|
|
#32
09-10-2005, 10:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
Ick, I looked at a bit of your "evidence" which essentially boils down to:
"a lot of improbable stuff happens that is hard or impossible to explain through our current scientific understanding," so G-d did it. You provide statistics that are at best guesses, do not consider the probability of improbable events being much more likely to occur given a longer time frame, and generally selectively apply science and reason for the eventual conclusion that G-d must exists. You consider no strong counterarguments against any points you've made either. You've basically just referred us to a bunch of lame pages with specious reasoning that I doubt you yourself strongly understand or you'd make the arguments rather than referring us to all the "scientific evidence that G-d exists" nonsense on the net. And I'm not saying that he, she, it doesn't exist. Your evidence is logically flawed in the exact same way that intelligent design is flawed. If you can't explain something, someone (a conscious entity) must have used its volition to make it occur. Ok, I finally figured out the logical fallacy here. This argument is one of a false dilemna. The essential binary proposition here, by inference, that there is either evidence to explain all the difficult to explain or unexplainable events, trends, etc. in the universe or G-d did it. It's a binary situation that you've presented a priori with no evidence. The choice of explanations is also completely arbitrary. I could say instead of G-d, my dog did it if you can't explain it. Does this sound ludicrous? It should. And it's equally ludicrous to using G-d as the explanatory garbage disposal for every unexplained table scrap. One major problem here is an epistemological one. Knowledge is not constant. Many arguments to which you've alluded involve a lack of explanability about things we cannot currently explain, much like eclipse events in the past were considered the work of god(s) and now it's known to be the result of natural positioning of heavenly bodies. I don't begrudge you your obvious beliefs. I believe everyone is entitled to them. However, I find your arguments, sloppy, misleading and insufficient to prove your cause to the point of zealous irresponsibility. I suspect there are some fantastic religious scholars with which I would have much better agreement, probably most of them. At the same time, I find it impossible to prove there is no G-d. So, I just don't try. It's all faith-dependent and in such matters, logic doesn't apply (which was a point I tried to make in my previous post, but you chose to ignore its obviousness because you didn't want to believe it in the apparent pretense that your belief was logically-based). Your belief, in short, is completely unreasonable, but so is all faith, including belief in the material world, the scientific process, and the self. My mind is biased to believe in many of these things (at least I believe so) to make day to day functioning possible and I choose not to challenge these beliefs. I suspect you do the same with your own beliefs. benkahuna "Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog." :P Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog. 
|
|
#33
09-10-2005, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Freeman Dyson speaks
[ QUOTE ]
Nice Straw Man. [/ QUOTE ] Nope. No straw men allowed here. Here's the relevant text from Freeman Dyosn's acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize (from your link) : "The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence." Good speech, nonetheless. But here's the Mick Jagger/Keith Richards rebuttal again. (Summary: If we accept that something is incredibly improbable to have happened at all, then that should not mean that intention behind the event is rendered more credible. Monod's position remains absolutely correct.) Even great minds stumble and fall. (Or maybe only great minds. The average mind is usually lying flat down in the mundane gutter.)
|
|
#34
09-10-2005, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
|
|
#35
09-11-2005, 12:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
Hahaha. Reminds me of my guerrillanewsnetwork posting days. You are one wacky dude.
Revelations is some wacky stuff. Fitting current events into the context of making it true is up there with astrology and any other vague prediction and finding ways to confirm it. At least it's a level above Nostradamus because he's constantly misinterpreted and mistranslated. Is your point that G-d must exist because people have found ways in which current events might have been predicted by revelations? Using the same "rigorous" methodology, I could prove that the number 12 is evil and that the smartest person that will ever live will be born on September 26, 2008. It's such an arbitrary point that it's laughable. Maybe you'll use the nifty rhetorical technique that I misinterpreted you (because you were intitially vague), or better yet, that you Revelations predicted I would respond this way!!! Even serious religious scholars are a bit embarrassed by Revelations. Kind of hard to laugh at it when Evangelic Protestants and the Bush administration take it seriously and base foreign policy upon it though. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] If SOLLOG, Delmart Vreeland, Revelations, Umberto Eco, Grant Morrison, Dan Brown, and Nostradamus all made a bunch of predictions about how the world would end as predicted by the Mayan calender in 2012, which one would be correct?
|
|
#37
09-11-2005, 01:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
[ QUOTE ]
Becoming a Christian does not mean that all doubts and questions cease. Reasonable faith is required. But as the Bible promises, faith brings assurance. [/ QUOTE ] That's the most reasonable thing you've said so far. Studies have shown any faith, Christian or not leads to happier, healthy lives. Why buy into your particular BS when there are so many other interesting systems of BS out there? Lemme put it another way. You're not on the verge of saving my soul here. You didn't address with my quibbles with your evidence and logic. Does that mean that I won? (ridiculousness of winning anything on an internet forum notwithstanding...)
|
|
#38
09-11-2005, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freeman Dyson speaks
How is that you think your Jagger example is analogous to what Dyson is saying? When Dyson says something like this,
Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom it is not the apparent unlikelihood of the event which amazes him. Dyson is talking about undeniable quantum peculiarities which can be observed in a lab, not some nonsense about the probability of past events. Now, right or wrong, some scientists claim that wavefunction collapse is an even stranger phenomenon than the rockingness of "Satisfaction." But Dyson doesn't go so far as to argue that bizarreness is the quality which betokens God. Rather, he believes that the apparent "intentionality" implies a sort of intelligence. But he is careful not to draw a firm conclusion, stating only that this position is not at odds with the evidence. Dyson never implies that improbability implies intention (the view which you ascribe to him). Dyson would, in fact, find this argument unnecessary, due to his belief that intention is manifest in particle behavior. If Monod argues thusly, [ QUOTE ] If we accept that something is incredibly improbable to have happened at all, then that should not mean that intention behind the event is rendered more credible. [/ QUOTE ] then the schism between Monod and Dyson, which you are trying to create, simply does not exist; they are not talking about the same thing, unless you infer something more than I do from this comment: The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind.
