|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s)
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #266971 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 01:23 |
|
Eric Jarvis:
>
> I'm inclined to take the latter course. You don't often get proof of a
> philosophical argument that you can eat.
True. I don't think I've _ever_ encountered an edible argument.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #266976 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 02:30 |
|
Puck wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> That's odd, because it's always those who proclaim wanting to fix the
> >> planet and its people that cause most of the human suffering. And
> >> wasn't Lucifer evicted in first place for saying "God, dude! Look at
> >> that mess you've created, I bet I could fix it."
> >
> > I'm in trouble, I keep reading this as Lex Luthor.
> >
> > They've both had their own DC Comics title at least once.
>
> That would make a nice "Who would win?" discussion.
Now I think of it, the post-crisis Lex Luthor did have dealings with a
moderately powerful demon named Neron. Got himself reincarnated, or
something.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #266983 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 03:34 |
|
E.S. wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:
>
>
>>This is a survey. If there are any gods reading this newsgroup could
>>they please post a followup to this message.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adrian.
>
>
> There's some guy here who wants to make clear he isn't a god, he's just
> a carpenter, and all those rumours about his mother having an affair
> behind his father's back are just lies, and could someone please get
> those nails off from his wrists...
>
And can't we all just get along?!
|
|
|
| is this the end of the thread ? [message #266986 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 03:54 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| hello [message #266990 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 06:23 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #266992 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 07:54 |
|
In article <csK9g.64096$5Z.24735 [at] dukeread02>,
Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>There is no omnipotence anywhere in the universe. God might appear to be
>omnipotent if compared to the way we see ourselves, but the real truth
>is "as above, so below." It's all arranged as a hierarchy.
You mean...
Large gods have little gods,
Upon their backs, to smite 'em,
And little gods have littler gods,
And so ad infinitum.
(With apologies to Swift or whomever)
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Yes, I've read a poem. Try not to faint.
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267000 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 10:32 |
|
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" <pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> If you can't define something, you can't say anything about it's
>> properties - including existence. That's what inability to define
>> something *means*.
>
> Excuse me? That is just plain false. You can often say quite a lot
> about an indefinite or unknown thing; generally but not exclusively
> about what that thing is not.
>
> For instance you might not have much idea about what exactly the
> nature of Art is but you can certainly state with confidence that the
> discarded wrapper of a bag of crisps poking out of the rubbish bin at
> the bus stop is not a work of Art.
By saying that, you *are* defining Art. Not a complete definition, of
course, but definition nevertheless.
Similarly, it's trivial to say, for example, that my left shoe is not God
[1]. That is part of the process of defining God. If you start from the
premise that God is undefinable, then you can't even get that far, and you
*certainly* can't prove existence or non-existence.
Peter
[1] Those who believe that my left shoe *is* God are welcome to contribute
to the debate here, but note that they only compound the definition problem
by proving that, in general, there is no accepted definition of God even
among those who say God is definable.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267003 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 10:58 |
|
"Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote
> And I'm not a non-believer; I have my belief. It's a made up belief, of
> course, which I have no problems realising. I can't show anyone, because
> there's nothing but hogswash to show. It still is my belief, and works
> well enough for me.
(Not specific response to your belief, Art, but belief in general.)
What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than what
they experience. I'm of the "Shit happens" school of philosopy & religion.
It's a lot easier to accept that not everything has a reason than to believe
that some people "deserve" good stuff and others bad.
And why the need to attribute everything unfathomable to a god? Does god
shrink as we find things out?
People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really not try
to convince others of the same on the strength of their personal conviction.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267004 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 11:25 |
|
SeekUp said:
> What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than what
> they experience.
Has it occurred to you that at least some of them might actually believe in
Something because they have in fact experienced Him?
> It's a lot easier to accept that not everything has a reason than to
> believe that some people "deserve" good stuff and others bad.
I can accept that not everything has a reason (for example, alcohol-free
lager - I mean, what's the *point*?), but I certainly don't believe that
anyone "deserves" good stuff.
> And why the need to attribute everything unfathomable to a god? Does god
> shrink as we find things out?
No.
