The Religious Argument

[Loki]

One of the most common arguments by Christians, or indeed other believers, is that there must be a God, because the universe is so awesome that it cannot have come into existence without God.

One example can be seen here (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/god_is_amazing.htm):



Think of all the millions of stars and planets, isn't it strange that the ONLY life is found in earth? How can this be? You'd think that some type of "life" would exist in other parts of the universe. Even if we try to imagine there is no God, the universe around us is a constant testimony of God's presence, power and goodness. There must be a God! It is the ONLY logical conclusion.


Well ... to the logical mind, this conclusion only makes things even less plausible. That is trying to explain something by adding a tinge of supernaturalness and superstition. Now that would explain the inexplicable! :rolleyes:

On the contrary. If you want to throw a god into the argument to explain that which you cannot fathom with your tiny human brain, then you are only complicating matters. For if this God was indeed the creator of things we cannot understand, then who created him? How did he come into existence? Does God have a God who created him? :D You see, this creates a whole lot more problems to solve. I think the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe and the evolution of all life on earth is infinitely more plausible than the existence of an almighty god who created it all. :coffee:

[Gooding]

Meaning, poetry,faith,Noble Virtues, gods and goddesses to focus on, ancestors to respect, that is what religion is to me.I would refute the Christian argument as being illogical and if it can't be verified, then belief should be suspended.Eostre came and went and it was truly a day of Spring, when the land gets green and the sun gets hot(and rain follows the next day) and the cycle of life goes on.

[Karaten]

Think of all the millions of stars and planets, isn't it strange that the ONLY life is found in earth? How can this be? You'd think that some type of "life" would exist in other parts of the universe. Even if we try to imagine there is no God, the universe around us is a constant testimony of God's presence, power and goodness. There must be a God! It is the ONLY logical conclusion.

When was it proven that Earth is the only planet with life?

[Loki]

When was it proven that Earth is the only planet with life?

Oh yeah, that's another point. :p It is virtually impossible that Earth would be the only planet in the universe to contain life.

[Gooding]

That's true.Seeing as how the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have nothing in their writings about life on other planets, they ignore or speak out against the possibility.If humanity is not the end all of the Universe,then the most helpful human religions are the tribal ones, which encourage evolution in thought.:D:thumb001:

[Ulf]

Isaac Asimov: The Last Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html) :thumbs up:thumbs up


...in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment. For to hope in the possibility of help, not to speak of help by virtue of the absurd, that for God all things are possible — no, that he will not do. And as for seeking help from any other — no, that he will not do for all the world; rather than seek help he would prefer to be himself — with all the tortures of hell, if so it must be.
— Søren Kierkegaard


According to absurdism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism), humans historically attempt to find meaning in their lives. For some, traditionally, this search follows one of two paths: either concluding that life is meaningless, and that what we have is the here-and-now; or alternatively, filling the void with a purpose set forth by a higher power, often a belief in God or adherence to a religion. However, even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question is posed: What is the purpose of God? Kierkegaard believed that there is no human-comprehensible purpose of God, making faith in God absurd.

[Loki]

According to absurdism, humans historically attempt to find meaning in their lives. For some, traditionally, this search follows one of two paths: either concluding that life is meaningless, and that what we have is the here-and-now; or alternatively, filling the void with a purpose set forth by a higher power, often a belief in God or adherence to a religion. However, even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question is posed: What is the purpose of God? Kierkegaard believed that there is no human-comprehensible purpose of God, making faith in God absurd.


Absurdism is indeed an attractive train of thought Oulf. I would subscribe to it, and I am also of the belief that life is meaningless. It is a "mistake", so to speak. A brief one at that, too, since the existence of humans on earth is only a blink of an eye in the history of the universe and time itself.

[Ulf]

Absurdism is indeed an attractive train of thought Oulf. I would subscribe to it, and I am also of the belief that life is meaningless. It is a "mistake", so to speak. A brief one at that, too, since the existence of humans on earth is only a blink of an eye in the history of the universe and time itself.

Life is only as meaningless as you perceive it to be. Create a meaning, become a god.

[Loki]

Create a meaning, become a god.

That, I already am. But a mortal one. Such a shame that this brain must rot one day. :D

[Ulf]

But a mortal one. Such a shame that this brain must rot one day. :D

You should ask Multivac how to reverse entropy. ;)


Isaac Asimov: The Last Question (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html)

[Loki]

You should ask Multivac how to reverse entropy. ;)

There will come a time when nobody or nothing in the universe will even be aware that earth and life thereon existed. Even if we create meaning for ourselves in our lives through pleasure and fantasy, it will still be meaningless in the end. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy it while we are alive. That seems to be the only purpose we can extract out of life: temporary enjoyment. Other than that, there is no purpose whatsoever, and no future for humans on earth other than a fleeting, temporary one.

[Psychonaut]

This is the classic teleological argument; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument) an argument to which there are several standard objections. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this is a great example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), since a creator is only needed to explain certain currently unknown elements of what is overwhelmingly likely to be a wholly natural phenomena.

[Loki]

I would add that the curse of human intelligence is that he has come to the realisation now that he is unimportant and irrelevant, mortal and temporary - and can do nothing about it. At least non-human animals are not cursed with being able to understand the meaning of greater purpose. They just live from day to day, year to year, and procreate. Maybe we should return to that limited scope of existence if we want to retain our sanity.

[Psychonaut]

I would add that the curse of human intelligence is that he has come to the realisation now that he is unimportant and irrelevant, mortal and temporary - and can do nothing about it. At least non-human animals are not cursed with being able to understand the meaning of greater purpose. They just live from day to day, year to year, and procreate. Maybe we should return to that limited scope of existence if we want to retain our sanity.

I can't help but follow this up with one of the greatest quotes in the English language:


The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

This realization of our cosmic insignificance is, as Lovecraft saw, truly one of the more existentially terrifying things that one can come to grips with.

[Gooding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
I think this is worth some study.
" The Stoics provided a unified account of the world, consisting of formal logic, non-dualistic physics and naturalistic ethics. Of these, they emphasized ethics as the main focus of human knowledge, though their logical theories were to be of more interest for many later philosophers.

Stoicism teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions; the philosophy holds that becoming a clear and unbiased thinker allows one to understand the universal reason (logos). A primary aspect of Stoicism involves improving the individual’s ethical and moral well-being: "Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature."

[Treffie]

I would add that the curse of human intelligence is that he has come to the realisation now that he is unimportant and irrelevant, mortal and temporary - and can do nothing about it. At least non-human animals are not cursed with being able to understand the meaning of greater purpose. They just live from day to day, year to year, and procreate. Maybe we should return to that limited scope of existence if we want to retain our sanity.


Yes, I agree. If you look at it objectively it must be so frustrating for him. In other words we're too intelligent for our own good.

[SuuT]

One of the most common arguments by Christians, or indeed other believers, is that there must be a God, because the universe is so awesome that it cannot have come into existence without God.


All "belivers" believe this? What is a "believer"?



