The first flaw in Sklanskyanity

[goofball]

The first logical objeciton I can see to your religion follows. I haven't bothered yet to think of others, and welcome them from other users.

Years ago, lightening wasn't understood. People thought it was caused by god. Now we better understand it and know better. Obviously there can be thousands of things plugged in in place of lightening: disease and the sun come to mind.

Merely because we don't understand the impetus for the creation of the current universe, I see no reason to introduce god in any form in a feeble attempt to explain what we don't understand. To do so is in clear violation of Ockham's razor.

The only use I see for the term is as a placeholder for whatever that cause was whether it was due to natural forces, a non onminpotent being from another dimension(like a scientist with an ant farm), the being you describe, or even the christian god.

[David Sklansky]

Wait. A non omnipotent scientist from another dimension with an ant farm qualifies to be my god. In fact I almost used that exact phrase myself. As to how he could have the power to punish after death, An Unexpected Ending, the last chapter of Poker Gaming and Life could give an inkling. Being in a higher dimension lets you do a lot of things.

Don't you be goin dissin my religion. I have a lot less patience than Not Ready.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I see no reason to introduce god in any form in a feeble attempt to explain what we don't understand. To do so is in clear violation of Ockham's razor.


[/ QUOTE ]

A simple definition of the Razor

[ QUOTE ]

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know what is needed to explain all the complexity of the universe? Every scientific "explanation" raises new questions. No explanation has yet been offered for existence itself. Saying a Big Bang did it is hardly an expanation.

Interesting to note that William was a Franciscan friar. Amazing how these stupid Christians keep advancing human knowledge.

[Exsubmariner]

"How do you know what is needed to explain all the complexity of the universe? Every scientific "explanation" raises new questions. No explanation has yet been offered for existence itself. "

The same is true of every major religion in the world. The good ones keep bringing up new questions. They incorporate them into the dogma. It's called "mystery" and it keeps the masses coming back to fill the collection plate.
It seems you're really worried about these upstart guys called scientists butting into your racket, how dare they... whats worse, they are better at this word game than you are.
X

[David Sklansky]

"Interesting to note that William was a Franciscan friar. Amazing how these stupid Christians keep advancing human knowledge."

As I have said before, it was much more reasonable to be fervently religious hundreds of years ago.

Today however, if I am not mistaken, a much higher percentage of Jewish and Asian people go on to get Phds in this country than Christian People, especially (I think) in technical fields. (Don't get confused by that wording please. If 60% of the Phds go to Christians and 30% to Jews and Asians, the second category is at least five times as likely to get one).

The explanation for this is either that Christians are less intelligent or (more likely) that their faith makes them less curious about finding the truth about things since they think they basically already know it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The same is true of every major religion in the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was making is human knowledge is limited. You seem to be implying that man has explained everything, so we don't need God anymore.

So explain everything.

And by the way, I don't have a racquet.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The explanation for this is either that Christians are less intelligent or (more likely) that their faith makes them less curious about finding the truth about things since they think they basically already know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of a much better explanation but I'm not going to state it until you answer my questions.

[David Sklansky]

If you are talking about what I believe about life after death, the makings of the universe, and other stuff that science has yet little clue about, the answer is I believe nothing. I assign probabilities to various theories I have and none of thes probabilities are much greater than 50%.

[goofball]

Yes your god (almost) qualifies as one of the possibilities. My claim is that given what we know now there's certainly no reason to favor him over the possibility of no god.

Also, your god doesn't quite qualify. You stipulate that he cares about us being happy. Under only one circumstance could I see that being true, and that is if his hypothesis is somehow related to us being happy. Then even still he would be rooting to confirm his hypothesis and only indirectly for our happiness. Outside of the remote above exmple I see no reason why he would care about our happiness any more than I would care abotu that happiness of rats were I do to an experiment on them (or elementary particles, if they had feelings).

[Exsubmariner]

"So explain everything."

I don't have to. All I have to keep doing is tapping the glass.

X

[NotReady]

1) If a higher being exists and created us, why hasn't he contacted us.

2) Why do you think 7 and 8 are new?

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have said before, it was much more reasonable to be fervently religious hundreds of years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty commonly accepted. It basically pokes a bunch of huge holes in the "x old famous person was religous so I will be (or you should be)" crippling an argument that already blew as merely an appeal to authority.

