A Reasonable Religion [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

David Sklansky

05-20-2005, 07:09 AM

Here is an outline of a set of religious beliefs that I would find hard to argue with.

1. God created the three dimenional universe, via the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

3. God realized that with these initial "axioms", the laws of logic, which even he can't break, would eventually produce conscious beings here and there. He liked that.

4. The question as to whether God is totally omnipotent is irrelevant to this religion. So is where he came from, has he always existed, or whether some super God created him. Even if there was a super god, only this God cares about his conscious creations and wants them to be happy.

5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

6. The consequences may not need God's hands on approach. He might have set it up in advance. Knowing the specifics is completely unnecessary.

7. These consequences are solely related to how good you are. How often and how badly you break the Golden Rule. And how often you go above and beyond the call of duty. They are utterly unrelated to your religion. If you do good without believing in this God, that is fine with him. Your rewards will be equal to those who believe.

8. On the other hand if you do bad you are facing consequences. Who knows what. But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean. Do less and you mitigate the punishment. (Notice that this would be a disaster for those who have done terribly in the past or for those who know that can't stop doing bad. It seems like a lot of the fervent believers I know fit one of these two categories which I don't think is a coincidence. They get to say that we are ALL horrible sinners because of Adam and Eve and that in spite of this, believing in Jesus gets us into heaven. How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.)

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

Jman28

05-20-2005, 07:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was only a matter of time.

Wally Weeks

05-20-2005, 07:21 AM

Great, sounds like my kind of religion. The only problem is getting people to believe the initial assumption: there is, or was, a God. Other than that, it's golden.

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

Wally

goofball

05-20-2005, 07:21 AM

1. The universe is at least 4 dimensions.

2. Did you mean quirks or were you referring to the elementary particls?

3. Does he believe they will eventually produce conscious beings or does he know?

4-5. He wants us to be happy? You don't explicitly say if he can or does interfer with the natural course of events. If he does, why didn't he stop the plague? If he is sophisticated enough to setup the universe why didn't he merely setup a universe that created conscious beings who weren't bad to each other?

6-8. Are the rewards/consequences set up for an eternity in a timelike dimension we know, or do they exist outside such a dimension? Is someone who lives a life of pure evil subject to only punishment, or will they eventually have "done their time?"

David Sklansky

05-20-2005, 07:40 AM

1. OK 4

2. Quarks

3. He knows it is a big favorite.

4. Maybe because setting up the universe is doable but the other is not. Remember he may not be omnipotent.

5. I don't know. One possibility that I thought of is that the last few second of life seem like an eternity. An eternity to reflect on your misdeeds. Of course that answer wouldn't provide much punishment for psychopaths.

Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

Jordan Olsommer

05-20-2005, 07:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, whoa, whoa - now that's just wrong. Quantum mechanics operates on far too small a scale to possibly be somehow "controlled" in aggregate by the brain. In other words, quantum uncertainty is only really uncertain on the quantum level - we don't know exactly what this particular atom or particle is going to do, but we can damn well be fairly certain of what a group of trillions of them are going to do (for example, even though I have no idea what any one particular atom or particle in my desk is going to do even with the most state-of-the-art observational equipment, I feel pretty safe in saying that the entire group of atoms that comprise my desk are going to retain a desk-like shape)

Ever since people started asking the question "Do we have free will?" what they really wanted to know was the answer to a similar question, implicitly asked, which is "Do we have free will in practical terms?" Meaning, is it possible even theoretically for someone or something or some god to predict exactly and unfailingly what I am going to do next?

Notice that's significantly different from just asking "Do we have free will?", or free will in technical terms, which can be disproved in half a minute so long as you accept two eminently reasonable assumptions: 1) All matter in the universe operates according to physical laws, and 2) Human beings are made up of matter. Since it is quite frankly a trivial question, we can conclude that it obviously wasn't an oversight of everyone from Aristotle on down to we humans today; that we really are asking about practical free will and not technical free will.

For what it's worth, the fact that we have no free will doesn't directly imply some sort of apathetic nihilism. It behooves us to behave as if we have free will even though in the most technical sense we do not. In fact, it's pretty well pointless to behave otherwise.

This confusion between practical free will and technical free will leads people to make all sorts of attempts to sort of "tuck" the source of free will away in some dark corner where science has yet to explore (quantum uncertainty is a rather popular one). But it just doesn't work - the random behaviors of particles just aren't coordinated enough in aggregate to have any significant effect on a single neuron's behavior, let alone a human being's.