Well ... to the logical mind, this conclusion only makes things even less plausible. That is trying to explain something by adding a tinge of supernaturalness and superstition. Now that would explain the inexplicable! :rolleyes:

And what is Science other than a secular cult of superstition, in so far as Science's foundations are built upon tremulous physics and the continual addition of -verses (multi-verses, at this point); and, particles of such an infanitesimal size that they now 'come in and out of existence'?


On the contrary. If you want to throw a god into the argument to explain that which you cannot fathom with your tiny human brain, then you are only complicating matters.

Therefore, the 'less complicated' would be to eliminate any and all mystery?


For if this God was indeed the creator of things we cannot understand, then who created him? How did he come into existence? Does God have a God who created him? :D

This comes from linear, not logical thinking. What if Time and Existence were cyclical: must you come to the same conclusion?


You see, this creates a whole lot more problems to solve. I think the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe and the evolution of all life on earth is infinitely more plausible than the existence of an almighty god who created it all. :coffee:

And "who" did that, then?


When was it proven that Earth is the only planet with life?

What, to you, would this 'mean' for Human existence?



Oh yeah, that's another point. :p It is virtually impossible that Earth would be the only planet in the universe to contain life.

Same question.



[...] the most helpful human religions are the tribal ones, which encourage evolution in thought.:D:thumb001:

Methinks you're onto something....;)



Absurdism is indeed an attractive train of thought Oulf. I would subscribe to it,

But it would be as equally meaningless to you (by your own words) to subscribe to it given that it is a part of Life; and, you have asserted life as meaningless.


and I am also of the belief that life is meaningless.

See.

Moreover, why seek to "preserve" European blah blah blah in so far as this, too, is part of Life - rendering your efforts meaningless. (?)


It is a "mistake", so to speak. A brief one at that, too, since the existence of humans on earth is only a blink of an eye in the history of the universe and time itself.

"Mistake" implies purpose; "Purpose" implies meaning: You're tying yourself up in knots.



Life is only as meaningless as you perceive it to be. Create a meaning, become a god.

A line of thought closer to mine.:)



That, I already am. But a mortal one. Such a shame that this brain must rot one day. :D

The brain is the seat of godhood?



There will come a time when nobody or nothing in the universe will even be aware that earth and life thereon existed. Even if we create meaning for ourselves in our lives through pleasure and fantasy, it will still be meaningless in the end.

More linear thinking.


That doesn't mean we can't enjoy it while we are alive.

No, but to you, it would be meaningless. Correct?



I would add that the curse of human intelligence is that he has come to the realisation now that he is unimportant and irrelevant, mortal and temporary - and can do nothing about it.

You are a helpless victim?


At least non-human animals are not cursed with being able to understand the meaning of greater purpose.

Then, by your own acumen, you would be a non-human animal, as you have asserted a purposeless existence; and yet, here, you assert that humans understand not only 'meaning', but the 'meaning' of "greater purpose".

Which is absurd.


They just live from day to day, year to year, and procreate. Maybe we should return to that limited scope of existence if we want to retain our sanity.


Like non-human animals...?

[Thorum]

Well, clinging to ancient, mythological fantasies such as gods perhaps is comforting to some. For me though, wasting the only life you get by submitting to false dogma is ridiculous. Those such as SuuT who think science is a cult, further hold humanity back from the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet.

[SuuT]

Well, clinging to ancient, mythological fantasies such as gods perhaps is comforting to some.

It is an issue of "comfort"?

Further, you are able to provide a hard and fast delineation of Reality and Fantasy?


For me though, wasting the only life you get by submitting to false dogma is ridiculous.

I agree:). I think where we might differ is (and should this thread continue to grow/proceed ) the [I]necessity of linear thiking that is the ambit of what must be intellectually conjured to render, to use your words, false dogma.

I am prepared:).


Those such as SuuT who think science is a cult, further hold humanity back from the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet.

In your opinion, has European Man advanced, or retrogressed since the loss of his (indigenous) spirituality?

Also, is your belief in Science (as you imply) the only way to "the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet"? Moreover, whilst sounding very pretty, this phraseology lacks particularised meaning upon scrutity - ergo, in a question: What, exactly, is "the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet"?

[Thorum]

It is an issue of "comfort"?

Further, you are able to provide a hard and fast delineation of Reality and Fantasy?



I agree:). I think where we might differ is (and should this thread continue to grow/proceed ) the [I]necessity of linear thiking that is the ambit of what must be intellectually conjured to render, to use your words, false dogma.

I am prepared:).



In your opinion, has European Man advanced, or retrogressed since the loss of his (indigenous) spirituality?

Also, is your belief in Science (as you imply) the only way to "the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet"? Moreover, whilst sounding very pretty, this phraseology lacks particularised meaning upon scrutity - ergo, in a question: What, exactly, is "the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet"?

Well, let's see. I am not going to cherry pick. I will just state that I don't believe in a god or gods. I don't believe in supernatural beings or forces. I believe in what you see around you, nature and science. I know what I was like before I was born, and that is how it will be when I am dead. Science is rational. Religion is irrational. For me, a long argument is not necessary. I need to prove nothing; and I have never seen proof of god given to me by a religious person.

Perhaps if you read a few books on chemistry, physics, mathematics and astronomy you would understand reality. Reality is science.

Scientific advancement will give a "brighter future for us and our planet".

[Gooding]

Here's a third point of view, for what it's worth.I find myself firmly in the middle.I think that we would do well to follow the evolutionary development of humanity to the fullest, yet I also believe that our best hope lies in the ancient patterns that our folk used in the veneration of Nature.Are gods and goddesses reality or simply thought forms that enable us to reach outside of ourselves to be part of a larger Whole?I'm firmly convinced that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of deities on an objective level.Subjectively, I've seen devotion add poetry and "good luck", I suppose, to the devotees.Maybe faith is simply a discharge of endorphins and like the Cycle of the Seasons, maybe everyone's got a cerebral "pattern" that they follow, and are indeed compelled by their own minds to follow.Thoughts?

[SuuT]

Well, let's see. I am not going to cherry pick.

Thank you! However, you have rather chosen the way of evasion of dialogue: my aim is to learn something fom you (or discover if there is something that I might be able to learn from you). If, indeed, there is something that you know that I do not, I want it!:D This can only be achieved via a mutual exchange of ideas, i.e. Dialogue.


I will just state that I don't believe in a god or gods. I don't believe in supernatural beings or forces. I believe in what you see around you, nature and science.

But we can all toss-around belief statements all day long; in fact, by and large, this gets us nowhere. You will notice that I have not - thus far - made any belief statements, myself: rather ironically, it is I, the Heathen, the 'believer', who has invoked logic and reason; and it is you, the 'Atheist' and 'rationalist' who has invoked statements of belief.

Interesting...


I know what I was like before I was born, and that is how it will be when I am dead.

In what sense? - As in a 'mechanistic' Weltanschauung?


Science is rational. Religion is irrational. For me, a long argument is not necessary.