> People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really not
> try to convince others of the same on the strength of their personal
> conviction.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. If that
is the case, then there /is/ a God, and the concept of salvation is the
most important concept in the world, and it is actually the duty as well as
the privilege of every Christian to do their best to ensure that everyone
gets to hear the Gospel, so that they can at least make up their own minds.
Now, personally I happen to agree with you that this does not imply that
Christians should necessarily try to *convince* others of the reality of
God. But (if, as I say, Christianity is /true/) the best possible way in
which Christians can show love for their neighbours is to - at the very
least - communicate to them, as best they can, the urgent importance of
reconciling oneself with God. Fred Believer may not be able to afford to
run a soup kitchen. He may not be able to afford to send thousands of
pounds worth of aid to Somalia. But he can certainly afford to chat to his
friends about the reality of his Christian experience.
(No, I'm not going to turn this into another monster thread. I've said my
bit, and now I'll shut up.)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267010 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 11:26 |
|
"Stacie Hanes" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
> > Andrew Nevill wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 May 2006 18:14:50 GMT, "Stacie Hanes"
> >> <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andrew Nevill wrote:
> >>
> >> [Concerning Tribute for the revelation of Certain photos]
> <snip>
> >> The only downside I can see is the strong possibility of my
> >> premature demise at the hands of a vengeful froup.
> >
> > *grin* Not me!
> > You are safe from me.
> >
> > peach
> > I've already seen.
>
> <SPLORF>
>
> <thud>
See? See? You're _guilty_, both of you, innocent as an alley cat, and
_you're_ the ones to tell us.
You can't hide it when you're that enthousiastic about it, you know.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267013 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 11:26 |
|
Matthew Seaman <m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> For instance you might not have much idea about what exactly the
> nature of Art is but you can certainly state with confidence that the
> discarded wrapper of a bag of crisps poking out of the rubbish bin at
> the bus stop is not a work of Art.
There's someone from the Tate Modern here who wants a word with you,
Matthew.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267014 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 11:26 |
|
Alec Cawley <alec [at] spamspam.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <86ody3ar1a.fsf [at] happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk>,
> m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk says...
> > Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > I will start with the suggestion that a God need not be omnipotent,
> > > omnipresent nor omniscient.
> >
> > I find that a necessary (but not sufficient) condition is that
> > anything labelled "God" has no real physical existence.
Or, perhaps equivalently, has an omnipresent physical existence, so that
we can't prove His existence because there's nowhere where you can point
and say: that's _not_ God.
> > Proof of God's existence would deny faith -- no need to believe in the
> > existence of chairs, when there's a padded seat right under your
> > backside. Any God that you could just go and see would become both
> > quotidian and explicable; and hence ordinary. A worthwhile deity has
> > to be both numinous and immaterial. Which is to say a thing that can
> > be imagined and wondered about, but that does not exist.
That's a premature conclusion. You can't prove His existence _using
physics_. That doesn't mean that He does not exist - it may mean that He
transcends physics, because He created them in the first place.
> I disagree. I could perfectly well imagine the existence of a God who,
> if appropriately propitiated, could (for example) perform miracles. For
> example, suppose the if you performed the ceremonies *exactly* right, A
> booming voice from heaven said "Oh, all right then - let it rain" and
> the rain started immediately. Such a phenomenon *does* not exist, but if
> it *did* exist, it would be reasonable to call it God.
No, it would be reasonable to call it a vending machine. A god who cares
only about the details of the ceremony (indeed, a god who cares _at all_
about the details of the ceremony) is not a true God.
> Viewed in this light, the essential facet of God is arbitrariness,
> unpredictability. Anything that can be predictably invoked, or at least
> predicted, is physics. In order for it to be God, it has to be
> fundamentally inexplicable. It is explanation, not existence that
> destroys faith.
That, too, is a hasty conclusion. It is _perfect_ predictability that
precludes godhood. I find that God _does_ more or less predictably have
a beneficial influence on what it pleases me to call my soul. Only more
or less, of course - sometimes I deserve a bollocking, after all.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267016 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 11:35 |
|
SeekUp wrote:
>
> What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than
> what they experience. I'm of the "Shit happens" school of philosopy &
> religion. It's a lot easier to accept that not everything has a
> reason than to believe that some people "deserve" good stuff and
> others bad.