Jordan Olsommer

05-20-2005, 07:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Also, what percentage of income should go to the Church of Sklansky? 10%? Will there be "missions" to go on like the Mormons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting an oppositional religion called the Free Masons. Yo Malmuth, you in? There's a funny hat in it for you if you say 'yes'.

goofball

05-20-2005, 08:11 AM

Mundane details are pointless i agree, (how logn didit take him, or something). Even pointing out 4 or more dimensions was slightly nitpicky of me (to be accurate i think a 'he designed the universe as we know it' would suffice, because the number of dimensions in th euniverse in unknown)

However, you stipluate that there is some kind of post or near death reward punishment system and that strikes me as non trivial because it has to fall within the laws of physics. Changing ones perception of time as death nears is within the laws of physics but has the problems you mention. A physical heaven or hell where people are pehaps taken runs into the problem of us finding it. Several other systems I've thought of seem implausible too (him physically transporting you to a place in his universe). The biggest problem with a post/near death system, is that we don't know it exists. Sure some people think it does, but I for one don't. I base my behavior on many things but the afterlife is not one of them, and if I didn't have other reasons not to behave badly I would with little to no fear of a postmortem punishment.

Beyond all of this though, I have a hard time seeing why he would even care if we are happy. There seems to be no logical reason for you to include this among your stipulations. Of all the reasons I can think of for the god you describe to create a universe like ours more have him being indifferent to what happens to us than not.

Saying "god wants us to be happy" strikes me as introducing unnecesary complexities to the system, and we all know waht William of Ockham said about that.

NotReady

05-20-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

What's new about it? Specifically 7 and 8?

Koss

05-20-2005, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What's new about it? Specifically 7 and 8?

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that you don't actually have to believe in god or worship him to be rewarded, just live a good life.

NotReady

05-20-2005, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that you don't actually have to believe in god or worship him to be rewarded, just live a good life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start with Plato and work forward in history from there. Virtually every religion and human philosophy is some variaton of this.

Koss

05-20-2005, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Start with Plato and work forward in history from there. Virtually every religion and human philosophy is some variaton of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most religions require that there be a belief in some higher power, be it Allah, Christ, or whomever. They also have certain rules to be followed or rituals to perform before being rewarded an afterlife. Obviously these are all open to interpretation, as seen by the several forms of Christianity that already exist.

A friend of mine wants me to get baptised because he is afraid that I'll go to hell if I don't. Yet he is somewhat of a dishonest and selfish person. I'm not perfect but I think I'm a bit more respectful of others than he is. According his beliefs he goes to heaven and I do not. If the afterlife is determined solely by how you act as an individual and not by any religious beliefs, then I think I'd be in OK shape.

Atleast that is my interpretation of what Sklansky was trying to say. I don't know a whole lot about religions so I don't think I can say much more, but that's my $.02

NotReady

05-20-2005, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If the afterlife is determined solely by how you act as an individual and not by any religious beliefs, then I think I'd be in OK shape.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you see, what S. proposes isn't new. Even within organized religions there is widespread belief that works will save. I think even Catholics now accept some form of this such that it's no longer necessary to belong to their church but I'm not certain of that.

Your friend is wrong if he thinks baptism will save. The Bible says "For by grace you have been saved, through faith, not as a result of works, that no one should boast". According to Scripture, and this is very plain throughout the New Testament, allegations of interpretation are misguided, salvation is by repenting of one's sin and trusting in Jesus. It is phrased in different ways, but one of the clearest is John 3:16

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

Koss

05-20-2005, 11:15 AM

It's not that he thinks simply being batised is enough to be saved, but the belief that without being baptised you are damned no matter what you do with your life.

NotReady

05-20-2005, 11:26 AM

I wouldn't focus on the question of baptism. I can't imagine that anyone who believes in Christ would fail to get baptized. But in one sense your friend is right. If you reject Christ, you can't be saved. Scripture says that all have sinned and all deserve God's punishment. No amount of trying to do good works will make up for that. That's why God gave His only begotten Son, as an atonement for sin.

If God offers you this gift of life, forgiveness of sins, the promise of the inheritance along with Christ, and you refuse it, then you remain guilty. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?"

obsidian

05-20-2005, 12:36 PM

Yea, the bible is pretty clear. If you don't believe in Christ, you go to hell. Pretty much my biggest problem with the religion. It's way too restrictive and exclusive of all other religions.