|
|
#39
09-11-2005, 02:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
[ QUOTE ]
Hahaha. Reminds me of my guerrillanewsnetwork posting days. You are one wacky dude. Revelations is some wacky stuff. Fitting current events into the context of making it true is up there with astrology and any other vague prediction and finding ways to confirm it. At least it's a level above Nostradamus because he's constantly misinterpreted and mistranslated. [/ QUOTE ] Actually if one studies Revelations they would find it quite interesting, and much more complex than astrology. [ QUOTE ] Is your point that G-d must exist because people have found ways in which current events might have been predicted by revelations? [/ QUOTE ] Is your point that it is illogical to believe in religion from an eschatoligcal point of view, and also illogical to believe in religion from a historical point of view (like txag007), therefore it's illogical to believe in religion at all? [ QUOTE ] Using the same "rigorous" methodology, I could prove that the number 12 is evil and that the smartest person that will ever live will be born on September 26, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] I await to see this. [ QUOTE ] It's such an arbitrary point that it's laughable. Maybe you'll use the nifty rhetorical technique that I misinterpreted you (because you were intitially vague), or better yet, that you Revelations predicted I would respond this way!!! [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, why would the Book of Revelations concern itself with you specifically? [ QUOTE ] Even serious religious scholars are a bit embarrassed by Revelations. [/ QUOTE ] Don't forget the Catholic church dismiss it as holding no eschatological basis, and that it only serves as an insight to the lives of Christians under Nero. Also Ahmed Deedat, now deceased Muslim apologist dismissed the book as a "dream", to which considering his impact on the Muslim community many Muslims would agree with him I would think. And Martin Luther placed the book in the appendix of the German bible, and apparently wasn't fond of it. [ QUOTE ] Kind of hard to laugh at it when Evangelic Protestants and the Bush administration take it seriously and base foreign policy upon it though. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] One must always be wary of people in positions of power. I also can't find any proof that the Bush administration takes the book seriously and bases foreign policy on it. Although I did find mention of Bush saying he was a Christian and telling America "angels" were on the side of the US in the fight between good and evil. Did you mean that? [ QUOTE ] If SOLLOG, Delmart Vreeland, Revelations, Umberto Eco, Grant Morrison, Dan Brown, and Nostradamus all made a bunch of predictions about how the world would end as predicted by the Mayan calender in 2012, which one would be correct? [/ QUOTE ] The book of Revelations doesn't state the year in which the world would end specifically IIRC, are you sure you have read it? Cheers, SDM
|
|
#40
09-11-2005, 02:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is there a God? If there is, does Sklansky believe in Him?
[ QUOTE ]
Actually if one studies Revelations they would find it quite interesting, and much more complex than astrology. [/ QUOTE ] More complicated BS, no thanks. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Is your point that G-d must exist because people have found ways in which current events might have been predicted by revelations? [/ QUOTE ] Is your point that it is illogical to believe in religion from an eschatoligcal point of view, and also illogical to believe in religion from a historical point of view (like txag007), therefore it's illogical to believe in religion at all? [/ QUOTE ] Answer my question first. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Using the same "rigorous" methodology, I could prove that the number 12 is evil and that the smartest person that will ever live will be born on September 26, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] I await to see this. [/ QUOTE ] You'll be waiting a very long time. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's such an arbitrary point that it's laughable. Maybe you'll use the nifty rhetorical technique that I misinterpreted you (because you were intitially vague), or better yet, that you Revelations predicted I would respond this way!!! [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, why would the Book of Revelations concern itself with you specifically? [/ QUOTE ] It wouldn't. You miss my point. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Even serious religious scholars are a bit embarrassed by Revelations. [/ QUOTE ] Don't forget the Catholic church dismiss it as holding no eschatological basis, and that it only serves as an insight to the lives of Christians under Nero. Also Ahmed Deedat, now deceased Muslim apologist dismissed the book as a "dream", to which considering his impact on the Muslim community many Muslims would agree with him I would think. And Martin Luther placed the book in the appendix of the German bible, and apparently wasn't fond of it. [/ QUOTE ] TY for the additional info. I was aware that many religious groups had distanced themselves from the work, but not the specifics. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Kind of hard to laugh at it when Evangelic Protestants and the Bush administration take it seriously and base foreign policy upon it though. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] One must always be wary of people in positions of power. I also can't find any proof that the Bush administration takes the book seriously and bases foreign policy on it. Although I did find mention of Bush saying he was a Christian and telling America "angels" were on the side of the US in the fight between good and evil. Did you mean that? [/ QUOTE ] Agreed about people in positions of power. There's more. There was a New York Times Magazine article about much of his presidential decision-making. There are a number of articles about how he rewards his evangelical protestant base. I'd dig some up, but I consider unlikley you'd read them. Many articles out there... [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If SOLLOG, Delmart Vreeland, Revelations, Umberto Eco, Grant Morrison, Dan Brown, and Nostradamus all made a bunch of predictions about how the world would end as predicted by the Mayan calender in 2012, which one would be correct? [/ QUOTE ] The book of Revelations doesn't state the year in which the world would end specifically IIRC, are you sure you have read it? [/ QUOTE ] It's a joke. I was talking about the veracity of predictions from a myriad of strange sources with uncommon worldviews.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