If a lot of bad stuff happens to you, it can be a comfort to think that
you'll get a much better deal later, and that the people doing bad
things will, eventually, get punished.
It's a very attractive thought to think that the world is fair, that
those who abuse power will be punished, and that good people will be
rewarded. If not in this life, then in the next.
> And why the need to attribute everything unfathomable to a god?
What else can we attribute it to, but to something that by common
definition (no, Rocky, you're not common) is inscrutable?
People want to understand the world around them, and the preferred way
is by telling stories. If the story is about the big bang, or the
killing of a giant, or some god putting it all together in his garden
shed doesn't really matter.
If it's a good story, we're more likely to believe it.
> Does god shrink as we find things out?
No. Because in a sense we don't find things out. Have you, personally,
found out how lightning or volcanoes work? Or have you heard stories?
Old stories get replaced by new stories. Thunder used to be the sound
of Thor's waggon riding across the skies. Then a new story appeared,
and we were told that it was a sign from JHV or whatever. Now we're
told it's the sound of air rushing in to fill a vacuum left by
lightning, or one created by a sudden fall in pressure where cold air
meets hot.
You pick and chose which stories to believe. Or you're indoctrinated in
them from childhood, and keep believeing the things you've always
believed.
> People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really
> not try to convince others of the same on the strength of their
> personal conviction.
That's a laudable sentiment, and I trust you'll never fall for the
temptation to tell people that what they believe is wrong, and that your
beliefs are right. That is, you'll not tell someone that thunder is
caused by moving air rather than some god or other.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267018 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 12:07 |
|
Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> in article MPG.1ed05750a696283f989698 [at] news.btinternet.com, Gid Holyoake at
> abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk wrote on 13/05/2006 1:52 PM:
>
>> In article <C08B6FAB.4765B%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Lesley
>> Weston generously decided to share with us..
>>
>> Snippetry..
>>
>>> The English flower I miss the most is the primrose [1]; I asked my father to
>>> see if he could get some seeds last time he was in England, but apparently
>>> they're protected so you're not allowed to take even a few seeds out of the
>>> country.
>>
>> I have primroses in my garden.. would you like me to try and save some
>> seed this year for you?..
>
> That's an extraordinarily kind offer - I would love some seed if it's
> possible. Sending it might present difficulties, in which case please don't
> expose yourself to any unpleasantness, but barring that it's a lovely idea.
> We should arrange it by e-mail when the time comes [...]
You can send torrent seeds by email, but not primrose
seed. Sorry, but this won't work.
> [...]
SCNRobi
--
SpamTrap [at] gmx.de is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The sarcasm is mightier than the sword."
Eric Jarvis
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267023 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 12:49 |
|
It all started on Mon, 15 May 2006 12:07:34 +0200, when Hendrik Schober
wrote:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> in article MPG.1ed05750a696283f989698 [at] news.btinternet.com, Gid Holyoake
>> at abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk wrote on 13/05/2006 1:52 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C08B6FAB.4765B%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Lesley
>>> Weston generously decided to share with us..
>>>
>>> Snippetry..
>>>
>>>> The English flower I miss the most is the primrose [1]; I asked my
>>>> father to see if he could get some seeds last time he was in England,
>>>> but apparently they're protected so you're not allowed to take even a
>>>> few seeds out of the country.
>>>
>>> I have primroses in my garden.. would you like me to try and save some
>>> seed this year for you?..
>>
>> That's an extraordinarily kind offer - I would love some seed if it's
>> possible. Sending it might present difficulties, in which case please
>> don't expose yourself to any unpleasantness, but barring that it's a
>> lovely idea. We should arrange it by e-mail when the time comes [...]
>
>
> You can send torrent seeds by email, but not primrose seed. Sorry, but
> this won't work.
Well, why not torrent primrose seed?
Maybe if everybody starts growing primroses like mad now, we'll all have
gardens full of primroses by the end of the day.