It needn't be long - it needs to at least constitute an argument to be one, though. Otherwise, the giant purple walrus that only I can see that is telling me what to type holds equal validity to any belief statement you might present.:D;):)

If you don't want a dialogue, all you have to do is say so. Or ignore my dumb ass.:D


I need to prove nothing

I think "want" is the more self-evidently appropriate term, here.




Perhaps if you read a few books on chemistry, physics, mathematics and astronomy you would understand reality.

:)


Reality is science.

All aspects of Science, or just select aspects?


Scientific advancement will give a "brighter future for us and our planet".


Yes, so you have said. - The statement, however, remains vacuuous.

[Thorum]

Here's a third point of view, for what it's worth.I find myself firmly in the middle.I think that we would do well to follow the evolutionary development of humanity to the fullest, yet I also believe that our best hope lies in the ancient patterns that our folk used in the veneration of Nature.Are gods and goddesses reality or simply thought forms that enable us to reach outside of ourselves to be part of a larger Whole?I'm firmly convinced that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of deities on an objective level.Subjectively, I've seen devotion add poetry and "good luck", I suppose, to the devotees.Maybe faith is simply a discharge of endorphins and like the Cycle of the Seasons, maybe everyone's got a cerebral "pattern" that they follow, and are indeed compelled by their own minds to follow.Thoughts?

Finn, I cherish and revere the traditions of our forefathers...

[Gooding]

I hear you, Thorum and I apologize if I implied otherwise.I simply wanted to present my own views, in an admittedly clumsy way.I only wanted my words to reflect on myself.

[Æmeric]

I'm not really up to getting into this sort of debate at the moment. I will say just this one observation: People feel the need to proof the nonexistant of God are not trying to convince others of his nonexistence but themselves.

[Loki]

I'm not really up to getting into this sort of debate at the moment. I will say just this one observation: People feel the need to proof the nonexistant of God are not trying to convince others of his nonexistence but themselves.

It's not about convincing, but about debating ... I think this is a question that we all should consider. I know the implications are far-reaching, and hence many would rather remain in blissful ignorance ... it is more comfortable, less upsetting and a lot easier on our limited intellect. :)

As for SuuT's replies ... I will get into deconstructing his logical fallacies once I have had a few cups of coffee. :coffee:

[SuuT]

As for SuuT's replies ... I will get into deconstructing his logical fallacies once I have had a few cups of coffee. :coffee:

Fuel-up, Pinky! You will need it.:D

[Beorn]

For if this God was indeed the creator of things we cannot understand, then who created him?

The Christian God has never said he was the only God, but the true God and one which you should worship above others.

Who created God? Good question. One that can't be answered.


How did he come into existence?

I have Terry Pratchett to thank for this theory, but I believe it was in Small Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Gods) that I first came across the idea that the Gods of any religion are only as strong as those who believe in them.


Does God have a God who created him?

Probably, yes! But who was that? We don't know this God and most likely this God now serves another God.


I think the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe and the evolution of all life on earth is infinitely more plausible than the existence of an almighty god who created it all.

Well my God started the Big Bang. :p

[Loki]

All "belivers" believe this? What is a "believer"?


I'm referring here to people who believe in a God creator -- that would include most Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many others who subscribe to other religions.



And what is Science other than a secular cult of superstition, in so far as Science's foundations are built upon tremulous physics and the continual addition of -verses (multi-verses, at this point); and, particles of such an infanitesimal size that they now 'come in and out of existence'?


The difference between scientists and religious adherents, is that scientists would gladly admit they are/were wrong if there was empirical evidence pointing to that. Science is nothing other than factual knowledge. Example: It is a scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Until someone can prove that this is not the case, scientists and all rational people will accept it as a fact.



Therefore, the 'less complicated' would be to eliminate any and all mystery?


I am only applying Occam's razor here. Mystery is awesome to encounter, and fun to try and comprehend. The universe and all existence is indeed a mystery. We can only begin to understand what it is, and what is our place in it. By rendering all mystery incomprehensible, we deny ourselves the joy of discovering knowledge. Religion is one way of doing this.



This comes from linear, not logical thinking. What if Time and Existence were cyclical: must you come to the same conclusion?


Time and existence are parameters of this known universe. It may be conceivable that other universes exist with different parameters, laws and qualities. But until we have found evidence to support this, we must consider this as fantasy. There may be different universes, or dimensions, where gods exist. Religionists are wishing this were true, as this is where they are placing their hopes. They may be right, who knows, but I for one cannot accept that line of thinking without seeing evidence of it.



And "who" did that, then?


Why did someone have to do it? We don't know what caused the Big Bang to happen. I guess one way of dealing with that unknown is to say that a god did it. :wink The other way, to which I subscribe, is to say that we don't know, but will strive to find out how and why it occurred. It is unlikely though, that any human will ever know the answer to that. There are limits to our understanding. We are smart, but not all-knowing.



What, to you, would this 'mean' for Human existence?


The discovery of the existence of other life elsewhere in the universe would mean that we are not unique. This would have profound implications for religionists, but not so much for scientists. Many, if not most, scientists now accept that life may be found elsewhere in the universe, although the discovery of evidence thereof would be profoundly exciting and special.



Methinks you're onto something....;)


I think Finn is, too. Tribal heathenism is mostly practical and thus helpful to us.



But it would be as equally meaningless to you (by your own words) to subscribe to it given that it is a part of Life; and, you have asserted life as meaningless.


That is correct. The only meaning would be temporary, but ultimately of no importance whatsoever.



See.

Moreover, why seek to "preserve" European blah blah blah in so far as this, too, is part of Life - rendering your efforts meaningless. (?)


Yes, it is indeed meaningless ultimately. It is helpful though, in this blink of time and existence, to make it as pleasant and enjoyable as possible. But the meaning in this is only temporary.



"Mistake" implies purpose; "Purpose" implies meaning: You're tying yourself up in knots.


Hence me saying "mistake" instead of mistake. The quotation marks were not there for cosmetics. :wink



A line of thought closer to mine.:)


You can think of yourself as a god. I can imagine myself to be Obi-Wan Kenobi. That doesn't mean The Force is a reality. ;)



The brain is the seat of godhood?


It is the seat of the perception of godhood. And indeed, of all sensory perception that humans have.



More linear thinking.


As opposed to what? Flights of fantasy?



No, but to you, it would be meaningless. Correct?


Correct -- whether I realise it now, or not.



You are a helpless victim?


No. We all are, I guess. Some realise it, others don't.



Then, by your own acumen, you would be a non-human animal, as you have asserted a purposeless existence; and yet, here, you assert that humans understand not only 'meaning', but the 'meaning' of "greater purpose".

Which is absurd.


Humans are trying to understand the meaning of life, which is the difference. And in trying to do so, some have come to the realisation that it is ultimately meaningless.



Like non-human animals...?

Humans are animals. Our ancestors were like Homo erectus, Australophithecus africanus, and further on they were tetrapods, even further into the past they were tiny multicellular organisms.

[Loki]

The Christian God has never said he was the only God, but the true God and one which you should worship above others.


