The Six Questions

[brainconduit]

So this is a continuation of the old thread "Religion & Irreligion - what's the difference?"
It was starting to heat up really well, but what with me getting busy I don't have much time. So I'm restarting the thread focusing on the original six question (below). Given the fact I have presented my case for point (1) I will continue with point (2) however I may first respond to Th1sWasATriumph points on omnipotence and logic.

1. What is your perception of God in terms of power, intervention in the world, etc?

2. What do you believe happens to those who don't believe in God - are you of the "hell awaits sinners" flavour, or the more comfy "God isn't about that kind of thing" perspective?

3. How could you prove God? And why do you personally believe in God, what events led to this and so on?

4. From my experience, it's impossible to prove God via methods that offer clear evidence in line with the scientific method (at least, the proofs I've been offered never stand up to the scientific method). As someone who is clearly scientifically minded, how can you reconcile the empirical rational method of looking at the world - of only going by proof, experiment, logic and quantification - with belief something that can't be proved, measured or detected?

5. What reasons would you give that, to you, explain why there HAS to be a God? (Kind of similar to 3., but meh.)

6. Last one for now . . . what are your arguments against Gods other than your own?

 

[brainconduit]

The function of most living creatures is pretty shoddy and could be improved upon in many ways; if God created us, it wouldn't be illogical to create us better.

I think it is with this statement that I understand a bit better where you are going (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Your issue is that you don't understand God's balance between being all-powerful and all-loving... I remember being at school and people wanting to pick fights with me, however I chose not to. Did this make me any less powerful? No it was my decision and I believe it was the right one, however other minds/people could not understand me. So I have no problem drawing an analogy with this and between me and God. I can understand that if you do not believe in God then this analogy may not make any sense whatsoever.

 

[CrysaniaIV]

brainconduit said:

I can understand that if you do not believe in God then this analogy may not make any sense whatsoever.

This statement is self-fulfilling. If anyone challenges your analogy, you can resort to this statement by saying that you clearly stated that disbelief in god may affect you ability to understand the analogy you used. It shouldn't matter if you believe in god or not, your analogy should make sense to virtually anyone. The primary purpose for most analogies is to make a point clearer to someone who doesn't already agree with you.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think it is with this statement that I understand a bit better where you are going (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Your issue is that you don't understand God's balance between being all-powerful and all-loving.

That's dumb. If I am all power, and all loving, I would not create pain and suffering. No sane being would create suffering under those circumstances, and no being who is all powerful would create suffering unless it were hateful and/or insane.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

I think it is with this statement that I understand a bit better where you are going (but please correct me if I'm wrong). Your issue is that you don't understand God's balance between being all-powerful and all-loving... I remember being at school and people wanting to pick fights with me, however I chose not to. Did this make me any less powerful? No it was my decision and I believe it was the right one, however other minds/people could not understand me. So I have no problem drawing an analogy with this and between me and God. I can understand that if you do not believe in God then this analogy may not make any sense whatsoever.

No, my point is that proof for God is often seen in the "design" and complexity of living things, which I always see as a bad argument considering how much room for improvement there is in living things.

I also don't think you can draw a comparison between people not understanding your decision not to fight, and people not understanding God. And whilst it's easy to say "if you don't believe in God, it won't make sense" you HAVE to make it make sense. Otherwise you fall into circular reasoning. You are in a position where you don't need to supply proof or argument, as you personally believe in God; I don't believe in God. You can't use an argument on an atheist that only functions from within the box of your personal faith.
And, of course, we're told that hell awaits nonbelievers. If you want to save me from hell, make the argument work . . !

-T

 

[AndromedasWake]

Hi brainconduit, something I posted on the old board just before it was all closed up, regarding your signature:

"If God can fit an oak tree into a acorn, why can't he put the Universe inside a singularity"

Whoever you're quoting seems to have misunderstood the nature of a singularity. There is no consensus that the universe was "inside a singularity", moreover the phrase is actually meaningless. The term applies to a region of solutions from general relativity where certain values do not have real or meaningful limits. The geodesics on your spacetime are no longer smooth at a singularity.

Furthermore, an oak tree does not fit into an acorn. Almost all of the matter - the "stuff" - that makes up trees is taken from air, not the ground or the seed itself.

In this way, the two are not really analogous, because the idea of drawing something from outside the universe to add to things inside it is without scientific merit. Our universe does not have a physical boundary containing a definite volume like the seed.

 

[Aught3]

^I don't know that it's meant to be taken that literally.

