| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 08:29:20 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0307161259.1f405fb6@posting.google.com>...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G8dRa.64832$wk6.15968@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"neepy" <dsutherland7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4bd1f7c.0307160604.29f68992@posting.google.com...
Goldhammer <goldhammer@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnbh9oi8.ru2.goldhammer@cr171940-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com>...
Septic identities:
"ABC" <abc@hotmail.com>
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com>
"Ben" <someone @microsoft.com>
"Bill Gates" <billg@microsaused.com>
bfskinner@my-deja.com
<and so on, ad nauseum>
This raises the issue of what WE should call this individual, given
that he has such problems knowing what to call himself. "Capon" seems
to be the current favorite, but (in keeping with the bird theme) I
have recently taken to calling him "Birdbrain" and (on occasion)
"Peckerhead" (bit of a stretch there, but birds do peck). Should we
try to reach some consensus on this, or just leave it as a
free-for-all? Maybe we could use some sort of rota system?
Whatever, just as long as you keep resorting to all the argument _ad
hominem_ you can muster, trying to create a diversion away from the issue
that is genuinely under discussion
Septic, ummm, _you_ are the issue genuinely under discussion. Stop
trying to create a diversion.
But that's what he does. Notice his brief foray into sci.logic, where
he attempted to teach logic to everyone else on the list - and in each
case where anyone challenged any of his assertions (Excluded Middle
and Modus Tollens are both 'logical fallacies,' all conditional
statements are arguments, _ad ignorantiam_ is a valid argument form as
long as one's assertion contains a 'not', etc.), he immediately began
railing about the 'sky pixie.'
Septic the capon remains the completely clueless, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool liar of alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Sep 2003 02:53:29 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:bj2r3k$o42$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:> : "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
:> : news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> :> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few weeks
:> : now,
:> :> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
: have
:> :> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems to
: be
:> : a
:> :> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
: people
:> :> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me that
:> :> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the Soviet
:> : Union,
:> :> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So, I
:> : refuse
:> :> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept that
:> : any
:> :> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to accept
:> : that
:> :> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> :> >
:> :>
:> :> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its own
:> :> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive that
:> :> religion is.
:>
:> : Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say
: that
:> : "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the
: past", is
:> : not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that
: religion
:> : is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
:>
:> : I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some other
: time.
:> : Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons used
: by
:> : imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in a
:> : philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand of
:> : Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet
: Union,
:> : where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered a
:> : severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need me
: to
:> : substantiate that which is widely documented.
:>
:> That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
:> atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
:> most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
:> kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
:> a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had it's
:> own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
:> glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and persecuted
:> the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
:> they were in competition for believers.
:>
: Not quite. I think that "the truth", whatever it may be, is the one thing
: that we all have to accept (by definition).
That's not the definition of truth. Since everything else you said
hinged on that, I'll stop there.
: Some people are going to
: accept certain things as truth, and others are going to accept other things.
: People then build their power structure around their respective truths, so
: it becomes a matter of survival, and anybody that tries to question the so
: called "truth" threatens the power structure. The problem is that if
: somebody has no truth to believe in, he will soon find one for himself (or
: pick and choose one, whatever the case may be) One possible so called
: "truth" is that there isn't one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Sep 2003 04:34:54 PM |
|
|
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bj5grp$atb$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:bj2r3k$o42$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:> : "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
:> : news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> :> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few
weeks
:> : now,
:> :> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
: have
:> :> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems
to
: be
:> : a
:> :> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
: people
:> :> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me
that
:> :> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the
Soviet
:> : Union,
:> :> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So,
I
:> : refuse
:> :> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept
that
:> : any
:> :> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to
accept
:> : that
:> :> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> :> >
:> :>
:> :> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its
own
:> :> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive
that
:> :> religion is.
:>
:> : Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say
: that
:> : "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the
: past", is
:> : not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that
: religion
:> : is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
:>
:> : I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some
other
: time.
:> : Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons
used
: by
:> : imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in
a
:> : philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand
of
:> : Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet
: Union,
:> : where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered
a
:> : severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need
me
: to
:> : substantiate that which is widely documented.
:>
:> That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
:> atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
:> most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
:> kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
:> a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had it's
:> own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
:> glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and persecuted
:> the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
:> they were in competition for believers.
:>
: Not quite. I think that "the truth", whatever it may be, is the one
thing
: that we all have to accept (by definition).
That's not the definition of truth. Since everything else you said
hinged on that, I'll stop there.
You can stop all right, but I haven't defined truth.
: Some people are going to
: accept certain things as truth, and others are going to accept other
things.
: People then build their power structure around their respective truths,
so
: it becomes a matter of survival, and anybody that tries to question the
so
: called "truth" threatens the power structure. The problem is that if
: somebody has no truth to believe in, he will soon find one for himself
(or
: pick and choose one, whatever the case may be) One possible so called
: "truth" is that there isn't one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
03 Sep 2003 11:59:23 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:bj5grp$atb$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:> : "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
:> : news:bj2r3k$o42$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> :> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> : "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
:> :> : news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> :> :> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a few
: weeks
:> :> : now,
:> :> :> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in common I
:> : have
:> :> :> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough, there seems
: to
:> : be
:> :> : a
:> :> :> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of other
:> : people
:> :> :> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They remind me
: that
:> :> :> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in the
: Soviet
:> :> : Union,
:> :> :> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe sentence. So,
: I
:> :> : refuse
:> :> :> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to accept
: that
:> :> : any
:> :> :> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is to
: accept
:> :> : that
:> :> :> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> :> :> >
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has had its
: own
:> :> :> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of motive
: that
:> :> :> religion is.
:> :>
:> :> : Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question. To say
:> : that
:> :> : "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in the
:> : past", is
:> :> : not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive that
:> : religion
:> :> : is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
:> :>
:> :> : I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at some
: other
:> : time.
:> :> : Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the canons
: used
:> : by
:> :> : imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered 'religion' in
: a
:> :> : philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the brand
: of
:> :> : Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the Soviet
:> : Union,
:> :> : where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was considered
: a
:> :> : severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think you need
: me
:> : to
:> :> : substantiate that which is widely documented.
:> :>
:> :> That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
:> :> atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
:> :> most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
:> :> kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
:> :> a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had it's
:> :> own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
:> :> glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and persecuted
:> :> the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
:> :> they were in competition for believers.
:> :>
:>
:> : Not quite. I think that "the truth", whatever it may be, is the one
: thing
:> : that we all have to accept (by definition).
:>
:> That's not the definition of truth. Since everything else you said
:> hinged on that, I'll stop there.
: You can stop all right, but I haven't defined truth.
Then what the hell did you mean with the phrase "by definition"??
.
|
|
|
| User: "revolutionarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
28 Oct 2003 01:42:09 PM |
|
|
Any form of logic is based on rules that are subject to opinion and
assumption. How you think is simply a matter of what rules you choose to
think by.
As a realist, I reason that anything real must be tangible and if it
isn't tangible then it's not real. That's too strict for the agnostic
who may consider the existence of an intangible as real as a tangible. A
person of faith takes the position that tangibility is not even a factor
in excepting the existence of a person, place or thing that is
"supposed" to exist (as dictated by social norm).
From this it appears to me that the main differences in thinking is due
to the extent to which one relies on their five senses - sight, hearing,
smell, taste and touch. The realist uses his mind but is mostly
committed to his senses while the faithist uses his senses but is mostly
committed to his mind and the agnostic wonders confused and uncommitted
about the center.
"Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bj6grb$s1a$3@news.doit.wisc.edu...
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:bj5grp$atb$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:>
:> : "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
:> : news:bj2r3k$o42$4@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> :> In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> : "Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
:> :> : news:ma18lv04apo3cloivodbaunug8kkmgkn28@4ax.com...