The Christian God never said anything. People, who thought they were his prophets, said everything. :lightbul: Just as Yoda never said anything really, but George Lucas did.

[Skandi]

Scientific advancement will give a "brighter future for us and our planet".

This I totally disagree with, I am a scientist and I believe in the furtherment of science in all fields, but I don't see how science makes a brighter future, it is due to science that we poison ourselves and our planet, it is due to science that we can kill so many so fast, yes we have medicine but that just makes some problems worse.

Science is certainly a religion in it's own right. Other religions were built by taking the knowledge at the time and creating a theory to fit the facts. Exactly what modern science does.

[Beorn]

The Christian God never said anything. People, who thought they were his prophets, said everything.

Okay then, the self appointed prophets of the Christian God said they were to worship him as the only true God. :P

Don't you believe that God may have manifested himself on Earth to guide and inform mankind, Loki?

[Thorum]

This I totally disagree with, I am a scientist and I believe in the furtherment of science in all fields, but I don't see how science makes a brighter future, it is due to science that we poison ourselves and our planet, it is due to science that we can kill so many so fast, yes we have medicine but that just makes some problems worse.

Science is certainly a religion in it's own right. Other religions were built by taking the knowledge at the time and creating a theory to fit the facts. Exactly what modern science does.

Wow, I guess I have alot to learn...

[Loki]

Don't you believe that God may have manifested himself on Earth to guide and inform mankind, Loki?

Blunt answer: No.

I don't believe in the existence of this God of yours. But let's hypothesise that God did, in fact, exist and was attempting to manifest himself by speaking through prophets to guide and inform mankind. My first conclusion from this line of thinking must be that he is doing a very poor job. We have so many religions and so many "right ways" in Christianity alone. Most contradict each other. If God did exist, it seems that he wanted to confuse us, not guide us.

[SuuT]

:fencing:



I'm referring here to people who believe in a God creator -- that would include most Christians, Jews, Muslims,

I know. Just wanted it repeated:D. I've got that impish itch again...



[...] Science is nothing other than factual knowledge.

Is Theoretical Physics science?


Example: It is a scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun. Until someone can prove that this is not the case, scientists and all rational people will accept it as a fact.

From where we - the Human Animal - stand. In the Scientific end, we have an unfathamable quantiy of revolutions occurring in the Milky Way, alone: the axis of ultimate revolution is either indeterminiate, or non-observable (quantifiable) by the Human Animal.


This is mysterious; and, the province, the point of departure, of the Spirit. For us nutters.



[...] Mystery is awesome to encounter, and fun to try and comprehend.

So mystery, then, is not also awesome, and fun to try and comprehend, but is also..."meaningless"?:confused2:



The universe and all existence is indeed a mystery.

A meaningless one, yes?


We can only begin to understand what it is, and what is our place in it.

We do, then, have a place in it?


By rendering all mystery incomprehensible, we deny ourselves the joy of discovering knowledge. Religion is one way of doing this.

:twitch: ....Eh?

Do you mean this as you have written it?




Time and existence are parameters of this known universe. It may be conceivable that other universes exist with different parameters, laws and qualities. But until we have found evidence to support this, we must consider this as fantasy.

Although Gravity and The General Theory of Relativity are at numerous odds with one another, the Mathematics of Mutiversity/Multi-Dimentiaility work out. - Is Math not a Science, then?


There may be different universes, or dimensions, where gods exist. Religionists are wishing this were true, as this is where they are placing their hopes.

Who is?


[...]I for one cannot accept that line of thinking without seeing evidence of it.

So everything that is 'real' is also 'seen'?



Why did someone have to do it?

:thumb001::)



The discovery of the existence of other life elsewhere in the universe would mean that we are not unique.

Unless that life is nothing like us, no?


This would have profound implications for religionists, but not so much for scientists.

I actually think that the effect/implications would be (unquantifiably) profound for each. But in profoundly different ways: this is an issue of like and unlike: an issue of kind, not of degree.


Many, if not most, scientists now accept that life may be found elsewhere in the universe, although the discovery of evidence thereof would be profoundly exciting and special.

Indeed! And should they fit certain anthropomorphic Archetypes, we - the Human Animal - might even consider them......gods. (?)




Tribal heathenism is mostly practical and thus helpful to us.

But only in the Utilitarian sense, yes?

Does this utility have meaning?




[...] The only meaning would be temporary, but ultimately of no importance whatsoever.

This implies that you are aware of what Ultimate Importance is; and yet, that this Ultimate Importance is, also, Meaningless.....

Are you aware of the freedom that lies just beneath the skin of such Passive Nihilism?




Yes, it is indeed meaningless ultimately. It is helpful though, in this blink of time and existence, to make it as pleasant and enjoyable as possible.

How's that working out for you?


But the meaning in this is only temporary.

Prove it.


You can think of yourself as a god. I can imagine myself to be Obi-Wan Kenobi. That doesn't mean The Force is a reality. ;)

Darth SuuT, here.:cool:



It is the seat of the perception of godhood. And indeed, of all sensory perception that humans have.

Sense and Perception must, then, be embodied?



As opposed to what? Flights of fantasy?

Nooooooooo. As opposed to a gargantuan realm of possibility that you acknowledge - but refuse to enter.

One example:

What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest solitude and said to you: ‘this life, as you live it now and have lived it, you will have to live again and again, times without number; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and all the unspeakably small and great in your life must return to you, and everything in the same series and sequence—and in the same way this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and in the same way this moment and I myself. The eternal hour-glass of existence will be turned again and again—and you with it, you dust of dust!’—Would you not throw yourself down and gnash you teeth and curse the demon who spoke? Or have you experienced a tremendous moment in which you would have answered him: “You are a god and never did I hear anything more divine! If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, ‘Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?’ would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? (Nietzsche: Gay Science 341)




[...] We all are, I guess. Some realise it, others don't.

Who has the power to realise who amongst us are, indeed, in or out-of-touch with [your] assertion that we are all helpless victims?

(My father had a joke that always went over well: "The French have one thing right: victims are always feminine" [a play off of Francophone noun gender]).




Humans are trying to understand the meaning of life, which is the difference. And in trying to do so, some have come to the realisation that it is ultimately meaningless.

"Have [to]" - as in "must"?

I feel no compelling need to do so. Am I wrong, therefore?



Our ancestors were like Homo erectus, Australophithecus africanus, and further on they were tetrapods, even further into the past they were tiny multicellular organisms.




Man is something that shall be overcome.... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman - a rope over an abyss... What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end... (Zarathustra)


:)

[Psychonaut]

Although Gravity and The General Theory of Relativity are at numerous odds with one another

Say what? Explain thyself brigand! Our current theory of gravitation is entirely self consistent. The only problems arise when General Relativity is used to examine phenomena outside of its intended scope (i.e. atomic and sub-atomic particles).

[Barreldriver]

Well, clinging to ancient, mythological fantasies such as gods perhaps is comforting to some. For me though, wasting the only life you get by submitting to false dogma is ridiculous. Those such as SuuT who think science is a cult, further hold humanity back from the promise of a brighter future for us and our planet.

