05 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettThere are two ways of looking at this :-
I understand what you're saying. But I don't think anyone is capable of actually behaving that way, despite their claims to do so. Unless you mean that it's possible for you to entertain two mutually incompatible concepts as a purely intellectual excercise. Anyone could do that. I could argue a theistic position if I chose. But I would not believe it.
THE PRACTICAL
When we analyse things we use various mental tools to do the job. An analogy is using several computer programs to perform a computing task.
If we could create a 'mental construct' or personality that has the characteristics of supra-agnostism then just like a particular program we could run some concepts through it and see how they fair.
We have only to imagine or theorise what a personality may be like that has the characteristics of suspended belief i.e neither disbelief or belief, give it the tools of a knowledge base and we have an unbiased analytical tool.
To maintain sanity one requires other constructs as well of course such as reality reference constructs and constructs to house other aspects of the personality.
THE IDEALISTIC
It is an easy matter to take a view on one side of the fence or another (any fence) and then use that as a basis from which you analyse the world. But any pre-conceptions that you work from bias your ability to objectively analyse the concept or indeed subjectively analyse it from someone elses point of view which can often sheds new information on a problem.
Even though it is hard to achieve if not impossible for a sustained period the state of supraagnostism is an ideal to aim for to gain the truest picture of the world that is possible.
Often it is hard to achieve other states of mind and behaviour and other ideals but that does not mean we should not try to achieve them.
The first stage in attempting something (for example a world withouit crime or a free state of mental objectivity) is to percieve what this may be like. I have defined the nature of supraagnostism and now I have to achieve it on a more regular basis.
Of course it is a paradox ultimately as by its own definition it can not really be achieved but the paradox can be circumvented for periods of time.
In the ultimate state of objectivity you are intellectually superior to any non objective state of mind, atheism, theism and agnostic included.
In all things one must aspire to be the best that can be percieved and the best that can be percieved that i have encountered when it comes to objective analysis is supraagnostism.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfault
This opens up a whole new and interesting conversation about how people travel from agnostic or 'young' positions to the two entrenched areas and the fact that the paths that are followed are changing rapidly but that is yet another debate.
I do agree with that statement, however I am not convinced that athiests simply convert to theism and follow that up with say, a path to Christianity, simply based on reason. I do believe Theists that lose their belief in God, do so at a slow pace (most of the time). Either way, the only people I know that have converted to Christianity (athiests) have been those through rapid transformation. Simply put, you either believe in God, or you don't (or atleast that is my view).
But I did some research and it reawakened a theory of mine about gods existence being provable (or not) statistically by observation of the world and thus I used it as a launching platform hoping to attract those who also have been caught up in the storm of publicity and contraversy that has been created by it. Opus Dei for example have a section about it on their home page!
Hmm, perhaps you may be correct. Read a recent article written by a professor of Theology regarding how philosophers have been embarrassed to discuss God ever since Kant, however he claimed Science was constantly proving God's existance. Interesting read, however I don't believe (from a Christian point of view) that God can be proven to exist. Ofcourse there are many scientific views that point to 'a' God, however as the Christian faith is based on 'faith', I would be very surprised if a 'Christian' God allowed us to prove His existance.
If it were true in any signficant part do you think it would prove the non existance of God or do you think it can be true and God could still exist?
There is no such thing as 'proof'. One can argue that in a certain framework one can prove a statement, however there is no framework to contain God, as such there can exist no proof for or against God. One can argue "only God could have created this", however that still does not 'prove' God's existence.
Some astronomers believe Newton's law of gravity is flawed (see Pioneer anomaly), others believe Einstein's theory of relativity (based on his rejection of 'Ether' , the hypothetical substance through which light waves were believed to propogate) is flawed. Either way this is just the tip of the iceberg. Athiests will reject any evidence for God claiming the witty "whodunnit" phrase, which theists will see the footprints. Any person that devotes their lives and belief on what is currently considered 'proof', well, is rather silly. It merely takes a glance at our history to scare one off that path.
So no, I don't see atheists altering their faith purely based on 'proof'.
cheers
pc
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672
I always believed in God. The universe is too complex and too ordered to not have been designed intellgently. So my response to you is that faith came first. Now onto the scientific bit. There are only four things in the entire universe that we know - know as fact. Everything else is a model. I. Energy is conserved. II. Matter is conserved. II ...[text shortened]... as long to evolve to this point as it has. I regret that I do not have the cite handy.)