...PeterH
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267026 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 13:20 |
|
Also Sprach Puck:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> That's odd, because it's always those who proclaim
>>> wanting to fix the planet and its people that cause most
>>> of the human suffering. And wasn't Lucifer evicted in
>>> first place for saying "God, dude! Look at that mess
>>> you've created, I bet I could fix it."
>>
>> I'm in trouble, I keep reading this as Lex Luthor.
>>
>> They've both had their own DC Comics title at least once.
>
> That would make a nice "Who would win?" discussion.
For some reason, I'm now imagining Morpheus being entrusted
with the key to LexCorp Tower, and assorted Superman villains
explaining why they should be the one to get it...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"What do monsters have nightmares about?"
"Me!"
-The Doctor
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267055 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 15:28 |
|
"Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote
> If a lot of bad stuff happens to you, it can be a comfort to think that
> you'll get a much better deal later, and that the people doing bad things
> will, eventually, get punished.
>
> It's a very attractive thought to think that the world is fair, that those
> who abuse power will be punished, and that good people will be rewarded.
> If not in this life, then in the next.
Yes, naturally, but something that is comforting isn't necessarily true.
Like the concept of heaven. I would love to believe that there is a place of
peace and happiness waiting for the ones I care about, there is just no
reason to.
> > And why the need to attribute everything unfathomable to a god?
>
> What else can we attribute it to, but to something that by common
> definition (no, Rocky, you're not common) is inscrutable?
What about "We don't know *yet*" ?
> People want to understand the world around them, and the preferred way is
> by telling stories. If the story is about the big bang, or the killing of
> a giant, or some god putting it all together in his garden shed doesn't
> really matter.
I'm curious. Will the god-in-a-shed theory really ever make more sense than
the big bang theory? Or is it a way of saying : We don't know, now stop
asking pesky questions!
> No. Because in a sense we don't find things out. Have you, personally,
> found out how lightning or volcanoes work? Or have you heard stories?
Yes, I have heard stories, but stories that are constantly being tested and
reworked according to the complete body of stories. And I don't "believe"
the stories to be true, just that they best model the world I see, so far.
> You pick and chose which stories to believe. Or you're indoctrinated in
> them from childhood, and keep believeing the things you've always
> believed.
Er, no. Science says "Think! Test! Think again!" Religion says "Stop
thinking, just believe!"
> > People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really
> > not try to convince others of the same on the strength of their
> > personal conviction.
>
> That's a laudable sentiment, and I trust you'll never fall for the
> temptation to tell people that what they believe is wrong, and that your
> beliefs are right. That is, you'll not tell someone that thunder is
> caused by moving air rather than some god or other.
Point taken, but. A relationship with god is personal, can't be explained,
must just be accepted and respected - sure enough. But if I told people I
visit the fairies at the bottom of my garden they would laugh and edge away
nervously. No less valid, right? No. Unless I can film them, show the tiny
footprints, or find traces of fairy-DNA for example, no-one would give my
beliefs the time of day. Unless Fairydom was one of the main-stream
religions, of course.
I know I'm going to get flamed, and really don't mean to offend, I just find
the phenomenon of religion baffling.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267062 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 16:10 |
|
SeekUp wrote:
> "Orjan Westin" <nospam [at] cunobaros.com> wrote
>>
>> It's a very attractive thought to think that the world is fair, that
>> those who abuse power will be punished, and that good people will be
>> rewarded. If not in this life, then in the next.
>
> Yes, naturally, but something that is comforting isn't necessarily
> true.
Agreed, but I can't see what the one has to do with the latter. We're
talking about belief, so there's no universal truth involved. It's what
a person believes or wants to be true.
> Like the concept of heaven. I would love to believe that there
> is a place of peace and happiness waiting for the ones I care about,
> there is just no reason to.
Belief is by definition unreasonable.
>>> And why the need to attribute everything unfathomable to a god?
>>
>> What else can we attribute it to, but to something that by common
>> definition (no, Rocky, you're not common) is inscrutable?
>
> What about "We don't know *yet*" ?
That makes a very unsatisfying story.