[ QUOTE ]
The explanation for this is either that Christians are less intelligent or (more likely) that their faith makes them less curious about finding the truth about things since they think they basically already know it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why not one following the other? Nature vs. Nurture and use it or lose it arguments comign in to play.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't have to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do we.

Keep tapping.

[Exsubmariner]

Tu Chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think this is pretty commonly accepted. It basically pokes a bunch of huge holes in the "x old famous person was religous so I will be (or you should be)" crippling an argument that already blew as merely an appeal to authority.


[/ QUOTE ]

When did science explain existence? I missed that part. The mysteries we have today are easily as large and complex as the mysteries from hundreds and thousands of years ago. And atheists have been around as long as theists. If theists were being reasonable because of mystery, were atheists therefore unreasonable? If so, then the reasons for their atheism would still be unreasonable today.

The great myth of modern science is that science has answered any ultimate question about reality, let alone all of them. Every new law discovered exposes even more new mysteries.

The second great myth is that even if man hasn't yet become god, he someday will.

[David Sklansky]

1) If a higher being exists and created us, why hasn't he contacted us.

2) Why do you think 7 and 8 are new?

1. Who knows. Maybe because he can't. Maybe because there are trillions of different planets with conscious beings and none are that important to him. Maybe he DID. What he didn't do is tell anybody that believing in him is necessary to get to heaven.

2. I don't know if they are or not. We are talking here about being rewarded or punished soley because of the good minus the bad you have done regardless of your beliefs. Who espuouses that? Even if there was already such a religion, I doubt that they also espouse points 1-6.

By the way Not Ready, if you want to convert to Sklanskyanity, you don't have to give up your Jesus you know. Just don't use him as an subconscious excuse to be a bad boy.

[Exsubmariner]

"The second great myth is that even if man hasn't yet become god, he someday will."

What else could the great plan be? You know, the great plan God has for Man? The Great Plan that gives my life meaning. Is that plan that Man be happy and worship God? Don't you find that a rather unimaginative ambition for a great higher being? If that's it, I'm very underwhelmed.
Tap Tap Tap.
X

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Who knows. Maybe because he can't. Maybe because there are trillions of different planets with conscious beings and none are that important to him. Maybe he DID. What he didn't do is tell anybody that believing in him is necessary to get to heaven.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then by Occam's Razor(which I deny is some sort of magical, absolute law) why bring him into the picture at all? Who needs him? Further, if he hasn't contacted us, how do we know we've been good enough to merit reward? How do we even know what IS good?

[ QUOTE ]

Who espuouses that?


[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, start with Plato and work forward. You would probably get a similar answer from the majority of church goers in this country.

[ QUOTE ]

Just don't use him as an subconscious excuse to be a bad boy.


[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't understand Christianity do you?

As to the PhD thing, a more reasonable explanation is that legal immigrants tend to have more intelligence, drive, energy, motivation and curiosity than people who don't immigrate. Another is that both Asians and Jews have a background of deprivation, economically and socially, and thus have more motivation for advancement. The silly idea that faith stunts intellectual curiosity doesn't even amount to a bad guess.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't you find that a rather unimaginative ambition for a great higher being?


[/ QUOTE ]

You find the universe, man, human history unimaginative?

[Exsubmariner]

Sometimes.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't you find that a rather unimaginative ambition for a great higher being?


[/ QUOTE ]

You find the universe, man, human history unimaginative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not try to answer the question instead of trying to divert our attention?

GG

[goofball]

What has science done to benefit society?

What has religion done?


and I'm not going to engage you beyond that. Your posts demonstrate a mind that is so warped by fundamentalism as to be beyond repair

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What has science done to benefit society?


[/ QUOTE ]

Presented us with gunpowder, biological and nuclear weapons.

[ QUOTE ]

What has religion done?


[/ QUOTE ]

Established universities, hospitals and charitable institutions.

Your mind is so brainwashed by fundamental humanism as to be
almost beyond repair.

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you be goin dissin my religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love David Sklansky

[PairTheBoard]

It seems to me that David's thinking is a great example of how people have integrated the metaphors of science into their conceptual framework in an uncritical way. Applying the metaphor of a Scientist with an Antfarm to the Creator fits that conceptual framework. But applying the metaphors of "Love" or "Life" does not. imo, This effect Science has had on us has not enriched us. Just the opposite in fact.