Hi in response to your post
>>>“I always believed in God. The universe is too complex and too ordered to not have been designed intellgently. So my response to you is that faith came first.”
That means that with faith established you are now looking to prove the faith, so it probably biases you thinking, you will tend to look at science that confirms your belief and be quick to dismiss that which appears to contradict your belief, faith is a very valuable commodity to protect and the personality is inclined to go through hoops to preserve it.
While I agree the universe is complex and ordered we have nothing else to compare it with, maybe a universe that is created by a god would be better, less suffering and pain, fewer tsunamis more luck and happiness. If I designed the universe it would certainly be improved in several areas as indeed would be the case if any human designed it.
If the universe were not as complex and ordered would we have this debate and I would be saying ‘because the universe is not complex and ordered’ it must have been designed unintelligently? What is the scale of measurement at what point does intelligence kick in and randomness kick out or is the fact that a universe exists at all even though it is a very basic universe (just one atom or something) imply that there must be a God?
This statement is not objective and is the same as saying.. I look around and feel their must be a God because I can look around. I could equally say I look around and feel their must be fifty Gods because I can look around or there is no god because I look around and see pain and suffering.
>>>“There are only four things in the entire universe that we know - know as fact. Everything else is a model. I. Energy is conserved. II. Matter is conserved. III. Energy and matter are interchangeable. IV. The universe tends toward disorder.”
How do we know these as facts… how do YOU know these are fact? Have you done the experiments personally? Most of these facts were not known even 100 years ago.
I don’t want to dispute these laws of physics individually and I am happy to take them on trust. But that is ALL I do and that is ALL you do. You take it on the same trust that the ninth - eleventh century peasants used to take it on trust that if they thought this way and voiced laws not given them by the church they would go to hell as heretics.
>>>” My interest and my proof for God lie within these laws. What these laws say to me is that everyone of us is eternal, everyone one of us has been a part of the universe since its beginning, and we will be with it for all eternity. And if this was always here, then at the Big Bang, conditions were present that allowed us to spring into existence.”
Energy and matter are not complexity and pattern. While the energy/matter that makes up our physical form may well have existed in some form since and maybe before the big bang (if we trust your laws). What we are is not just matter and energy and will not exist in the same form after our bodies are destroyed (souls notwithstanding).
During our life it is possible that with cell renewal our energy/matter changes completely in any case so we as ‘patterns’ have no particular tie to any lump of energy or matter that might compose us for a fleeting moment of time. I understand we grow a completely new skeleton every 10 years or something like that.
We as entities are an ‘integral’ of matter which is an ‘integral’ of energy and the laws of patterns are not evidently the laws of energy and matter. Pattern is not conserved for example.
>>>” So I'm goig to take the middle road. I suppose I strongly believe that I have proof for my own eternity, in whatever form that takes”
I see your point but do you really exist if you are hot plasma? Certainly not as the human you were and your matter is a suit that has been worn by countless people before you. Eternity can not be related to energy and matter it must relate to a higher concept the concept of pattern. Perhaps the concept of Soul? Soul by definition will not require energy and matter because if it can only manifest in matter then there simply will not be enough to go round if all souls manifest at the same time.
>.”, and a strong belief that we were willfully created.”
This is belief not proof, as a side issue my concern is really IF we were what does this ‘will’ that created us actually want with us but that is another debate.
>>” Too many things have gone right for the development of the universe to not have been guided. (Mathematicians have shown that were the events in our history truly random, the universe would have taken a trillion times as long to evolve to this point as it has. I regret that I do not have the cite handy.)”
This is the anthropic principle (spelling is probably wrong). Basically if things did not ‘go right’ we would not be here to witness they has gone right. By definition if you are here to observe that the universe has luckily created you it HAS luckily created you otherwise you would not be here to be able observe this fact.
There could be an trillion trillion failures before chance threw up this universe and we would never know.
If you shake ten dice and only when you get ten sixes will a genie appear and that genie can not look back in time (or even understand the die throwing mechanism) then when it appears it will marvel that its universe has ten sixes. It would have no knowledge of the 1000s of aborted attempts before it existed.
Mathematics, and I know some of the references you are referring to, is not proof either particularly when the maths is working WITHIN the closed system of reality it is trying measure.
Fundamentally I think you have a subjective feeling, a belief in a creator for various complex personality issues you do not fully understand. May be a full psycho-analysis would reveal where this faith comes from in your development and the way you have come to perceive the world, but I don’t think you have objective proof or at least you have not listed it here in enough detail to convince me yet.