Demana

05-20-2005, 12:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you watch Constantine and feel like he was getting slighted for all the "good work" he had done?

The interesting thing about this "extra credit" is that it does not take into account the person's thoughts and motives. I could be a serial killer, murder a hundred people, and still be able to wipe my slate clean even though I would be doing it for selfish reasons.

btw - Something about this point also reminds me of Agent Smith telling Neo, "We'll wipe the slate clean, Mr. Anderson. Give you a fresh start."

NotReady

05-20-2005, 01:07 PM

Do you understand why the Bible says faith in Christ is necessary? If it's true it would have to be exclusive of all other religions. If the Bible is God's Word, all other religions would have to be false. Otherwise, God would be contradicting Himself.

fnord_too

05-20-2005, 01:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

[/ QUOTE ]

A nit: Randomness does not in any way imply or guarantee free will, it only affects predictability. Whether something collapses into one specific state or another may be purely random chance, but it does in fact collapse into a specific state upon interaction if quantum theory is correct. Unpredictable results are not equal to free will. (Though you are correct in your assertion that deterministics physical laws preclude free will. We do not, however, have complete understanding of the physical laws of the universe, which may be quite an understatement, so all speculation about free will is pretty much moot.)

Piers

05-20-2005, 01:18 PM

Are you going to write a novel fleshing out some of these ideas?

mindflayer

05-20-2005, 02:02 PM

your title gives implies
a belief in a religion is unreasonable.

religion is based on faith, not probabliities and logic.

If there WERE a religion based on these two things, it would be called POKER, not Sklanskanity and you David, would be the pope.
I would be a member and people of outside religions would ridicule us and tell us we have Sklanskyitis instead of calling us Sklanskyians, or Sklanskyites.
Instead of one big payoff in the end called Heaven, you would promise us small rewards now of 5-6BB pots as long as we followed your bible (HEPFAP) Those who followed other heathen books such as PPLTPs would be considered animals, mice,elephants, mice, eagles, jakals and monkeys or as i like to call some players ja-monkeys.
ahahahah /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

obsidian

05-20-2005, 02:06 PM

Why should God care what you believe? He never came to me and told me what to believe. How can it make sense that you are damned to eternity if you don't believe what God wants you too, yet he won't tell you what it is you should believe? This is obviously more applicable to areas of the world where Christianity isn't nearly as prevalent as the US and Europe. This isn't the just and fair God I envision.

gasgod

05-20-2005, 02:07 PM

In both 2 and 5 you have made implicit assumptions that are unwarranted. I refer to free will and consciousness. Accepting these two without a shred of skepticism leads almost inexorably to a religion of some sort. (I said almost. Please don't ask me to "prove" this statement.)

Free Will and Consciousness are both subjective phenomena that are extraordinarily difficult to define/explain/understand. If we build a worldview without reference to these two, what would it be? Certainly, not Sklanskyanity. Certainly not any of the major religions either. Once we accept the fact that free will and consciousness are not part of the objective world, the notion of a deity that takes an active interest in our thoughts and/or actions is just absurd.

You might suppose from the above that my view has no room for ethics or personal responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hunger causes me to eat. Cold air causes me to seek a warm place. A love for my children causes me to advocate putting child molesters in prison. However, I reject the notion that my hunger, my chill, or my paternal love has any cosmic significance.

GG

Exsubmariner

05-20-2005, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile you are asking for details and I specifically said that it is not necessary to know them. Anything not logically inconsistent that fits the general outline is OK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congratulations,
You sound just like that guy who wrote Dianetics.
X

NotReady

05-20-2005, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]

He never came to me and told me what to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've heard the gospel, you've heard God's Word.

[ QUOTE ]

This is obviously more applicable to areas of the world where Christianity isn't nearly as prevalent as the US and Europe. This isn't the just and fair God I envision.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is just. No one is punished unfairly. He can and will save anyone He pleases to save. As for people who have never heard, then obviously they have never rejected, so they are not unbelievers. I don't know what their fate is, but I do know God will deal with them in justice. Whatever that is, it gives no excuse to someone who has heard and refuses the offer of grace.

obsidian

05-20-2005, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you've heard the gospel, you've heard God's Word.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the Kuran. Is that God's word? How am I supposed to find the real God's word when there are multiple versions of "God's word" out there? Man telling me what God says simply is not enough for me. Look at all the false gods before us. I am not asking for man to tell me what God says to believe. I am asking for God to tell me what to believe. There is a difference.