:> :> :> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:47:56 GMT, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net>
wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :>
:> :> :> >You are quite correct. I have been reading this forum for a
few
: weeks
:> :> : now,
:> :> :> >and have been pleasantly surprised to find out how much in
common I
:> : have
:> :> :> >with some of the folks that post in it. Oddly enough,
there seems
: to
:> : be
:> :> : a
:> :> :> >"canonical minority" too, those that nitpick the writings of
other
:> : people
:> :> :> >that cannot be categorized as "true atheists" . They
remind me
: that
:> :> :> >atheism has had its own inquisitions in the past, like in
the
: Soviet
:> :> : Union,
:> :> :> >where any kind of religious belief carried a severe
sentence. So,
: I
:> :> : refuse
:> :> :> >to accept that I am an atheist just as much as I refuse to
accept
: that
:> :> : any
:> :> :> >human being has all the answers, accepting such arrogance is
to
: accept
:> :> : that
:> :> :> >they can tell me how to think and what to do.
:> :> :> >
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Please demonstrate that the non-event that is atheism "has
had its
: own
:> :> :> inquisitions in the past", ie that atheism was the kind of
motive
: that
:> :> :> religion is.
:> :>
:> :> : Excuse me, but I am going to have to rearrange your question.
To say
:> : that
:> :> : "the non-event that is atheism has had its own inquisitions in
the
:> : past", is
:> :> : not the same as to say that "atheism was the kind of motive
that
:> : religion
:> :> : is", I did not make that extrapolation, you did.
:> :>
:> :> : I question the term "non-event", but we may address that at
some
: other
:> : time.
:> :> : Right now, I can tell you that atheism has been one of the
canons
: used
:> : by
:> :> : imposed ideological doctrines that could be considered
'religion' in
: a
:> :> : philosophical sense, namely Marxism, and more specifically the
brand
: of
:> :> : Marxism imposed by the Bolchevique political machinery on the
Soviet
:> : Union,
:> :> : where professing a belief involving any kind of deity was
considered
: a
:> :> : severe offense against their God-like state. I do not think
you need
: me
:> : to
:> :> : substantiate that which is widely documented.
:> :>
:> :> That term "God-like state" is important here. While they were
:> :> atheists, they weren't the type that is nonreligious, like
:> :> most here are. They were the type that wanted to BE a religion,
:> :> kind of like scientologists, which don't have a god, but do have
:> :> a lot of other silly superstitions. The Soviet religion had
it's
:> :> own silly superstitions and prophecies of the coming days of the
:> :> glorious revolution. It was run just like a religion, and
persecuted
:> :> the other religions NOT because they were atheists, but because
:> :> they were in competition for believers.
:> :>
:>
:> : Not quite. I think that "the truth", whatever it may be, is the
one
: thing
:> : that we all have to accept (by definition).
:>
:> That's not the definition of truth. Since everything else you said
:> hinged on that, I'll stop there.
: You can stop all right, but I haven't defined truth.
Then what the hell did you mean with the phrase "by definition"??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
28 Oct 2003 06:02:27 PM |
|
|
In article <lEznb.6275$RQ1.4993@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"revolutionarian" <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote:
As a realist, I reason that anything real must be tangible and if it
isn't tangible then it's not real.
Emotions are not "tangible". Mathematics is not "tangible". And so
on.
So there are a lot of things that are not "real by your standards,
that are real by most peoples' standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spu Vomit" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
30 Oct 2003 01:53:33 PM |
|
|
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<vmhjr2-70DCC0.17022728102003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <lEznb.6275$RQ1.4993@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"revolutionarian" <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote:
As a realist, I reason that anything real must be tangible and if it
isn't tangible then it's not real.
Emotions are not "tangible". Mathematics is not "tangible". And so
on.
So there are a lot of things that are not "real by your standards,
that are real by most peoples' standards.
ANYTHING called "REAL" is a concept. Ok? So you can stop your little debate now.
You're beating it to death! It's ok...let it go.
SPU VOMIT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nsty N8" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
30 Oct 2003 02:13:50 PM |
|
|
As a realist, I reason that anything real must be tangible and if it
isn't tangible then it's not real.