Finally though I should say that I also have that feeling, it is compartmentalised and controlled and is effectively a sub-personality that I indulge myself with on occasion.
I also use it as one of my two ongoing projects to seek out God, If I can fully understand that sub-personality and remove or explain all mundane influences that compose it and it still feels that God exists maybe I have found some point of influence that can only be attributed to God. I paraphrase a complicated psychological experiment but I hope you get the gist.
Thanks and best regards,
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672oh dear seem to have struck a nerve here....
You know what, you condescending, disaffected, androgynous, pseudo-intellectual twit? I'm usually pretty circumspect and even-handed, but you talked down to me, so you're getting it both barrels. I'm not engaging in a point-by-point refutation of your absurd analysis - you're just as bad as those rednecks from my country who post here. Don't you ...[text shortened]... in that same pasty white it's been your whole life, and for God's sake, stay out of the gym!
Not my intention at all.
Condescending....hmmm... ok not intentional just an aguementative style no personal insult intended and slightly mortified that you thought I was being condescending.
Disaffected... disaffected in what way and in what context? do you mean discontented or disloyal or is it just a barb that seemed appropriatte.
Androgynous as in a hermaphrodite? I.e I have sex with myself or perhaps I argue with myself.. self obessed... yes I can see something in that insult.
Pseudo-intellectual ... as in false or not really an intellectual. I can see how you would propose this from my extremely paraphrased theories but dig deeper and you will find they go all the way down. i am more then happy to discuss what is an is not an intellectual although the label is irrelevant to me.
twit... very restrained considering the strength of your apparent feeling I would have gone for twat at least;-)
Thanks for both barrels, it was NOT my intention to talk down to you merely to talk to you. we obviously have a cross wire.
I dont see why you can't focus on at least on or two points that you feel more confident with and aploogise if i appear redneck (i thought this was a term for southern white lowly eductated christian bigot so not at all appropriatte as far as i can see)
For your information I dont where turtlenecks, drink latte (particularly) I dont have particularly pasty white skin and i do frequent the gym occasionaly (adventure sports are more my thing though).
Though I see where your comming from in the analogy and it does paint a certain picture which I must admit is amusing.
Now you have all that off your chest you can rest assured that your double barrelled attack had signficantly less affect on me then the fact I cause you enough distress to launch it.
Obviously my skills as an debater need tuning at least in your respect.
Can I apologise and can we start again perhaps with a narrower remit... you choose.
Feel free to lambast me again if I step out of line and become to pretentious or condensending it is the only way I will learn and I mean that scincerely.
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672No problems and thank you for accepting my apology.
Thank you for your apology, after your response to me it's clear that I misinterpreted your intentions and message.
Basically what stoked my ire is that you told me that I should be psychoanalyzed for holding the beliefs that I do, and it got on my nerves that you kept referring to me as "the personality". I do not need to be psychoanalyzed, but ...[text shortened]... 'm not taking wild leaps into ridiculous theocratic assertions, just stating facts.
I was being somewhat extreme when I questioned the physical laws that you mention.
Asuming they are true (and indeed if any laws are true they stand the best chance of being them) it is indeed true for the life of this universe energy in its many forms is conserved.
Energy/matter is reused a million times, the same molecule of water in my left finger has been in the bodies of 1000s of people going back through time and will be in the bodies of 1000s more until the end of time.
That accepted do you not think there must be another 'media' to contain our unique pattern. The way energy and matter are shaped to represent me and you, in the basic form of our bodies in the more advanced form our minds?
For our identities to be preserved would this media not have to be not composed of energy/matter and not follow the same rules? If not with entrophy all patterns lost as the universe tends to less complexity over very long periods of time and we end up with a universal plasma all at the same energy level with no pattern in it at all.
Then again there does appear to be a tendency to complexity as well as we were not around at the time of the big bang and we are by far the most complex structure in the universe (that we know of), is there another law that describes how life comes about as it seems counter to entropy and your fifth law that 'The universe tends toward disorder.'
Life appears to bring order and structure to the universe.
07 Jan 05
Originally posted by kcamsRoar, mighty lion, roar. Rebel against the great dragon. No more are you a camel, but have you become a child?
the logic behind my atheism is that i see no need of God.
i don't require him to create the heavens and the earth, i don't need him to create man or to define the rules by which man lives.
all that any devine figure represents to me is an outmoded set of beliefs that were created by man in order to give meaning and direction to his life. now that som ...[text shortened]... detect it. there is no requirement for God other than peoples need for him, but i have no need.