Are we really a way for the cosmos to know itself?
It seems to me quotes are a poetic way of concisely conveying a viewpoint. The overall message of brainconduit's quote or yours (or mine) is quick to grasp, tells us something about the person, and perhaps gets us to think about the topic in a new way. Of course that doesn't stop it from being plain wrong, but sometimes that's half the point.

 

[GoodKat]

I would really like to know what you say to people who know in their heart that what you know in your heart is wrong, and how you could possibly think that such "knowledge" is just as important as the knowledge that created the smallpox vaccine, modern farming techniques, and the computer you type on.

 

[GegoXAREN]

I would really like to know what you say to people who know in their heart that what you know in your heart is wrong, and how you could possibly think that such "knowledge" is just as important as the knowledge that created the smallpox vaccine, modern farming techniques, and the computer you type on.

emmmmmmm...

WUT?

"knowing in your hart" -- The hart does not know any thing, it is just a blood pump...

if you think you know some one knows that there wrong... I will not even go in to that stupidity, it is so logically wrong, that it makes me do 10 *head desk*'s in a row....

 

[Personal SinR]

^I don't know that it's meant to be taken that literally.

Are we really a way for the cosmos to know itself?
It seems to me quotes are a poetic way of concisely conveying a viewpoint. The overall message of brainconduit's quote or yours (or mine) is quick to grasp, tells us something about the person, and perhaps gets us to think about the topic in a new way. Of course that doesn't stop it from being plain wrong, but sometimes that's half the point.

I think Andromeda'sWake was just pointing out that Brainconduit's signature doesn't really mean anything. What it attempts to do is compare one thing to another to show how powerful the god is. However, as Andromeda states, both examples are complete misconceptions. He's actually doing Brain a favor, as it is kind of silly to sport something like that. Does anyone really want to have a tag that advertises ignorance to make a point? Hah, it's like walking around with your fly open.

As for the Carl Sagan quote, this is the only real reason I had to step in. That quote is beautiful. What it means is that we are comprised of atoms that were formed in stars. It is only once these atoms are arranged in the particular "human" pattern that, together, they become self aware and aware of the world around them (aka, the brain/mind). Poetic yes, and still it makes more sense than the acorn/singularity quote.

While both quotes attempt to establish a point, one fails and one pulls through perfectly.

 

[Personal SinR]

@Brainconduit

I'd like to add a question to your list if you don't mind.

When you see other believers out there that do not believe the same religion as you, such as a Muslim, or Jew, or even others outside the Abrahamic religions, how do you view them?

1. Do you think they are wrong or following a false god/prophet?
2. Do you worry that perhaps they are following the right religion and you are not?

I don't want to make a long list, so I'll stop there. I am curious on how you react to other believer's since a core part of their religions are faith as well.

 

[Aught3]

While both quotes attempt to establish a point, one fails and one pulls through perfectly.

So you agree the quotes accurately reflect their respective poster's positions? :lol:

I think Andromeda'sWake was just pointing out that Brainconduit's signature doesn't really mean anything.

Well my signature doesn't really mean anything it just makes a quirky point. I suspect that's what Brain's going for. I still recognise the symmetry in the words he uses even if I think they're utterly meaningless. A quote I am quite fond of is 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. Now I don't think that angels are real but that doesn't affect my appreciation of the poetry or the point. Surely Brain has a reason for using those words, if he feels they elaborate his position or his way of thinking then I am all for it.

As for the Carl Sagan quote,... That quote is beautiful. What it means is that we are comprised of atoms that were formed in stars. It is only once these atoms are arranged in the particular "human" pattern that, together, they become self aware and aware of the world around them

I can see you and I are in agreement on this. I actually first heard this quote from a different source, they are so similar I suspect one is based on the other (I'm pretty sure Sagan came up with it first, though). Anyway the other version is one of my all time favourite quotes. If I take it literally I don't know that I believe we are a way for the cosmos to know itself, but I would never take it that literally to begin with.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Sagan is indeed the original source of that quote. It dates back to his script for Cosmos.

I personally believe it wholeheartedly and will defend it from anyone who dismisses it as merely poetry. Most of the Earth was created in stars, some supernovae, some population III supernovae (about 12 billion years ago). Now after all this time, these elements and the laws of physics have conspired to give birth to us; a species so advanced that we can look back up at where we came from and unravel the mystery of how it happened.

To me, it's like a book: the most magnificent story every told, suddenly growing eyes and a brain and being able to read itself.

My point with brainconduit's quote is that it does not stand up poetically or scientifically. Sagan's quote is accurate and, in my opinion, poetic and extremely profound - certainly the most inspiring quote I've ever read. But bc's quote horribly undermines what we know both about the origin of trees and the origin of the Universe. It is not accurate about either. Neither are the two analogous in any way. It sets up the scene as though the Universe originating from a small initial state is ridiculous and then reminds you "ah, but if God can put a tree in an acorn, then surely He can make the Universe very small". All I can say to that is, "Well, duh!".