[ QUOTE ]
God is just. No one is punished unfairly. He can and will save anyone He pleases to save. As for people who have never heard, then obviously they have never rejected, so they are not unbelievers. I don't know what their fate is, but I do know God will deal with them in justice. Whatever that is, it gives no excuse to someone who has heard and refuses the offer of grace.

[/ QUOTE ]
All I can say it would be a heck of a lot easier to accept Christ as your savior when he is standing in front of you asking you if you accept him.

The Goober

05-20-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[...] How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.) [...]

[/ QUOTE ]

I gotta pick a nit with you here - what's wrong with being a whore? Whores don't break the golden rule - they provide a service to willing customer in return for money. Shouldn't this be perfectly acceptable behavior according to your new religion?

maurile

05-20-2005, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A nit:

[/ QUOTE ]
I partially agree and partially disagree, but I think this thread will be more interesting if it doesn't get sidetracked on the issue of free will. I'd suggest that we reserve that discussion to one of the free will threads.

Shakezula

05-20-2005, 02:56 PM

"Once we accept the fact that free will and consciousness are not part of the objective world, the notion of a deity that takes an active interest in our thoughts and/or actions is just absurd."

Is the animal kingdom part of the objective world? If so, do you grant an animal the slightest awareness of being alive? Or are all their individual and joint actions explained away as being the result of natural animal instincts? I would think that an animal is a conscious creature, and obviously outside of myself, objectified. It operates according to its instincts, it seems, and yet it also likes to play. Any dog-owner can attest to that, and we can see young animals at play even in their normal environments. I don't see how instinct applies to such playful behavior. But then again, I'm not looking very hard or trying to understand. It was just an idea...

We often overlook the animal kingdom and nature when discussing esoteric ideas; so I thought I would bring them into the mix. I do wonder how they would be treated in the new Davidian religion. Kindly I hope, and please no more cages or zoos...

David Sklansky

05-20-2005, 02:56 PM

They offer their services to married men which some would argue is not in the best interest of humankind.

maurile

05-20-2005, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]
If he wants people to worry about divine consequences, he should provide evidence that there are divine consequences.

To join your religion, am I supposed to believe that he has provided such evidence?

Hermlord

05-20-2005, 03:20 PM

David,

Good post -- I think this is a much more fruitful tactic than attacking other religions.

I wonder what you think of Karma? Karma (as I am defining it) says that you will be punished or rewarded according to your actions. However, this is not done by an external agent (i.e., God) but by the natural laws of the universe. In other words it is a (NOT SCIENTIFIC) extension of action-reaction to higher-order phenomena like justice. Karma does not specify the form of this reaction; it could come from nature, other people, your own consciousness, etc.

I believe in Karma because I have found it to be true in my own life, and throughout history. Admittedly Karma is easier to see if you believe in reincarnation (which I do, though in a non-literal form). But this is not necessary a priori.

David Sklansky

05-20-2005, 03:24 PM

If he wants people to worry about divine consequences, he should provide evidence that there are divine consequences.

To join your religion, am I supposed to believe that he has provided such evidence?

No. Because he hasn't. But people will worry anyway.

NotReady

05-20-2005, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Man telling me what God says simply is not enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[ QUOTE ]

All I can say it would be a heck of a lot easier to accept Christ as your savior when he is standing in front of you asking you if you accept him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you think it would be. Many saw Him, talked to Him and witnessed His miracles, yet did not believe.

Here's an interesting passage from Matthew, spoken by Jesus:

Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

The Goober

05-20-2005, 04:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They offer their services to married men which some would argue is not in the best interest of humankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... do I detect a bit of old-school judeo-christian morality here? Does this mean that bar owners are sinners, since they offer their services to alcoholics? For that matter, how are poker players any better, since we regularly offer our "services" to gambling addicts? Obviously, helping acoholics drink and gambling addicts lose their money isn't in the best interest of society either.

You should read Megenoita's posts in the "women in casinos" thread in the B&M forum. He's a devout christian who makes the argument that humans are inheirantly weak and should avoid temptation rather than learn to resist it - if you blame prostitutes for breaking up marriages, then it would seem that you agree with this.

Warren Whitmore

05-20-2005, 04:16 PM

"...Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as instinct, intuition, revelation, or any form of just knowing.

Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.