Emotions are not "tangible". Mathematics is not "tangible". And so
on.
So there are a lot of things that are not "real by your standards,
that are real by most peoples' standards.
ANYTHING called "REAL" is a concept. Ok? So you can stop your little debate
now.
You're beating it to death! It's ok...let it go.
SPU VOMIT
Reminds me of Decarte
Decarte walks into a diner and the waitress asks him
"Would you like some coffee...."
Decarte replies "I think not"
and vanishes
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
30 Oct 2003 03:47:50 PM |
|
|
In article <fb44741a.0310301153.2232aa19@posting.google.com>,
(Spu Vomit) wrote:
Virgil <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<vmhjr2-70DCC0.17022728102003@news.newsguy.com>...
In article <lEznb.6275$RQ1.4993@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"revolutionarian" <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote:
As a realist, I reason that anything real must be tangible and if it
isn't tangible then it's not real.
Emotions are not "tangible". Mathematics is not "tangible". And so
on.
So there are a lot of things that are not "real by your standards,
that are real by most peoples' standards.
ANYTHING called "REAL" is a concept.
It is a gross mistreading of what I said to cunclude that my point
is that all real things must be concepts.
But it seems to be your point that concepts are not real.
Or am I misreading you as badly as you misread me?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
01 Sep 2003 05:46:04 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism xyz <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <madings@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
: news:biup4t$gd4$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
:> In talk.atheism Gorne <boa4@optonline.net> wrote:
:> : Is Agnosticism more logical?
:> : I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
:> : nobody knows if god exist or not.
:> : Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
:> : just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not?
:> : Then I ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments
:> : would prove that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this
:> : possibility is indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later
:> : date it will be impossible to show that some part of the argumentation
:> : may be found to be illogical.
:>
:> In general, if something is nonexistant, it isn't possible to prove
:> it unless it is defined in a manner that makes it impossible to
:> exist. So long as the definition is self-consistent, and not
:> in direct contradiction of observed evidence, you'll never be
:> able to prove that the thing in question doesn't exist, even if
:> it's true that it doesn't exist. You MIGHT, however, be able to
:> prove that it does exist if it does. So anyone who takes a stand
:> that contains the assumption that atheists and theists have
:> equal burden of proof, and believes such a stance to be a
:> neutral position, is kidding himself. It's not a neutral position
:> to ask both parties for proof when one of them has a claim that
:> could be proved and the other does not.
: This statement really doesn't make sense at all.
: In fact, I can counter the non-sense by simply changing the words around:
Except for the small fact that when you change the words around,
it becomes false.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 06:53:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:01:14 +0000, Gorne wrote:
Is Agnosticism more logical?
Than what? Theism? Atheism? Deism? Please finish your sentence.
I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
nobody knows if god exist or not.
If you want to examine the question of whether or not "god" exists, you
must first specify exactly what "god" is. As most definitions include
the idea that HE is beyond human understanding, it's hard to say anything
more about Him.
Is it possible for all possible arguments showing that god exist to be
just as unconvincing as all possible arguments that he does not? Then I
ask myself: If it was... possible ... to be so, what arguments would prove
that Human at present are capable to ascertain that this possibility is
indeed logical. How could we be sure that at a later date it will be
impossible to show that some part of the argumentation may be found to be
illogical.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
02 Sep 2003 06:44:36 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.02.11.53.54.266939@stopspam.net>...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:01:14 +0000, Gorne wrote:
I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
nobody knows if god exist or not.
If you want to examine the question of whether or not "god" exists, you
must first specify exactly what "god" is. As most definitions include
the idea that HE is beyond human understanding, it's hard to say anything
more about Him.
How about God as something that exists outside our universe, is not
necessarily good or evil, may or may not interact with our universe,
but is capable of doing so? A God (or gods) that I do not know the
name(s) of, what they look like, what they want, etc etc? Basically
some intelligent being(s) which may or may not resemble those
described by various religions (but in all likelihood not like them),
yet still "out there".
It's possible that our universe exists inside a sort of computer
simulation, outside which God is watching us (though He/She/It may not
actually notice our insignificant part of the universe).