Could you give me the author of the quote bc? I'm interested to know if a scientifically literate individual said it, or (as I suspect) whether it could only be the work of a theologian! :lol:

Sorry for majorly hijacking this topic!

 

[Aught3]

I hope you're not too sorry, this is the most interesting conversation on these forums atm.

Now, I would never dismiss anything as merely poetry; poetry is most important to me. I love beautiful ideas but I love it even more when they are woven into the fabric of beautiful words. If anything, I can be accused of doing the opposite, because something is poetical I would like to believe it has, at least, some meaning. Perhaps I have once again stumbled into that trap.

'we are star-stuff' is fine as far as it goes; 'we are a way for the cosmos to know itself' is fine as far as it goes. The statement itself is too short to contain detail or imply limitations. All we can know is what it means to us. I suspect we draw (slightly) different value from it due to differing levels of knowledge. I think us being here, existing is unlikely, even mysterious but random. I don't think the elements and the laws of physics literally conspired to give birth to us - but I like the way you put it.

brainconduit's quote is that it does not stand up poetically

True, it's rubbish (to me) all it has is a certain symmetry; I'm not convinced he's even actually quoted someone.

or scientifically

Well, an acorn doesn't contain all the energy or atoms necessary to make an oak, but it does supply the instructions. In a world of abundant sunlight and soil all you need to make a giant oak is contained within a small acorn. With God as nature personified, I don't think the first half is too much of a stretch. You'd know better for the second half than I would. You say all the matter in the universe couldn't fit into a singularity but could a set of physical laws, enough to shape the universe, have existed inside? I have no idea, it doesn't sound particularly persuasive, but it made me think.

Oh, btw I've had Demon haunted world on my wishlist for a while can anyone here recommend it and get me off the fence?

 

[Personal SinR]

I don't want to derail this thread anymore, but:

Oh, btw I've had Demon haunted world on my wishlist for a while can anyone here recommend it and get me off the fence?

Get it!

 

[AndromedasWake]

Well, an acorn doesn't contain all the energy or atoms necessary to make an oak, but it does supply the instructions. In a world of abundant sunlight and soil all you need to make a giant oak is contained within a small acorn. With God as nature personified, I don't think the first half is too much of a stretch. You'd know better for the second half than I would. You say all the matter in the universe couldn't fit into a singularity but could a set of physical laws, enough to shape the universe, have existed inside? I have no idea, it doesn't sound particularly persuasive, but it made me think.

The matter/energy and the instructions are present "in" the singularity (that is in the Universe when it's very small) because all the energy you need is present, and the laws of physics arrange themselves at this time. But a seed only contains the genetic code for a tree, not the tree itself. I see the point you're trying to make though, but I still really don't like the quote; I feel it belittles both incredible phenomena.

Oh, btw I've had Demon haunted world on my wishlist for a while can anyone here recommend it and get me off the fence?

Highly, highly recommended. I would rate it my second favourite Sagan book, behind Pale Blue Dot. I also highly recommend reading Dragons of Eden for epic brainfood!

 

[figure9]

It has always been my belief that God is a scientist and we are just an experiment.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

It has always been my belief that God is a scientist and we are just an experiment.

Nah. We're self-replicating molecules strung together over billions of years, forged from the heart of stars, in an uncaring but beautiful universe.

The bleakness of your view is somewhat more realistic than other religious perspectives, but it still requires a God, and purpose\design, to work. Neither of which can be supported.

Unless I've missed the tone of your post . . .

 

[GoodKat]

emmmmmmm...

WUT?

"knowing in your hart" -- The hart does not know any thing, it is just a blood pump...

if you think you know some one knows that there wrong... I will not even go in to that stupidity, it is so logically wrong, that it makes me do 10 *head desk*'s in a row....

"Heart" was supposed to be metaphorical, but apart from that what you said was basically my point, you can't "just know" something to be true.

 

[brainconduit]

Just in way of apology - I have been pulled into 'defending' (as if it needed it) evolution on another part of the internet... I'll revisit this discussion later (plus I have a weeks holiday soon).

BTW - my signature was aimed at creationists, and was meant to be poetic (I realise the singularity may not be necessarily true). It illustrates the miracle of nature... whilst science may describe the laws behind each it does not begin to describe the purpose of each (nor can science ever do this... as Stephen Hawkings puts it (and I supply the context)..

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York 1988) 174.