Mysticism is the claim to the perception of some other reality other than the one in which we live whose definition is only that it is not natural, it is supernatural, and is to be perceived by some form of unnatural or supernatural means.

Reasonis the faculty which perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Mysticism is the claim to a non-sensory means of knowledge..... - Ayn Rand

You are attempting to mix Mysticism and Reason together. Which cannot be done because they are incompatible.

obsidian

05-20-2005, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes the Bible any more truthful from other books that claim to be God's word (like the Koran)? There has been thousands of different gods worshipped by humans throughout history. Many of them having scriptures that claimed to be the word of the God they worshipped. How am I to know the Bible is the true one and the others are false? Because it says so?

My point is, if God is all-powerful and what I believed was such an important issue as to determine my fate for the rest of eternity, then He should tell me what to believe and what is false. I just don't have the faith to blindly believe that the Bible has to be the word of God because it says it is.

NotReady

05-20-2005, 05:43 PM

If you seriously want to know about the Bible there are many sources on the net and plenty of critical sites as well. This is just one:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

I'm not endorsing everything on this site, it just was one of the first that popped up in a Google search. I don't know what specific questions or objections you might have and the subject of the Bible is enormous. God promises that if "you seek, you will find". If you approach the investigation of His Word, He will open your eyes to the truth. There are also many Christian forums populated by believers far more versed in these kind of questions than me. I'm not trying to duck your questions but am pointing you to a method of answering them more completely than I can.

I will say that faith is not blind. There are evidences, arguments and reasons for faith. But there is no such thing as absolute, objective, certain proof. God has chosen faith as the instrument through which we are saved. He has the power to convince you and to assure you of His truth. But you have to do the hearing and the believing.

Aytumious

05-20-2005, 06:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Bible claims to be God's Word, not man's. Salvation is by faith, so you have to make a decision. The Koran says many things that are different from the Bible, though it also copies much from the Bible. The chief difference is that the Koran does not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, nor does it acknowledge any need for salvation. Again, the question is whether you believe in Jesus or not.

[/ QUOTE ]How am I to know the Bible is the true one and the others are false? Because it says so?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell, yes, that is what NotReady's belief system comes down to.

mosquito

05-20-2005, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an outline of a set of religious beliefs that I would find hard to argue with.

1. God created the three dimenional universe, via the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago.

2. God set up physical constants, laws of physics, and quarks that incorporated inherent randomness (a necessary feature to allow free will).

3. God realized that with these initial "axioms", the laws of logic, which even he can't break, would eventually produce conscious beings here and there. He liked that.

4. The question as to whether God is totally omnipotent is irrelevant to this religion. So is where he came from, has he always existed, or whether some super God created him. Even if there was a super god, only this God cares about his conscious creations and wants them to be happy.

5. Because he wants his conscious creations to be happy, he needs for there to be consequences to people who are not good to each other. That is the only reason he wants people to believe in him. It is not about his ego. It is that to get around Prisoner Dilemma problems, to keep polluters from polluting, etc. etc. some may need to worry about divine consequences and won't if they are atheists.

6. The consequences may not need God's hands on approach. He might have set it up in advance. Knowing the specifics is completely unnecessary.

7. These consequences are solely related to how good you are. How often and how badly you break the Golden Rule. And how often you go above and beyond the call of duty. They are utterly unrelated to your religion. If you do good without believing in this God, that is fine with him. Your rewards will be equal to those who believe.

8. On the other hand if you do bad you are facing consequences. Who knows what. But there is a way out. Namely by doing extra credit good to make up for the bad. Do enough and you wipe the slate clean. Do less and you mitigate the punishment. (Notice that this would be a disaster for those who have done terribly in the past or for those who know that can't stop doing bad. It seems like a lot of the fervent believers I know fit one of these two categories which I don't think is a coincidence. They get to say that we are ALL horrible sinners because of Adam and Eve and that in spite of this, believing in Jesus gets us into heaven. How convenient if you spent half your life as a thief, whore or scoundrel, or if you know you have no will power.)

There you have it. A new religion. Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

When is the Kool-Aide party? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

GOODBEATGUY2001

05-20-2005, 07:34 PM

And with the widespread popularity of religion among the uninformed & misinformed, Sklanskynity should be a long-term positive expectation. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NotReady

05-20-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell, yes, that is what NotReady's belief system comes down to.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this is true. If it is proper to judge God by any standard outside of God, He isn't God. He graciously provides evidences, including reason, testimony and history, but the final say so is His. Self-evidently.