It is also possible that this God also exists inside another computer
simulation being run in a computer-of-sorts contained inside an even
larger universe (like the movie The Thirteenth Floor). The chain
could go on forever. We humans certainly simulate artificial worlds
and life inside our own computers. There's no reason to assume we're
the top level and aren't ourselves part of a grander simulation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Sep 2003 06:53:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:44:36 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.02.11.53.54.266939@stopspam.net>...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:01:14 +0000, Gorne wrote:
I interpret this question as asking me if it is logical to admit that
nobody knows if god exist or not.
If you want to examine the question of whether or not "god" exists, you
must first specify exactly what "god" is. As most definitions include
the idea that HE is beyond human understanding, it's hard to say
anything more about Him.
How about God as something that exists outside our universe, is not
necessarily good or evil, may or may not interact with our universe, but
is capable of doing so? A God (or gods) that I do not know the name(s)
of, what they look like, what they want, etc etc? Basically some
intelligent being(s) which may or may not resemble those described by
various religions (but in all likelihood not like them), yet still "out
there".
It's possible that our universe exists inside a sort of computer
simulation, outside which God is watching us (though He/She/It may not
actually notice our insignificant part of the universe).
It is also possible that this God also exists inside another computer
simulation being run in a computer-of-sorts contained inside an even
larger universe (like the movie The Thirteenth Floor). The chain could go
on forever. We humans certainly simulate artificial worlds and life
inside our own computers. There's no reason to assume we're the top level
and aren't ourselves part of a grander simulation.
You can postulate any bizarre scenario you can imagine. Unfortunately,
there is no way to tell if any of them are correct. I place my "faith" in
that which can be verified objectively. So it isn't really faith, is it?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Sep 2003 12:36:55 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.04.11.53.26.861177@stopspam.net>...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:44:36 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
How about God as something that exists outside our universe, is not
necessarily good or evil, may or may not interact with our universe, but
is capable of doing so? A God (or gods) that I do not know the name(s)
of, what they look like, what they want, etc etc? Basically some
intelligent being(s) which may or may not resemble those described by
various religions (but in all likelihood not like them), yet still "out
there".
It's possible that our universe exists inside a sort of computer
simulation, outside which God is watching us (though He/She/It may not
actually notice our insignificant part of the universe).
It is also possible that this God also exists inside another computer
simulation being run in a computer-of-sorts contained inside an even
larger universe (like the movie The Thirteenth Floor). The chain could go
on forever. We humans certainly simulate artificial worlds and life
inside our own computers. There's no reason to assume we're the top level
and aren't ourselves part of a grander simulation.
You can postulate any bizarre scenario you can imagine. Unfortunately,
there is no way to tell if any of them are correct. I place my "faith" in
that which can be verified objectively. So it isn't really faith, is it?
At least it does raise the possibility that such a scenario is the
case. The next question is what is the probability that it is indeed
true.
I happen to also believe that advanced civilizations exist on other
planets in our universe. I have no objective proof that such is the
case, but based on the probability of other planets being able to
sustain life, I have "faith" that advanced civilizations do exist out
there.
Now, do these other civilizations have computers (or computer-like
tools)? In all likelihood yes. Are they running simulations of
artificial worlds and life in their computers? Some must be. Has
life evolved in their simulations? In all probability yes. From that
conclusion, it isn't much of a leap to believe that in all probability
our universe exists inside some sort of simulation, simply because so
many such simulations exist throughout the universe.
On the other hand, if you deny that life exists on other planets with
the same reasons you deny that God(s) exist (based on lack of direct
evidence), then I don't see how I can convince you of either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter mpainteratattdotnet" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Sep 2003 01:06:48 PM |
|
|
<CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ac819e34.0309040936.3643c5c5@posting.google.com...
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.04.11.53.26.861177@stopspam.net>...
<snip>
I happen to also believe that advanced civilizations exist on other
planets in our universe. I have no objective proof that such is the
case, but based on the probability of other planets being able to
sustain life, I have "faith" that advanced civilizations do exist out
there.