Yes, scientifically it's a good answer, but narratively it's deeply
flawed.
>> People want to understand the world around them, and the preferred
>> way is by telling stories. If the story is about the big bang, or
>> the killing of a giant, or some god putting it all together in his
>> garden shed doesn't really matter.
>
> I'm curious. Will the god-in-a-shed theory really ever make more
> sense than the big bang theory?
Well, unless you have all the mathematical, physical and cosmological
knowledge needed I'd say one make as much sense as the other.
But god-in-a-shed makes a better story to those without that knowledge.
> Or is it a way of saying : We don't
> know, now stop asking pesky questions!
Should we talk about dark energy and dark matter instead?
>> No. Because in a sense we don't find things out. Have you,
>> personally, found out how lightning or volcanoes work? Or have you
>> heard stories?
>
> Yes, I have heard stories, but stories that are constantly being
> tested and reworked according to the complete body of stories.
Yes, but those aren't very good stories. They do a great job at
predicting future events, and may even have a certain mathematical
elegance, but they're not very interesting stories. For one thing, they
don't have any people in them.
> And I
> don't "believe" the stories to be true, just that they best model the
> world I see, so far.
Well, until the old professors finally die and the next model is allowed
to come out, at least.
>> You pick and chose which stories to believe. Or you're
>> indoctrinated in them from childhood, and keep believeing the things
>> you've always believed.
>
> Er, no. Science says "Think! Test! Think again!" Religion says "Stop
> thinking, just believe!"
No, it doesn't. And science doesn't. When quantum physics was
developed, a lot of old scientists were saying "Stop thinking about
that, just believe our old model!"
And many religions leave huge amounts of room for your own
interpretation, too.
In many ways, science has won. The number of religious people believing
in god-in-a-shed is decreasing, and many accept physics' explanation of
the world to the same extent as non-scientific non-religious people do.
The role of religion in explaining the physical world has diminished
greatly in just the last century.
But religion is still relevant in those areas not addressed by science,
like ethics and morals, justice and free will.
It's perfectly possible to be a scientifically inclined religious
person - they address different aspects of the percieved reality.
The purpose of science is to explain the world and how to interact with
it. The purpose of religion is to explain yourself and other people,
and how to interact with each other.
>>> People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really
>>> not try to convince others of the same on the strength of their
>>> personal conviction.
>>
>> That's a laudable sentiment, and I trust you'll never fall for the
>> temptation to tell people that what they believe is wrong, and that
>> your beliefs are right.
>
> Point taken, but. A relationship with god is personal, can't be
> explained, must just be accepted and respected - sure enough. But if
> I told people I visit the fairies at the bottom of my garden they
> would laugh and edge away nervously.
I certainly wouldn't - I've met people with stranger beliefs. Are you
judging others by your own standards?
> No less valid, right? No. Unless
> I can film them, show the tiny footprints, or find traces of
> fairy-DNA for example, no-one would give my beliefs the time of day.
> Unless Fairydom was one of the main-stream religions, of course.
It's the whole flawed democracy malarkey again, I'm afraid. It's the
majority vote that defines what's acceptable and true. If you're the
only one with those beliefs, you are deviating too far from the norm.
You know, like that Planck fellow was laughed at and ridiculed, because
his beliefs were so out there.
> I know I'm going to get flamed, and really don't mean to offend, I
> just find the phenomenon of religion baffling.
It seems to me that you lack a lot of insight in it, and could do with a
bit of study on the subject. A lot of what "everyone knows" about
religion and religious people is simply not true.
Of course, I'm probably not the best person to discuss the subject with,
since I'm not religious and do not believe in any god or afterlife or
reincarnation or world turtle.
Like you, I was curious about the whole religion thing, and I've talked
to a lot of religious people, and read religious texts. I've studied,
thought and tested, you might say.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267070 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 17:43 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> In your own experience, you are undoubtedly the context within which
> your whole world appears. You have absolutely no way to prove, even to
> yourself, whether this world of yours is real or a figment of your
> imagination, no way to know if others represent experiencing beings like
> yourself or just figments animated by the same process by which you
> create the rest of your universe. Few normal humans are prepared to see
> or to admit this to themselves, but comprehension of this undeniable
> fact is the beginning of wisdom.