You do know that science is founded on theory and theory is an unproven hypothesis, to subscribe to science is to subscribe to something that cannot be completely proven as of yet, just like most religious faiths, how is science and religion any different in this respect?

also how does science explain supernatural occurrences? I have witnessed a few things that no science can explain.

[Barreldriver]

The Christian God has never said he was the only God, but the true God and one which you should worship above others.

Who created God? Good question. One that can't be answered.



I have Terry Pratchett to thank for this theory, but I believe it was in Small Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Gods) that I first came across the idea that the Gods of any religion are only as strong as those who believe in them.



Probably, yes! But who was that? We don't know this God and most likely this God now serves another God.



Well my God started the Big Bang. :p

That concept reminds me of Tolkien. Eru being the one true god, with the Ainur after him(includes the Maiar and the Valar), Eru being the father figure(Allfather?) and the one true god figure, the head power at that point, the Valar being the gods that are most holy under Eru they are worshiped, they war, and create life, the Maiar being the Ainur that walk on the earth and interact with humans, elves, dwarves, etc...


A concept as that seems most realistic to me, I personally believe in a hierarchy of divine beings, humans ourselves being divine in the respect that we ourselves descend from divinity(i.e. Dan, Angul, Saxnot, etc... fathers of our tribes, all divine sons of Ingvae, Istvae, and Irmine, all divine in the line of Wodin)

Basically the Allfather at the head(something created him, but he overthrew it, became the new law, power=law, might=right)

the lesser gods and godesses under him(Wanes and Aesir, Tuatha De, etc...)

other mythical beings and humans on varying degrees of level, humans having an unlocked potential due to being descendant of the lesser gods but unable to rise too high as of yet. Plus it is said that we humans do not use all of our brain, so perhaps our power is hidden away? eh?

Just a thought, it's still an infant thought in my head, but it's a start eh? lol


I also believe in an infinite overlap of occurrences, inspired by a spiel I saw on dimensions, basically an infinite never ending chain of universes within universes overlapping into universes, all concentrated into a single point that is connected to another point of universes within universes within universes. Basically our gods our in control of our plain of existence but are subject to those of the next tier, and so on and so forth, but one cannot exist without the other, those below rely on those above, just as those above rely on those below, they're all connected.

I am also a firm believer that effort and setting goals is a key part in achieving divinity and power. Each day I set a goal, I work to achieve that goal, and when I succeed I consider it a step forward to glory, for instance today me and my grandfather with combined effort dug up and replanted a growing tree that was planted too close to our back deck, through that effort we corrected a past mistake and we preserved the life of a tree(for now, if it's fated to die it will regardless of what we do) and we preserved the structural integrity of our home, on top of that I also make an effort to learn something new each day, that way I may tap into that unused part of my brain, new knowledge equates new ability.

[Loki]

You do know that science is founded on theory and theory is an unproven hypothesis, to subscribe to science is to subscribe to something that cannot be completely proven as of yet, just like most religious faiths, how is science and religion any different in this respect?


Your conjecture is false. And science is not a religion -- only die-hard inbred creationists really propose that idea.

Science is based on knowledge acquired from systematic testing and the collection of evidence.



also how does science explain supernatural occurrences? I have witnessed a few things that no science can explain.

Science cannot explain everything. If it was a religion, it would claimed to be able to do so. There's one of your most fundamental differences.

[Barreldriver]

Your conjecture is false. And science is not a religion -- only die-hard inbred creationists really propose that idea.

Science is based on knowledge acquired from systematic testing and the collection of evidence.



Science cannot explain everything. If it was a religion, it would claimed to be able to do so. There's one of your most fundamental differences.

I'm an inbred now? :D


If science cannot explain what I saw, then what can?

[Loki]

I'm an inbred now? :D


Ok you got me I've thrown in that word for good measure. ;)



If science cannot explain what I saw, then what can?

What did you see? The fact that science cannot explain something, does not mean that God exists or that it has to be supernatural. It merely means we have not yet found an explanation for it, or acquired the knowledge to comprehend it. Maybe we will never comprehend it. That does not make it supernatural automatically.

[Barreldriver]

Ok you got me I've thrown in that word for good measure. ;)



What did you see? The fact that science cannot explain something, does not mean that God exists or that it has to be supernatural. It merely means we have not yet found an explanation for it, or acquired the knowledge to comprehend it. Maybe we will never comprehend it. That does not make it supernatural automatically.

I've made quite a few threads on the matter way back, you'd have to dig for them in the conspiracy and unusual occurrence threads. One of which manifested physical harm.

[Thorum]

You do know that science is founded on theory and theory is an unproven hypothesis, to subscribe to science is to subscribe to something that cannot be completely proven as of yet, just like most religious faiths, how is science and religion any different in this respect?

I am not a scientist. Perhaps this explains why your reasoning is flawed:

"Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm). And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean...In layman’s terms, if something is said to be 'just a theory,' it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true...A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...So-called 'theories' based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method."

Hope this helps.

[Barreldriver]

I am not a scientist. Perhaps this explains why your reasoning is flawed:

"Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm). And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean...In layman’s terms, if something is said to be 'just a theory,' it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true...A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...So-called 'theories' based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method."

Hope this helps.

Gotcha. I'm still going to stick to my beliefs though :D I just fits for me, if something fits I just assume not fight it. To each their own and cheers!

[Thorum]

Gotcha. I'm still going to stick to my beliefs though :D I just fits for me, if something fits I just assume not fight it. To each their own and cheers!

Great avatar!! Barrel, Your beliefs are yours and no one can or should change them. That is your decision. My beliefs aren't right or wrong, just the way I perceive the world and life.

My only real qualms with religion/god is when it affects me personally: socially, in government, in my children's life, family life, etc. I think you know what I mean...

Anyway, cheers mate!! :thumbs up

[Barreldriver]

Great avatar!! Barrel, Your beliefs are yours and no one can or should change them. That is your decision. My beliefs aren't right or wrong, just the way I perceive the world and life.

My only real qualms with religion/god is when it affects me personally: socially, in government, in my children's life, family life, etc. I think you know what I mean...

Anyway, cheers mate!! :thumbs up

I hear ya there, personal beliefs in regard to religion and whatnot I think should be a personal matter that organizations should stay away from in large. Seems to do more harm than good when it's brought into politics and the sort.

[Psychonaut]

Barreldriver, I'm gonna go ahead and just throw this out there. The word "supernatural" is absolutely meaningless. Full stop.

If an event is perceived that does not fit within the current scientific paradigm, does it mean that this event is "supernatural"? No. It means that some aspect of our current theory relating to said phenomena may need to be revised and/or expanded. Even if (and this is a completely for-the-sake-of-argument if) the Judeo/Christo/Islamo God did exist and if he did perform "miracles," would those "miracles" be, in any way, "supernatural"? No, they would not be. If the universe includes a being such as that God, then the definition of "natural" would necessarily expand to include that being. Accordingly, the concept of natural law would also expand to include whatever laws governed the existence of said being. That being the case, the term "supernatural" (even if all of this were somehow true) would not apply to the workings of this being. It is a meaningless term that does nothing but confuse arguments and foster ignorance.