Now, do these other civilizations have computers (or computer-like
tools)? In all likelihood yes. Are they running simulations of
artificial worlds and life in their computers? Some must be. Has
life evolved in their simulations? In all probability yes. From that
conclusion, it isn't much of a leap to believe that in all probability
our universe exists inside some sort of simulation, simply because so
many such simulations exist throughout the universe.
It is quite a leap to go from a belief in computer simulations to our
universe being a simulation.
I would say that the faith in probable life is a bit different from faith in
us being a computer simulation.
For one thing it leads us down a very short path to the idea that the
simulation started .0000001 seconds ago.
We can never prove it did not.
On the other hand, if you deny that life exists on other planets with
the same reasons you deny that God(s) exist (based on lack of direct
evidence), then I don't see how I can convince you of either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
04 Sep 2003 01:14:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:36:55 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.04.11.53.26.861177@stopspam.net>...
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 16:44:36 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
How about God as something that exists outside our universe, is not
necessarily good or evil, may or may not interact with our universe,
but is capable of doing so? A God (or gods) that I do not know the
name(s) of, what they look like, what they want, etc etc? Basically
some intelligent being(s) which may or may not resemble those
described by various religions (but in all likelihood not like them),
yet still "out there".
It's possible that our universe exists inside a sort of computer
simulation, outside which God is watching us (though He/She/It may not
actually notice our insignificant part of the universe).
It is also possible that this God also exists inside another computer
simulation being run in a computer-of-sorts contained inside an even
larger universe (like the movie The Thirteenth Floor). The chain
could go on forever. We humans certainly simulate artificial worlds
and life inside our own computers. There's no reason to assume we're
the top level and aren't ourselves part of a grander simulation.
You can postulate any bizarre scenario you can imagine. Unfortunately,
there is no way to tell if any of them are correct. I place my "faith"
in that which can be verified objectively. So it isn't really faith, is
it?
At least it does raise the possibility that such a scenario is the case.
The next question is what is the probability that it is indeed true.
I happen to also believe that advanced civilizations exist on other
planets in our universe. I have no objective proof that such is the case,
but based on the probability of other planets being able to sustain life,
I have "faith" that advanced civilizations do exist out there.
Now, do these other civilizations have computers (or computer-like tools)?
In all likelihood yes. Are they running simulations of artificial worlds
and life in their computers? Some must be. Has life evolved in their
simulations? In all probability yes. From that conclusion, it isn't much
of a leap to believe that in all probability our universe exists inside
some sort of simulation, simply because so many such simulations exist
throughout the universe.
On the other hand, if you deny that life exists on other planets with the
same reasons you deny that God(s) exist (based on lack of direct
evidence), then I don't see how I can convince you of either.
I would disagree with you on several points. I agree that statistically,
it is likely that life exists on other worlds, and some of that life may
be very technologically advanced. However, we have no direct evidence
that computer simulations of life are self-aware, and hence to reason to
propose that our entire universe exists inside of such a simulation. It
is a possibility, but I would not consider it very likely.
As far as god(s) are concerned, we have no evidence that they exist, or
ever have existed, and ample evidence that people are very good at
fabricating "just so" stories. Therefore, I consider it infinitely more
probable that God is a figment of our collective imaginations than an
actual being.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Sep 2003 05:52:29 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.04.18.14.32.774779@stopspam.net>...
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:36:55 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
At least it does raise the possibility that such a scenario is the case.
The next question is what is the probability that it is indeed true.
I happen to also believe that advanced civilizations exist on other
planets in our universe. I have no objective proof that such is the case,
but based on the probability of other planets being able to sustain life,
I have "faith" that advanced civilizations do exist out there.
Now, do these other civilizations have computers (or computer-like tools)?
In all likelihood yes. Are they running simulations of artificial worlds
and life in their computers? Some must be. Has life evolved in their
simulations? In all probability yes. From that conclusion, it isn't much
of a leap to believe that in all probability our universe exists inside
some sort of simulation, simply because so many such simulations exist
throughout the universe.