PairTheBoard

[Girchuck]

Existence has no explanation. The mysteries of today are immensely more complex than mysteries of a thousand years ago. So what? Answering with "God did it" provides very poor explanation and stifles inquiry. Perhaps it is better to answer "We don't know" or even "We are not yet smart enough to find out". But we can get smarter.
Note the rapid accumulation of knowledge. It is now apparent that our knowledge about Universe accumulates exponentially, while if you look at some period a thousand years ago it is not at all apparent. If our knowledge about the Universe keeps accumulating so fast, there is no reason to predict with 100% accuracy that humans or our intellectual descendants will not be able to produce all the things attributed to the biblical deity and more. When the miracle of resurrection is as cheap as a cell phone plan, how many people will be impressed with Jesus?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Existence has no explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? That statement has all the earmarks of dogmatism. Even more important, if it is true then existence is irrational with all that implies.

[ QUOTE ]

The mysteries of today are immensely more complex than mysteries of a thousand years ago. So what? Answering with "God did it" provides very poor explanation and stifles inquiry.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know of no one who gives a simplistic "God did it" without more. Christians don't deny that God uses "natural" means. It stifles no inquiry.

[ QUOTE ]

there is no reason to predict with 100% accuracy that humans or our intellectual descendants will not be able to produce all the things attributed to the biblical deity and more.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said, man's dream is to be god. Cf Genesis.

[ QUOTE ]

When the miracle of resurrection is as cheap as a cell phone plan, how many people will be impressed with Jesus?


[/ QUOTE ]

Start small by creating something out of nothing or turning water into wine. Work up from there.

[bump]

[ QUOTE ]
"Interesting to note that William was a Franciscan friar. Amazing how these stupid Christians keep advancing human knowledge."

As I have said before, it was much more reasonable to be fervently religious hundreds of years ago.

Today however, if I am not mistaken, a much higher percentage of Jewish and Asian people go on to get Phds in this country than Christian People, especially (I think) in technical fields. (Don't get confused by that wording please. If 60% of the Phds go to Christians and 30% to Jews and Asians, the second category is at least five times as likely to get one).

The explanation for this is either that Christians are less intelligent or (more likely) that their faith makes them less curious about finding the truth about things since they think they basically already know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that they aren't seeking higher education. Christians are NOT as intelligent as Asians or Jews.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Existence has no explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know this? That statement has all the earmarks of dogmatism. Even more important, if it is true then existence is irrational with all that implies.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know that. I really don't know that existance has no explanation. I am just not satisfied with your explanation or any other ones currently on the market.

[ QUOTE ]

The mysteries of today are immensely more complex than mysteries of a thousand years ago. So what? Answering with "God did it" provides very poor explanation and stifles inquiry.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I know of no one who gives a simplistic "God did it" without more. Christians don't deny that God uses "natural" means. It stifles no inquiry.


[/ QUOTE ]
Christians are obligated to accept reality just like other sane people. It is only when the answers in dispute, uncertain, without explanation, or non-existant, that you drag out god as your explanation. I am saying that we don't know (yet?).

[ QUOTE ]



there is no reason to predict with 100% accuracy that humans or our intellectual descendants will not be able to produce all the things attributed to the biblical deity and more.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As I've said, man's dream is to be god. Cf Genesis.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are most likely correct about that dream. But man cannot be god. Man is too limited and lacks room for growth. If a man finds a way to be god, man will cease to be man
[ QUOTE ]

When the miracle of resurrection is as cheap as a cell phone plan, how many people will be impressed with Jesus?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Start small by creating something out of nothing or turning water into wine. Work up from there.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Something is created out of nothing all the time. Do a search on virtual particles. Water into wine transformation is really unnecessary. The vine farmers will cry foul. They produce enough of it as it is. Wine is just spoiled grape juice anyway. Forget the cheap parlor tricks. If you dream to be god, you got to think big

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
The explanation for this is either that Christians are less intelligent or (more likely) that their faith makes them less curious about finding the truth about things since they think they basically already know it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never seen any evidence for the former, but the latter I think is likely. While I'm not necessarily convinced it's the main reason, I can't imagine it doesn't have more than just a minor effect.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
The silly idea that faith stunts intellectual curiosity doesn't even amount to a bad guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that this is a silly idea. If you think you have the "answers" already why would you search for them?

[obsidian]

I believe it was the pope that told Steven Hawkings not to look the events before the big bang because that is the time of God so yea I could see this as being partially true.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you think you have the "answers" already why would you search for them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think I think I have the "answers"? Which "answers"?