[Barreldriver]

Barreldriver, I'm gonna go ahead and just throw this out there. The word "supernatural" is absolutely meaningless. Full stop.

If an event is perceived that does not fit within the current scientific paradigm, does it mean that this event is "supernatural"? No. It means that some aspect of our current theory relating to said phenomena may need to be revised and/or expanded. Even if (and this is a completely for-the-sake-of-argument if) the Judeo/Christo/Islamo God did exist and if he did perform "miracles," would those "miracles" be, in any way, "supernatural"? No, they would not be. If the universe includes a being such as that God, then the definition of "natural" would necessarily expand to include that being. Accordingly, the concept of natural law would also expand to include whatever laws governed the existence of said being. That being the case, the term "supernatural" (even if all of this were somehow true) would not apply to the workings of this being. It is a meaningless term that does nothing but confuse arguments and foster ignorance.

Well in that case I'll call what I've seen natural but unexplained :D lol.

[Jamt]

This tread has given more postmodern bs than a Swedish university in the same time period. I truly miss (I am not the one) someone to smack you all down.

[Barreldriver]

This tread has given more postmodern bs than a Swedish university in the same time period. I truly miss (I am not the one) someone to smack you all down.

I reckon I aughta be in the loony bin then? :D

[Thorum]

This tread has given more postmodern bs than a Swedish university in the same time period. I truly miss (I am not the one) someone to smack you all down.

Jamt,

We all want to thank for your posts in this thread. Wait, let me count them: 1

Talk about bullshit? :cool:

[Jamt]

You have a point. But still....

[Loki]

Is Theoretical Physics science?


I don't know enough about it to speculate.



From where we - the Human Animal - stand. In the Scientific end, we have an unfathamable quantiy of revolutions occurring in the Milky Way, alone: the axis of ultimate revolution is either indeterminiate, or non-observable (quantifiable) by the Human Animal.


No argument there.



This is mysterious; and, the province, the point of departure, of the Spirit. For us nutters.


What is the spirit?



So mystery, then, is not also awesome, and fun to try and comprehend, but is also..."meaningless"?:confused2:


Ultimately, yes. So correct.



A meaningless one, yes?


The universe in its totality is a lot less meaningless than we as humans are, because it has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be here many many billions of earthly years after the last human has perished.

There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. And each of those galaxies contain billions of stars like our sun. So, a lot more meaningful than we are. We are nothing, a little more important than bacteria. Actually, we are less important than bacteria. They caused the earth to become oxygen-rich (http://www.canada.com/Technology/Thank+oxygen+producing+bacteria+your+existence/1478323/story.html) so other animals could evolve.



We do, then, have a place in it?


Yes, we currently have a place. A very tiny one.




By rendering all mystery incomprehensible, we deny ourselves the joy of discovering knowledge. Religion is one way of doing this.

:twitch: ....Eh?

Do you mean this as you have written it?


Oh yes I do. :thumb001: I meant to say that religion is a way to deny ourselves the joy of discovering knowledge.



Although Gravity and The General Theory of Relativity are at numerous odds with one another, the Mathematics of Mutiversity/Multi-Dimentiaility work out. - Is Math not a Science, then?


Your point being?



Who is?


Religionists.



So everything that is 'real' is also 'seen'?


No. Many things that are real cannot be seen. Like the air we breathe. Or like dark matter ...



Unless that life is nothing like us, no?


Of course that life would be different from us. We do have a certain uniqueness, just as every living organism on earth has. My fingerprints are different from yours, etc etc.



Indeed! And should they fit certain anthropomorphic Archetypes, we - the Human Animal - might even consider them......gods. (?)


Some native tribes regarded Europeans as gods when they first encountered them. That doesn't mean that Europeans are gods. What definition of gods do you use? If it is a watered-down one, I guess each and every one can be considered gods. That doesn't mean we can be creators of the universe.



But only in the Utilitarian sense, yes?


Yes.



Does this utility have meaning?


Temporarily, yes. But ultimately, no.



This implies that you are aware of what Ultimate Importance is; and yet, that this Ultimate Importance is, also, Meaningless.....


Now we're getting somewhere! :thumb001:



Are you aware of the freedom that lies just beneath the skin of such Passive Nihilism?


Oh, absolutely. This realisation is liberating.



How's that working out for you?


At the moment, not too great. :cool: But I find solace in the fact that even my youthful enjoyment is not important. And neither is my death. When I die I will become equal to the most rich, the most successful man who ever lived on this planet. Death does not discriminate.



Prove it.


Prove temporariness of life? Well my friend, we all know people born and die. If they're very lucky they can reach 100 years of age. Or perhaps 120 in record cases. But that's about it.



Darth SuuT, here.:cool:


Pleased to make your acquaintance! :D My light sabre is red, by the way, as is befitting my moniker. :wink



Sense and Perception must, then, be embodied?


Not sure what you mean.



Nooooooooo. As opposed to a gargantuan realm of possibility that you acknowledge - but refuse to enter.


Please be more specific. :coffee:



"Have [to]" - as in "must"?

I feel no compelling need to do so. Am I wrong, therefore?


You are not wrong, but probably wise. Like that guy in the Matrix movie who tastes the steak that is not real, yet enjoys it. For him, ignorance is bliss. And it is. :) It comes back to what I've said before -- perhaps it is better if us humans do not gain further understanding of our insignificance, but revel in our ignorance. That is blissful and will carry us in our lives.

But for some of us, who are less fortunate in this life, the actual acknowledgement of futility and insignificance can be liberating. As it is for me at the moment.

[Thorum]

Finally, the proof we have been looking for. Special thanks goes to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) :

2818153038273514237

[Gooding]

Ah, self-created pasta!:D Seriously, I've been reading this thread with fascination today and I thank you all who've contributed to my own enlightenment with your thoughts.This is a very educational thread.:thumb001:

[SuuT]

Say what? Explain thyself brigand! Our current theory of gravitation is entirely self consistent. The only problems arise when General Relativity is used to examine phenomena outside of its intended scope (i.e. atomic and sub-atomic particles).

:embarrassed

I'm sorry. Replace "Gravity" with Quantum Theory. :) - Sould make sense then.

[SuuT]

:yippee:ner-ner0:


I don't know enough about it to speculate.

The answer is "yes".:)



What is the spirit?

Excellent question!

First, I will give my 'use' of the word (although I have already provided the basis):

The Spirit is that inexplicable noumenal thing; the "Something I know not what" of Locke; the animating fortia that exceeds that which is not seen, and yet known; the "Will to Power" of Nietzsche; the mediating element between the known and the discoverable, yet unprovable; the *saiwalo - the dotted as opposed to fixated line - between the known (for some) and the unknown.


Secondly, I give a standard definition:

1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
6. a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7. an angel or demon.



Ultimately, yes. So correct.