I, myself, have read "Sophie's World" and seen the Matrix trilogy. I
think I understand this undeniable fact. Even if I really don't, I want
to know this:
What is the next part of wisdom?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267071 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 18:24 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> SeekUp said:
>
> > What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than what
> > they experience.
>
> Has it occurred to you that at least some of them might actually believe in
> Something because they have in fact experienced Him?
Oh, Richard! I was just wondering where you were.
That one there is Rocky Frisco. He also (thinks he) has experienced
God. In fact, he (thinks he) is God.
I'll go make some popcorn...
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267082 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:41 |
|
Michael J. Schülke wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>> I will say that I'm taking it on faith that the tv pictures really fly
>>through the air like everyone says. I can't see them in the air, no
>>matter how hard I look.
>
>
> The difference, however, is that you don't *have to* take it on faith --
> you can learn how it works, from electrodynamics to circuit design, and
> then you can take your measuring equipment and trace the pictures every
> single step of the way.
>
> Michael
So how is that different than if I were to say that you would see God
the same as I do if you study the texts I give you to study and learn my
point of view?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267083 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:49 |
|
Rocky Frisco wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>> I don't think I do agree.
>> In fact, if I AM properly comprehending, then I think we have almost
>> completely opposite beliefs about who God is.
>
>
> Maybe all the way 'round and meeting on the other side?
It's unlikely, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.
On the flip side, maybe it's even better to just have acceptance for
each other believing differently rather than trying to share the
beliefs. I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole thing of trying to
make things meet up and find that common ground is what leads to schizms
and 19 different flavors of any given denomination.
>
>> But I'm okay with that. There are few who share my beliefs as I've
>> almost completely invented them myself. But at least I know that.
>
>
> God made in (wo)man's image? I think that has been tried before. ;)
Well, in THIS woman's image, at least.
I find I don't much approve of the god most women create for
themselves either. Far too stuffy for my taste, and way too many things
that make them go "ewwww".
>
> (Rocky says)
>
>>> I will add that I also think that if people have the courage and
>>> wisdom to honesty seek the truth about this, they will eventually
>>> understand that ones resultant definitions of God and oneself will be
>>> synonymous.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm. In many ways my definition of God, at least the personal
>> characteristics I'd want in a God, would be someone who can live up to
>> my high ideals in a way I never quite can.
>
>
> See above.
Precisely why I mentioned it. I knew it was the one thing that meets
your criteria.
>
>> But the essence to me of Godhood is the ability to change things.
>> Everything. Which means that I have to come up with other personal
>> characteristics that rationalize away why the world is how it is.
>
>
> I reckon I think God knows why everything is the way it is, so doesn't
> need to change anything to achieve Divine Justice.
Yeah. That's what works for me at the times it does.
It doesn't often.
>
>> I can envision a kind omnipotent God, I can imagine a cruel
>> omnipotent God, I can imagine an indifferent omnipotent God. I
>> usually believe in a God working to a plan or vision bigger than mine,
>> thereby explaining away why it's incomprehensible to me.
>
>
> May I suggest that if you were willing to learn how you are personally
> responsible for things as they are, you might have a revelation that
> would render the nature of things much less incomprehensible?
I am willing to entertain that notion. That said, I'm unwilling to
accept personal responsibility for anything I can't fix in any
substantial way. Substantial for me being completely self-defined, of
course.
>
>> But the omnipotence is THE defining factor of Godhood for me.
>
>
> There is no omnipotence anywhere in the universe. God might appear to be
> omnipotent if compared to the way we see ourselves, but the real truth
> is "as above, so below." It's all arranged as a hierarchy.
And that's where we part ways. At least on beliefs.
I don't see any point in worshipping, serving, or arranging my life to
suit someone who is just like me. Given that option, I'll stick with
arranging my life to suit me and serving my date tonight.