Dan Mezick

05-21-2005, 12:39 AM

David,

You seem to be strongly replused by all forms of revealed religion and accordingly, you tilt towards deism.

I note with interest that you capitalize with the big "G".

I read all your posts along these lines.

I notice that you articulate few if any distinctions between spirituality and religion.

I'd be keen on hearing your comments, opinion and analysis regarding the arguments of the following math/logic oriented web sites:

Theory of Reciprocity- A theory of physical reality
http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/

Cosmic Ancestry- A Theory of origins of life on earth.
http://www.panspermia.org

David Sklansky

05-21-2005, 01:38 AM

Any thoughts I have on these matters have a probability attached to them. It amazes me that most people don't think this way. As for how something can start from nothing, one possibility that I don't see discussed, relates to the fact that time can be considered the fourth dimension. And just like the two dimensional inhabitants of Flatland can walk on a sphere in what they they think is a straight line and get back where they started (because they actually exist in a three dimensional world) perhaps we live in a five dimensional universe where time itself repeats.

goofball

05-21-2005, 02:58 AM

It's been a while since I studied string theory but according to it we live in a universe of more than 4 dimensions. Most people don't really seem to know this I think.

Of course you see your religion as wiht X probability, just like see christianity as having a non (but closer to)zero probability of being accurate. How could anyone not?

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 03:04 AM

There have been many debates about the number of dimensions present in the universe. My limited understanding of quantum mechanics is that this is necessary because of the spin on various types of quanta. Some have suggested that there are as many as fourteen dimensions. The latest thinking on the nature of the universe is that it is one of many multiverses and that it is possible to create another universe inside this one and have it break off to form it's own bubble in the multiverse. Space time as we know it may only be a collison between two or more bubbles in the multiverse. There could be other collisions....for example, where the force of magnetism is not as strong as the force of gravity.
The most fascinating thing that I find about probability when faced with eternity is that if something can occur, no matter how improbable, it WILL eventually happen. This is why I am going to try to win the WSOP one day. If I keep trying as long as I have too, I will eventually be successful. Best part about an event like that is that it only has to happen ONCE. Kind of like the first spiral of DNA floating in a mud puddle. The world was forever different after this one insignificant improbable event. But it did happen....ONCE.
I guess I must be a fatalist.
In terms of time, Einstein's calculations proved that time cannot be reversed but can be stretched and shortened. The reason tomorrow is tomorrow and not yesterday is that the universe is bigger tomorrow than it is today. It has been hypothesized that if the universe began to fall back in on itself, tomorrow would stop being tomorrow and become yesterday. In a sense, repeating time.
X

PairTheBoard

05-21-2005, 05:33 AM

Exsubmariner -
"It has been hypothesized that if the universe began to fall back in on itself, tomorrow would stop being tomorrow and become yesterday. In a sense, repeating time."

Great. More Reruns.

PairTheBoard

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 10:13 AM

OH GOD....
I haven't thought of that. I don't know how I could handle Richard Hatch and his tiny penis offending the X Navy seal.... I swore off network TV after that.... Now I won't be able to keep my oath..... I'm DOOOOOOOOMMMMMEEEEED..... NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

David Sklansky

05-21-2005, 10:49 AM

"The most fascinating thing that I find about probability when faced with eternity is that if something can occur, no matter how improbable, it WILL eventually happen"

Not if each failure reduces the probability. If I have a 100 unit starting bankroll playing single deck blackjack and a photographic memory, I'll have about a 2% edge even if I flat bet one unit at a time. If I play for eternity any streak you name will eventually happen. But what will almost certainly NOT eventually happen is that I go broke.

For many years I have suspected but have not proved that this surprising fact may be what is behind certin intractable number theory problems. Goldbach's Conjecture for example. Each time you check out a bigger even number, pure probability reduces the chances that you will find it to be not the sum of two primes. And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge.

Suppose you mark off the digits of pi's expansion two at a time. Will any of those two digit "numbers" ever be a perfect square? If the digits of pi behave essentially randomly, the answer must be (rigorously speaking the probability approaches 100%) yes. Just like your original assertion. Because, counting 00 as a square, we have an infinite number of chances to hit a 10% shot. But if I marked off the digits first by two, then four, then six etc, each new "number" would have a drastically reduced chance to be a square. In fact if the sequence was in fact truly random digits, the probability of ever coming up with a perfect square is about 11%. So it seems to me that if I conjectured no perfect square would arise marking pi off this way, I could be correct for essentially no (provable ) reason. (Whearas if there were in fact no square in pi marking it off two at a time, there would exist a proof for this, since probality alone couldn't account for it.)