You are not catching-on to my implications; ergo, I shall be blunt: Your perspective is 'bottom-up': you proceed from the physical body, you proceed from the verifiable/falsifiable - and then, call this existence (or what you believe it to be true and real, by way of Science.



The universe in its totality is a lot less meaningless than we as humans are, because it has been there for a lot longer than we have, and will be here many many billions of earthly years after the last human has perished.

Loki - this is what I am speaking of with respect to possibility/assertions: You've no way of knowing this (or, and at the least, have not provided this redundant episteme which grows from a hard-and-fast grasp of 'reality' that you imply to possess, but offer no proof for. You ought not ask for proof of meaning, without first offering your proof of meaninglessness.

I am, by way of Logic (not belief, perfectly justified in asserting an inumerable number of other possibilities.

I have provided you one, already, by way of Nietzsche. Here is another: Perhaps we are 'alone' in the uni/multi-verse. Further, perhaps we are the apex of uni/multiversal development. Moreover, and perhaps, we (Man) are meant (of course, implying purpose, to be a preperatory phase. I could go on for the remainder of my Life, and still not complete the gamut of possibility.

"Length" of 'time' means, and says, absolutley nothing with respect to a potentially, nay! - I will go further, probable infinite space and time (in so far as they are a continuum.


There are more galaxies in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. And each of those galaxies contain billions of stars like our sun. So, a lot more meaningful than we are.

"Quantity" determines meaning?

If so, Europids (to bring things back-down to a micro perspective) are meaningless - which begs the question the you evaded: why bother with this forum?


We are nothing, a little more important than bacteria.

Anthropomorphic assumptions (you jump back and forth with this is your line of reasoning).

You can, of course, say whatever you wish. However, you provide no epistemology for your (above) assertion: How do you know what you claim to know about the 'lesser importance' of bacteria?!?!?!?.

You can't. No one can.



Actually, we are less important than bacteria. They caused the earth to become oxygen-rich (http://www.canada.com/Technology/Thank+oxygen+producing+bacteria+your+existence/1478323/story.html) so other animals could evolve.

My interest is where, and why you place importance where is is that you (arbitrarily) do.

As exampled before, you've no way of knowing (or, and at the least, have not demonstrated how and why you know your Hierarchy of Importance.

To punctuate, and re-iterate the implication: it is equally possible that bacteria were preperatory for the advent of Man, as a purposeful and sentient being (thereby making them, by definition, less important than Man)


You (appear) to choose "importance" on things that are outside of the orbit of anything other than the capricious.




Yes, we currently have a place. A very tiny one.

Yet again: The man who claims utter meaninglessness of Human Existence claims, with no 'proof' (which is your prime concern, yes?) that we have an amount of 'meaning'..........


Oh yes I do. :thumb001: I meant to say that religion is a way to deny ourselves the joy of discovering knowledge.

In so far as you have asked me, and I have told, what 'Spirit' is, would you deny, or acknowledge, the possibility that you - yourself - might be denying the man that is Loki, knowledge? - Disregard any questions that may arise in your head about whether or not you are able (for the now) - this is quite another matter.




Your point being?

My point being, that Theoretical Physics is in fact a Science. Which, in turn, requires Mathematics.

Further, Theoretical Physics, when viewed in a comparative way with the known mythos of the last 5.000 years are more than concomitant with one another. - So long as one has the capacity to extrpolate and ruminate.




Religionists.

I'm sorry, I just don't know what this means.:(




No. Many things that are real cannot be seen. Like the air we breathe. Or like dark matter ...

Ergo, we would be arrogant to assume that the four-walled-world of Science is the ultimate proving-ground of the real and the unreal.

Prove to me you love Queen Fox: it cannot ne done - only assumed.




Some native tribes regarded Europeans as gods when they first encountered them.

As they should have. I have already alluded to why earlier in the thread with respect to non-terrestrial life.


That doesn't mean that Europeans are gods.

Ahhhhh!!! - But they were perceived as such, yes? And godhood lies in perception, which lies in the mind of Man? These are your words.

Perception = Reality.


What definition of gods do you use?

There is no de-fin-it-ion for the gods.


If it is a watered-down one, I guess each and every one can be considered gods.

Yes. If it is a watered-down one.


That doesn't mean we can be creators of the universe.

But if perception is the seat of godhood, and we create or are governed by our perceptions, then we not only perceive the Universe - but create it in our image.



Oh, absolutely. This realisation is liberating.

But meaningless.:rolleyes:




Prove temporariness of life? [...]


This was not the question posed.



Not sure what you mean.

Sense and Perception must have a body to house them?




But for some of us, who are less fortunate in this life, the actual acknowledgement of futility and insignificance can be liberating. As it is for me at the moment.


Complete Contradictio in terminis .



:shakefist:D;):)

[SouthernBoy]

I think the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe and the evolution of all life on earth is infinitely more plausible than the existence of an almighty god who created it all.The belief that the Universe isn't a figment because of it's "consistency" or whatever isn't all that different from the belief that God must've created it.

[Loki]

The belief that the Universe isn't a figment because of it's "consistency" or whatever isn't all that different from the belief that God must've created it.

I'm afraid I don't follow, please elaborate.

[SouthernBoy]

I'm afraid I don't follow, please elaborate. Do you believe the Universe exists outside your perception?

[Loki]

Do you believe the Universe exists outside your perception?

It exists whether I believe it or not. My belief is not going to change it.

[Skandi]

Do you believe the Universe exists outside your perception?

To think that it doesn't would be terribly egocentric.

[SouthernBoy]

It exists whether I believe it or not. My belief is not going to change it.Why do you believe that?

[Loki]

Why do you believe that?

I don't believe it.

[SouthernBoy]

I don't believe it. Do you not believe the Universe exists outside your perception?

[Loki]

Do you not believe the Universe exists outside your perception?

We're going around in circles here. The universe exists, whether I believe in it or not. My belief is irrelevant to its existence, and so is yours.

[Skandi]

This argument is similar to the tree falling in the forest, of course it makes a noise and of course the universe exists. If it doesn't exist except in your mind then you cannot exist as there is no universe to exist in, and therefore you could not imagine this non existent universe.
So either it does exist, or nothing exists and we are all figments in the mind of god, and were that true he has the worst case of schizophrenia ever.

[SouthernBoy]

The universe exists, whether I believe in it or not. Why do you think that then? How did you verify that claim?

[Loddfafner]

I wonder how much Schroedinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat) complicates these questions of the independence of the universe from our experience. I guess if I don't study physics more closely, it won't matter, while if I do, it will decisively answer the question.

[Skandi]

I'm disinclined to believe the Schrödingers cat therum, I don't see why the probability fields will only collapse when you investigate, sounds way to much like religion to me, but I do fall out with physics when you get into the theoretical field.

[SouthernBoy]

If it doesn't exist except in your mind then you cannot exist as there is no universe to exist in...Could your mind not be the Universe? :)

[Loki]

Why do you think that then? How did you verify that claim?

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. I don't think it. What claim?


Could your mind not be the Universe? :)

It could if we were living in a Matrix movie. ;)

[Skandi]

It could if we were living in a Matrix movie. ;)

But then it would only be a reality inside a universe?