~ peach
Who was kidding with that last line
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267086 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:55 |
|
peachy ashie passion wrote, quoting myself:
> > The difference, however, is that you don't *have to* take it on faith --
> > you can learn how it works, from electrodynamics to circuit design, and
> > then you can take your measuring equipment and trace the pictures every
> > single step of the way.
> So how is that different than if I were to say that you would see God
> the same as I do if you study the texts I give you to study and learn my
> point of view?
In the latter case, I would have to *believe* that your texts contain
the truth; there is no means of independent verification. In the former,
you wouldn't have to believe anything; you could treat every single
statement as an assertion, and then (in principle, assuming sufficient
time and budget) experimentally verify it.
Michael
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267088 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 21:05 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>
>>> Then you're not showing me God, plain and simple. You're failing to
>>> show me God.
>>
>>
>> Aha! Then you're a fundamentalist non-believer/
>
>
> Call me Thomas, but I need to put my hands in his wounds, *physically*
> and not methaphorically. In other words, I need verifiable proof, and
> not just interpretations of personal experiences; in my view, that's not
> showing anything about God, but a lot about the person doing the "showing".
>
> And I'm not a non-believer; I have my belief. It's a made up belief, of
> course, which I have no problems realising. I can't show anyone,
> because there's nothing but hogswash to show. It still is my belief,
> and works well enough for me.
There is a possibility hard-wired into every human of "remembering the
ancient beginning" which shows you who you are and who God is. Since a
very large proportion of the human intellect is engaged in NOT
remembering, this experience frees up lots of thinking power and answers
many of a person's deepest questions.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267096 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 21:27 |
|
Jens Ayton wrote:
> Rocky Frisco:
>
>>Okay, here's one: God is the context within which experience can take
>>place, the context where the universe can manifest.
> Sounds like the mind to me. Certainly I see no necessity of any other
> context in which experience takes place, let alone one which is in any
> way related to any traditional concept of God. Of course, you're free to
> state that experience exists within a context, and the name of that
> context is Rubber Ducky.
"And He said unto them, "Quack quack!"
>>What if the person knows God from personal experience rather than as the
>>object of a belief system? If you say this is impossible, then you are a
>>fundamentalist non-believer.
> One person's personal experience of God must necessarily be considered
> subjective, and attributing the experience to the concept of God -
> whatever the specifics of that concept - can be considered a belief
> system, even if it is a very personal one.
Can't argue with that.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267100 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 21:38 |
|
raltbos [at] xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Matthew Seaman <m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > For instance you might not have much idea about what exactly the
> > nature of Art is but you can certainly state with confidence that the
> > discarded wrapper of a bag of crisps poking out of the rubbish bin at
> > the bus stop is not a work of Art.
>
> There's someone from the Tate Modern here who wants a word with you,
> Matthew.
Are they carrying a large cheque book?
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267106 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:20 |
|
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Michael_J=2E_Sch=FClke?= <news0605 [at] mjschuelke.de> wrote:
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > Which? The original one in the BM, or the new one? AFAICT the new one
> > itself isn't worth seeing, but the exhibition of manuscripts and other
> > interesting books there, though not large, is very much worth seeing.
>
> There usually is another exhibition on a special topic, which is also
> worth seeing. "The Lie of the Land" [1], which I saw in 2001, was
> especially impressive; the upcoming one [2] looks interesting, too.
> [1] http://www.bl.uk/whatson/exhibitions/lieland/m0-0.html
I think I saw that one. Was I in London in 2001? Possibly, if it wasn't
2000 or 2002.
> [2] http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/whatson/exhibitions/forthcomi ng.html
Oh, that looks interesting, too - especially to someone who works in
newspapers, like me. If I don't make the Con, I shall certainly
endeavour to see this.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267107 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:20 |
|
"SeekUp" <seek.up.girl [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> wrote
>
> > And I'm not a non-believer; I have my belief. It's a made up belief, of
> > course, which I have no problems realising. I can't show anyone, because
> > there's nothing but hogswash to show. It still is my belief, and works
> > well enough for me.
>
> (Not specific response to your belief, Art, but belief in general.)
>
> What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than what
> they experience.
Who says we do?
> People are welcome to believe anything they like, but should really not try
> to convince others of the same on the strength of their personal conviction.