On the other hand, if you deny that life exists on other planets with the
same reasons you deny that God(s) exist (based on lack of direct
evidence), then I don't see how I can convince you of either.
I would disagree with you on several points. I agree that statistically,
it is likely that life exists on other worlds, and some of that life may
be very technologically advanced. However, we have no direct evidence
that computer simulations of life are self-aware, and hence to reason to
propose that our entire universe exists inside of such a simulation. It
is a possibility, but I would not consider it very likely.
As far as god(s) are concerned, we have no evidence that they exist, or
ever have existed, and ample evidence that people are very good at
fabricating "just so" stories. Therefore, I consider it infinitely more
probable that God is a figment of our collective imaginations than an
actual being.
Let's say we start with a computer simulation of the basic building
blocks of life - some chemicals similar to DNA that can self-replicate
when put in the right environment. Clearly, such chemicals are not
self-aware. Given time, these patterns evolve into structures that
are better able to replicate themselves, growing ever more complex. I
don't see anything preventing these simulations from evolving into
organisms as complex as mammals. Perhaps they may even one day debate
the problem of self-awareness and consciousness. Does that make them
conscious or self-aware? It's hard to say. What if their behavior
begin to acquire the same characteristics as self-aware organisms in
the "real world"? It isn't easy to say when the self-awareness line
has been crossed.
However, let's say our own civilization (or perhaps an alien one) has
advanced enough to the point that many such organisms exist in our
computers. One day they begin to run their own experiments and create
new universes inside their own worlds. They create their own
intelligent (or apparently intelligent) organisms and begin to wonder
if their own world is a simulation. Looking down at this chain of
universes from our world, do we maintain our conceit that we are the
ultimate Gods? That all worlds are created by us alone? That it is
more likely that we are at the "top level" than that we are just
another link in the chain of recursive universes?
Granted, intelligent life of our own creation (whether in our
computers or our petri dishes) is not direct evidence for the
existence of God(s). However, just as life on earth serves as a
statistical example for the likelihood of life on other planets, why
wouldn't many universes of our own creation be a statistical example
for the likelihood of our universe being created?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Sep 2003 11:25:34 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<ac819e34.0309051452.119c11e7@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Let's say we start with a computer simulation of the basic building
blocks of life - some chemicals similar to DNA that can self-replicate
when put in the right environment. Clearly, such chemicals are not
self-aware. Given time, these patterns evolve into structures that
are better able to replicate themselves, growing ever more complex. I
don't see anything preventing these simulations from evolving into
organisms as complex as mammals. Perhaps they may even one day debate
the problem of self-awareness and consciousness. Does that make them
conscious or self-aware? It's hard to say. What if their behavior
begin to acquire the same characteristics as self-aware organisms in
the "real world"? It isn't easy to say when the self-awareness line
has been crossed.
However, let's say our own civilization (or perhaps an alien one) has
advanced enough to the point that many such organisms exist in our
computers. One day they begin to run their own experiments and create
new universes inside their own worlds. They create their own
intelligent (or apparently intelligent) organisms and begin to wonder
if their own world is a simulation. Looking down at this chain of
universes from our world, do we maintain our conceit that we are the
ultimate Gods? That all worlds are created by us alone? That it is
more likely that we are at the "top level" than that we are just
another link in the chain of recursive universes?
Granted, intelligent life of our own creation (whether in our
computers or our petri dishes) is not direct evidence for the
existence of God(s). However, just as life on earth serves as a
statistical example for the likelihood of life on other planets, why
wouldn't many universes of our own creation be a statistical example
for the likelihood of our universe being created?
1) Perhaps your conditional would gain weight if 1) there could
potentially be more than one universe or 2) it didn't encompass an
infinite regression. Given no evidence at all that *this* universe
was created, why wouldn't the presumption it was created because we
manage to create some other world be entirely arbitrary? I don't get
your logical leap from self-organizing chemicals to the implication
that if one world has been created therefore all worlds stand some
chance of being created. That reasoning truly does lead to infinite
recursion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Wain" |
|
| Title: Re: Agnosticism is more LOGICAL |
05 Sep 2003 09:52:55 PM |
|
|
In message <ac819e34.0309051452.119c11e7@posting.google.com>,
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu writes
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.04.18.14.32.774779@stopspam.net>...