[Loki]

But then it would only be a reality inside a universe?

Yeah. I think this argument of whether the universe exists or not is just distracting from the main argument in this thread. SouthernBoy, please add something of substance if you want me to reply further to it.

[SouthernBoy]

What claim? You claimed that something called the "universe" exists outside your perception. What evidence do you have to prove that?
It could if we were living in a Matrix movie.Sometimes "stranger than fiction," right? ;)

[Loki]

You claimed that something called the "universe" exists outside your perception. What evidence do you have to prove that?

Your intelligence is beyond me SouthernBoy, I give up. You win, the universe doesn't exist.

[SouthernBoy]

I prefer a more conversational style of posting which allows me to use the "Socratic method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method)."
SouthernBoy, please add something of substance if you want me to reply further to it. I don't believe you can prove the Universe exists outside your perception.

This is all in your head and even if it wasn't you'd never know anyway. :D

[Psychonaut]

I don't believe you can prove the Universe exists outside your perception.

While this is true, as Bishop Berkeley showed back in the 18th century, solipsism is perhaps the least useful of all paradigms. It might not be possible to disprove the solipsist position, but, as with any metaphysical construct, utility is just as important as, if not more so than, veracity.

[SouthernBoy]

It might not be possible to disprove the solipsist position, but, as with any metaphysical construct, utility is just as important as, if not more so than, veracity. What are you "utilizing?" :p

I'm through. I like to toy with Solipsism from time to time. I'm totally ambivalent on the issue and it really doesn't alter the way I see the world. :cool:

[Gooding]

Certain thoughts:
1: How and why was the Universe made? Who cares? It's done and we're here and we need to deal with it and enjoy as best we can.

2:What religion is best? In my opinion, the best religions are the non-creedal ones that emphasize Natural rhythms and Ancestral veneration, such as folkish faiths.Others have their own opinions, which I respect, but ultimately I answer only to my own conscience.

3: Our perceptions are reality as we perceive it. Objective reality trumps what we want and in the end, humanity has extinction to look forward to, as does the universe.

4:We can talk and argue Quantum Physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, Faith and Cosmic Truth until we're blue in the face, but the sun will still rise tomorrow, our planet will still rotate on its axis, people will still eat,execrate,socialize,fuck, date,marry,reproduce,work,raise families,and die as does any other organism.In one word, life and the universe continues, with or without us and our paltry mortal concerns.

5:The Nature of Religion is entertainment for the adherents.It gives them easy answers and demands only devotion and money in return.Humanity's basic needs are physical.Once these have been met, then we can develop our social skills.The third level is educational.Then we go into philosophy, training our minds to postulate hypothesis.Then,possibly, we can afford to go into the comfort of religion, that provides attractive mythologies we can entertain our minds with and tell ourselves that,like the child in the nursery, we are the favored of Higher Powers because we say, do and think the right things.In the end, our elements will dissolve all the same and we will leave offspring to repeat the human drama.:thumbs up

[Osweo]

That's true.Seeing as how the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have nothing in their writings about life on other planets, they ignore or speak out against the possibility.If humanity is not the end all of the Universe,then the most helpful human religions are the tribal ones, which encourage evolution in thought.:D:thumb001:

Ooh, but what was his name? That Irish missionary who became Bishop of Salzburg, who taught about the possibility of extra terrestrial life, some time before 800 AD? Ah, yes, St Virgil:
http://www.stvirgil.net/virgil.html?id=1091637867 :wink

[Gooding]

St.Virgil sounds like he was quite an enlightened man, but unfortunately nobody seemed to know what he was talking about..:wink ETs? Old gods? Fairy folk? Who knows?

[Osweo]

Fairy folk?
That may well be more the case, but it should be borne in mind that modern day alien-lore is near identical in its themes and storylines to older Fairy material. I've read a fair bit on the Fair Folk, and there's some fascinating stuff there, enough to prompt a thinking person to suspect there's a little more going on than mere fancy. :wink

[Skandi]

That may well be more the case, but it should be borne in mind that modern day alien-lore is near identical in its themes and storylines to older Fairy material. I've read a fair bit on the Fair Folk, and there's some fascinating stuff there, enough to prompt a thinking person to suspect there's a little more going on than mere fancy. :wink


There is almost certainly some truth in all of our tales, our brains are not very good at total fabrications. It's just sorting out the truth from the embellishments that is the difficult part.

[Psychonaut]

That may well be more the case, but it should be borne in mind that modern day alien-lore is near identical in its themes and storylines to older Fairy material. I've read a fair bit on the Fair Folk, and there's some fascinating stuff there, enough to prompt a thinking person to suspect there's a little more going on than mere fancy. :wink

Are you familiar with the work of the French UFOlogist Jacques F. Vallée? Since the 70s he's been collecting firsthand accounts of alleged alien abductions, then comparing and contrasting his findings with tales of faerie/elf/etc. abductions.

[Osweo]

Are you familiar with the work of the French UFOlogist Jacques F. Vallée? Since the 70s he's been collecting firsthand accounts of alleged alien abductions, then comparing and contrasting his findings with tales of faerie/elf/etc. abductions.

No! I'm delighted to hear of its existence though! Available en anglais, yet? I probably won't ever read it, mind :p, plenty of other things to read yet, but it's good that this approach has been taken. :thumbs up

[Gooding]

Oh, so this deals with fairy/alien abductions?I could certainly see the similarities there..I just seriously doubt that the aliens have the same focus on the natural world that the fairies allegedly do.
For the record, a simple logical deduction completely unsupported and contradicted by the Christian Church(official doctrine as opposed to individual members)would say that indeed life does exist on other planets.I'm far from sure that such life is close enough for us to have encountered it at present or in the past.Frankly, why would we be significant enough to deserve extraterrestrial notice?
Let's face it, confirmed and proven contact with alien life forms would completely nullify the need for covenantal religions such as the Middle Eastern ones and might revive our need for tribal religions to maintain our focus as a Folk while helping us to relate to these aliens. I laugh at conspiracy theories that have only rumor to substantiate them without solid proof.

[Skandi]

I'm guessing that it is trying to see if the abductions are actually by the same "force" and aliens/fairies are just different ways of explaining something you cannot understand.

[Psychonaut]

I'm guessing that it is trying to see if the abductions are actually by the same "force" and aliens/fairies are just different ways of explaining something you cannot understand.

That's it. The argument goes something like both aliens and faeries are the same entities. In both cases, our encounters with them go completely beyond what our minds are capable of comprehending, so we cloak it in whatever imagery our culture tells us accounts for this type of experience. A few centuries ago this would've been the faeries, nowadays it's aliens.

[Gooding]

That's a pretty good point, too.As the human mind is wonderfully adept at translating outside stimuli into something we can relate to and as it can soften the blow of traumatic experiences through the discharge of endorphins and creation of hallucinations,we get stories and vision quest type experiences that can help us appreciate life a bit more and add a touch of mystery to an otherwise mundane world.