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 11:31 AM

"If I play for eternity .... almost certainly NOT eventually happen is that I go broke."

I hate to nitpick a point but I think that almost certainly statement is what undoes you. It is possible you will, no matter how small the likelyhood. Although, the house may go bust before you do. I wonder if the house in God's casino can ever go bust????

"And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge."
I think you're right. Don't quote me but it rings a bell.

"So it seems to me that if I conjectured no perfect square would arise marking pi off this way, I could be correct for essentially no (provable ) reason."
I honestly believe that the root of many religions begin with an assertion that has much in common with this one. It is, but cannot be understood, and therefore any explanation about the whyfores cannot be reasonably disputed and thus you wind up with a prophet of some sort.

Another interesting tidbit about the number Pi. I think Sagan wrote about this, but I'm not sure of the exact origin. In the endless chain of numbers after the .14 about some million or billion or trillion or so digits down the chain (not really sure where but they go on forever) there is a series of 1's and 0's. Those 1's and 0's, in binary, are the entire series of numbers after the decimal that came before them. Now how did that get in the fabric of the universe? In order to find it, you have to be able to do math and build a computer that can do complex calculations.... I definately think this fact should be added to the dogma of Sklanskyanity. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am enjoying this immensely.
X

NotReady

05-21-2005, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It is, but cannot be understood, and therefore any explanation about the whyfores cannot be reasonably disputed and thus you wind up with a prophet of some sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also end up with the "explanation" that chance did it, which cannot be empirically disproven and the fact that it can be reasonably disputed seems to leave no mark.

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 11:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

You also end up with the "explanation" that chance did it, which cannot be empirically disproven and the fact that it can be reasonably disputed seems to leave no mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Please......

inlemur

05-21-2005, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting tidbit about the number Pi. I think Sagan wrote about this, but I'm not sure of the exact origin. In the endless chain of numbers after the .14 about some million or billion or trillion or so digits down the chain (not really sure where but they go on forever) there is a series of 1's and 0's. Those 1's and 0's, in binary, are the entire series of numbers after the decimal that came before them. Now how did that get in the fabric of the universe? In order to find it, you have to be able to do math and build a computer that can do complex calculations.... I definately think this fact should be added to the dogma of Sklanskyanity. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am enjoying this immensely.
X

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a mathematician, but assuming that pi is normal (which is not proven but largely assumed), then since its decimal expansion is both random and infinite, it must contain every possible data sequence within it. So, for example, if you converted pi to binary and looked at its expansion, you would find data that could be decoded to the Mona Lisa, each of the Lord of the Rings films, and the song Rapper's Delight. It is trivial to say that a string of digits such as the one you suggest is in pi somewhere, because it absolutely must be in there somewhere.

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 01:31 PM

And if an infinate number of monkeys banged on the keys of a infinate number of typewriters you would get every major work of literature ever written and some even greater ones that have yet to be written....

NotReady

05-21-2005, 01:35 PM

Show me these infinite monkeys. Then explain how you fit eternity into 15 billion years.

Exsubmariner

05-21-2005, 01:35 PM

Look in the mirror.

gasgod

05-21-2005, 01:52 PM

reubenf

05-21-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For many years I have suspected but have not proved that this surprising fact may be what is behind certin intractable number theory problems. Goldbach's Conjecture for example. Each time you check out a bigger even number, pure probability reduces the chances that you will find it to be not the sum of two primes. And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious what exactly you mean by "the probability that you will find the number n to not be the sum of two primes". I want to know what the word "probability" means in this sentence. It seems very strange.

Girchuck

05-21-2005, 06:42 PM

There never was a Kool-Aid party.
They drank a cheaper Flavor-Aid in Jonestown

inlemur

05-22-2005, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And if an infinate number of monkeys banged on the keys of a infinate number of typewriters you would get every major work of literature ever written and some even greater ones that have yet to be written....