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:36:55 +0000, CJohnYu.9 wrote:
At least it does raise the possibility that such a scenario is the case.
The next question is what is the probability that it is indeed true.
I happen to also believe that advanced civilizations exist on other
planets in our universe. I have no objective proof that such is the case,
but based on the probability of other planets being able to sustain life,
I have "faith" that advanced civilizations do exist out there.
Now, do these other civilizations have computers (or computer-like tools)?
In all likelihood yes. Are they running simulations of artificial worlds
and life in their computers? Some must be. Has life evolved in their
simulations? In all probability yes. From that conclusion, it isn't much
of a leap to believe that in all probability our universe exists inside
some sort of simulation, simply because so many such simulations exist
throughout the universe.
On the other hand, if you deny that life exists on other planets with the
same reasons you deny that God(s) exist (based on lack of direct
evidence), then I don't see how I can convince you of either.
I would disagree with you on several points. I agree that statistically,
it is likely that life exists on other worlds, and some of that life may
be very technologically advanced. However, we have no direct evidence
that computer simulations of life are self-aware, and hence to reason to
propose that our entire universe exists inside of such a simulation. It
is a possibility, but I would not consider it very likely.
As far as god(s) are concerned, we have no evidence that they exist, or
ever have existed, and ample evidence that people are very good at
fabricating "just so" stories. Therefore, I consider it infinitely more
probable that God is a figment of our collective imaginations than an
actual being.
Let's say we start with a computer simulation of the basic building
blocks of life - some chemicals similar to DNA that can self-replicate
when put in the right environment. Clearly, such chemicals are not
self-aware. Given time, these patterns evolve into structures that
are better able to replicate themselves, growing ever more complex. I
don't see anything preventing these simulations from evolving into
organisms as complex as mammals. Perhaps they may even one day debate
the problem of self-awareness and consciousness. Does that make them
conscious or self-aware? It's hard to say. What if their behavior
begin to acquire the same characteristics as self-aware organisms in
the "real world"? It isn't easy to say when the self-awareness line
has been crossed.
However, let's say our own civilization (or perhaps an alien one) has
advanced enough to the point that many such organisms exist in our
computers. One day they begin to run their own experiments and create
new universes inside their own worlds. They create their own
intelligent (or apparently intelligent) organisms and begin to wonder
if their own world is a simulation. Looking down at this chain of
universes from our world, do we maintain our conceit that we are the
ultimate Gods? That all worlds are created by us alone? That it is
more likely that we are at the "top level" than that we are just
another link in the chain of recursive universes?
Granted, intelligent life of our own creation (whether in our
computers or our petri dishes) is not direct evidence for the
existence of God(s). However, just as life on earth serves as a
statistical example for the likelihood of life on other planets, why
wouldn't many universes of our own creation be a statistical example
for the likelihood of our universe being created?
Whether or not our universe is a simulation is an interesting
speculation, but it is an idle speculation in that the simulator is not
requiring the sims to behave in accordance in any particular way, and
the nature of simulations is anything inside them cannot know or
interact with the outside. So as it makes no difference to my life
whether or not we are simulations I may as well behave as if we aren't .
I don't happen to believe it either. I have no problem with believing
things that I cannot prove. Just as I believe in the non-existence of
God, it being the case in Aristotelian logic that one cannot prove a
negative. Why do Christians accuse Atheists of being without faith?
Frankly, I think we have just as much faith as them except ours saves us
a lot of time and trouble.
I think the Agnostics do have it right in that the logical position is
to keep an open mind and to say the Jury's still out. However, my life
experience leads me to take a side and believe that the concept of God
is now an anachronism invented for an age where the rational
explanations for things observed were much more primitive than they are
now!
--
Phil Wain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
