They have no limits imposed on their view of a god, based on the understanding you bring up. When you base you trend on the knowledge of people, you forget the vast tracts of ignorance that spread across the globe. You give God no space. The unknown is a bounds for where you think others can't find and rationalize God, so you can say "God didn't work in evolution. We see the bones, we know what happened, God didn't do it." Just because you understand what it looked like, why does that restrict God? As I said before, it isn't a correct method to allow a groups opponents to define "truth" for a group. Atheists don't really know the "trends" that are
RichardM1 wrote:
- problem with your "Fact" about Darwin changing people from thinking the world was 6k yrs old is that it isn't a fact. Darwin was not a driver in that arena, he was on the Evolution bus.
Which has no effect on my point.
RichardM1 wrote:
- problem with your trend is you only give two data points - Greek/Roman and Darwin - and they are not on the same line. That makes it hard to do curve fitting.
As I said... I'm no historian, and frankly I don't care enough about this issue to research more of them. People used to think that the gods did everything directly... Over the centuries, their alleged role became more and more indirect as people figure out what was really going on. That looks like a trend to me.
RichardM1 wrote:
To add to your problem, most people on Earth don't know enough to fit your trend line. You assume understanding that is limited in the intellectualized world. Even there, most people just believe in Relativity, but don't have a clue of what it really describes. Ask them about how a transistor works, most can't answer. Talk to them about the underlying particle physics, and they look at you blankly.
Doesn't matter. They aren't claiming that "god" makes transistors work. They know that it's science, and it can be PROVEN.
RichardM1 wrote:
You give God no space. The unknown is a bounds for where you think others can't find and rationalize God, so you can say "God didn't work in evolution. We see the bones, we know what happened, God didn't do it." Just because you understand what it looked like, why does that restrict God?
I don't give the pink elephants any space either. We look at fossils in the ground, and we can scientifically deduce how they ended up there. Some invisible man in the sky didn't just *poof* them in there.
RichardM1 wrote:
As I said before, it isn't a correct method to allow a groups opponents to define "truth" for a group. Atheists don't really know the "trends" that are going on any particular religion. It is in the interest of some people, such as yourself, to find trends that downplay religions. I don't know why you have a bone to pick with Christianity, but your earlier comment that you are not sure there isn't God, it kind of falls by the way side when you talk abo