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you realize it or not, that's the point; pi is like infinite monkeys. There's nothing divine or interesting about it. Pointing out that pi has some specific string of digits is mundane.

elysium

05-22-2005, 01:53 AM

hi mr. sklansky

sklanskyanity works well on paper, however, GOD is not so easily understandable as all that. the incredible vicissitude (yes i have my little webster's) and seemingly utter chaos with which the true GOD orchestrates events, with a dash or so of freewill in the mix, causes mankind to grasp for the advice of the prophet GOD will often throw out to man much as a lifesaver might be thrown to a drowning swimmer. the more turbulent the sea, the more clenchingly man grasps the floatation device throw to him. GOD likes HIS words really held onto like that, and HE achieves that through seemingly random and utter chaos. here is where we run into a problem though.

when beholding the advice of the prophet GOD so chooses to guide man through the turbulence of creation, man does not at first realize the connection between what the prophet is saying and its relation to the true GOD. furthermore, the prophet is almost always the very last person that man wants to have as a lifesaver. in fact, the prophet will appear unto mankind as being in a race with man, and it will seem as if the prophet is hurriedly attempting to get GOD to create a more and more turbulent world, and not a less and less one. and GOD of all things listens to the prophet and not the great majority of the people, and great turbulence erupts that gives the people the mistaken belief that the prophet is somehow forecasting the future. and the people cling faster and faster to the prophetic utterances of the prophet as he leads mankind into cataclysmic ecstasy. however, the prophet is not forecasting the future.

what is happening is that somehow, GOD has enabled the prophet to help mankind to see the interaction of GOD on the planet. the prophet is not seeing the future, mankind is witnessing GOD's interaction between HIMSELF and man. however, mankind finds it easier and more comporting with traditional interpretations about GOD to believe that they are not witnessing GOD but rather witnessing one of GOD's people forecast something or other about the future. worse, the people believe that they are witnessing a prophet foretell the future more than they believe in GOD. this is how much GOD's interaction on the planet appears to be something happening that HIS prophet predicted would happen.

now the prophet, he isn't so foolish. he knows that he can't predict the future. the prophet thinks it to be a great miracle that his words appear to be some sort of prediction. and since he knows that he couldn't have accomplished such a feat, the prophet, due to his own prophetic utterances, draws closer to GOD to whom he gives all the credit. this closer relationship with GOD enables the prophet to hear GOD much more clearly.

it's not too hard to figure out what happens next as the people demand that the prophet forecast good things about the future, and the prophet forecasts the worst since he knows that mankind is angering GOD by recognizing the prophesy but not recognizing GOD. the prophet says, 'you would know that i cannot tell of the future if you could see GOD interacting here in your midst.', and the people scream, 'no! GOD is too chaotic for our taste. but your words, they predict the future....no, no wait. they do more than that. they make the future. please tell us good things then perhaps good things will happen. wouldn't GOD want that?'.

of course the prophet then begins a self deprecating process to end all self deprecating processes, and lowers the boom.

anyway, if the people could distinguish the future from GOD's interaction on the planet, GOD wouldn't have need to send in the prophet. most people stand a better chance of improving their relationship with GOD by studying the recalcitrance of the prophets, and the public's utter distain for them. note too what happens to them those times GOD allows it. petitioning one of those guys for a more orderly GOD is the first step taken before becoming thoroughly convinced that the entire planet is on the verge of a great unstoppable cataclysm. in that way and in that way only do we as humans begin to see the true GOD.

Barracuda

05-22-2005, 02:48 AM

David you should take a look at the Movie called What the bleep do we know. You will like it I think. Might give you some more things to think about.

WaimanaloSlim

05-23-2005, 05:04 AM

David always seemed to have bit of an ego, but I never expected that he'd ever lay down tenets to a religion named after himself. Too funny.

If Sklankyanity is to have any legitimacy however, it has to have some trappings of organized religion: symbols, idolatry, rituals, texts, brochures, meeting places, a sabbath day, holidays, a mecca, an armed and fortified compound, church bureaucracy and hierarchy, political lobbies, myths of the afterlife, and of course, scandal.

There seems to be a few things going for it: you do have a creation myth and you also have fundraising mechanisms.

reubenf

05-23-2005, 12:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For many years I have suspected but have not proved that this surprising fact may be what is behind certin intractable number theory problems. Goldbach's Conjecture for example. Each time you check out a bigger even number, pure probability reduces the chances that you will find it to be not the sum of two primes. And the sum of those probabilities, if I am not mistaken, converge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am curious what exactly you mean by "the probability that you will find the number n to not be the sum of two primes". I want to know what the word "probability" means in this sentence. It seems very strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really hoping for an answer here, David, because the post I replied to seems nonsensical to me. There isn't a "possible worlds" interpretation of number theory.