I don't; and ditto.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267108 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:20 |
|
"E.S." <eero.suoranta [at] jtoy.inet.fi> wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>
> > In your own experience, you are undoubtedly the context within which
> > your whole world appears. You have absolutely no way to prove, even to
> > yourself, whether this world of yours is real or a figment of your
> > imagination, no way to know if others represent experiencing beings like
> > yourself or just figments animated by the same process by which you
> > create the rest of your universe. Few normal humans are prepared to see
> > or to admit this to themselves, but comprehension of this undeniable
> > fact is the beginning of wisdom.
>
> I, myself, have read "Sophie's World" and seen the Matrix trilogy. I
> think I understand this undeniable fact. Even if I really don't, I want
> to know this:
> What is the next part of wisdom?
Not _caring_ whether you are the world, or the world is you.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267116 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 23:02 |
|
Matthew Seaman <m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> raltbos [at] xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>
> > Matthew Seaman <m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > For instance you might not have much idea about what exactly the
> > > nature of Art is but you can certainly state with confidence that the
> > > discarded wrapper of a bag of crisps poking out of the rubbish bin at
> > > the bus stop is not a work of Art.
> >
> > There's someone from the Tate Modern here who wants a word with you,
> > Matthew.
>
> Are they carrying a large cheque book?
I don't think so. I think they're carrying the posts of an unmade bed
and shards of a urinal, and are making threatening moves with them.
Richard
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267118 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:49 |
|
Stacie Hanes posted:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
>>> http://www.spiderzrule.com/IMG_2318s.jpg
>>
>> (Cancels plans to visit Australia)
>
> I can't cancel. I've promised Adrian I'll visit one day.
>
What extravagance, a whole day? That should be ok though,
spiderwise, I didn't see even one on my first day, probably
the jet lag. ;-)
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267123 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 23:23 |
|
Orjan Westin:
> SeekUp:
>>
>> Er, no. Science says "Think! Test! Think again!" Religion says "Stop
>> thinking, just believe!"
>
> No, it doesn't. And science doesn't. When quantum physics was
> developed, a lot of old scientists were saying "Stop thinking about
> that, just believe our old model!"
Just because they were scientists doesn't mean their attitude was
valid science. The quantum entered the scientific body of understanding,
the "don't look behind the curtain" didn't.
--
\\\\ Jens Ayton, Fratello di Vetinari 36.3636363636364% insane
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267127 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 23:43 |
|
The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
> In article <csK9g.64096$5Z.24735 [at] dukeread02>,
> Rocky Frisco <rocknatural [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There is no omnipotence anywhere in the universe. God might appear to be
>>omnipotent if compared to the way we see ourselves, but the real truth
>>is "as above, so below." It's all arranged as a hierarchy.
>
>
> You mean...
>
> Large gods have little gods,
> Upon their backs, to smite 'em,
> And little gods have littler gods,
> And so ad infinitum.
>
> (With apologies to Swift or whomever)
I like that!
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267134 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 00:29 |
|
in article pan.2006.05.15.10.49.42.751917 [at] yahoo.co.uk, Peter Davies at
peterhjr [at] yahoo.co.uk wrote on 15/05/2006 3:49 AM:
> It all started on Mon, 15 May 2006 12:07:34 +0200, when Hendrik Schober
> wrote:
>
>> Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> in article MPG.1ed05750a696283f989698 [at] news.btinternet.com, Gid Holyoake
>>> at abuse [at] brynamman.org.uk wrote on 13/05/2006 1:52 PM:
>>>
>>>> In article <C08B6FAB.4765B%brightly_coloured_blob [at] yahoo.co.uk>, Lesley
>>>> Weston generously decided to share with us..
>>>>
>>>> Snippetry..
>>>>
>>>>> The English flower I miss the most is the primrose [1]; I asked my
>>>>> father to see if he could get some seeds last time he was in England,
>>>>> but apparently they're protected so you're not allowed to take even a
>>>>> few seeds out of the country.
>>>>
>>>> I have primroses in my garden.. would you like me to try and save some
>>>> seed this year for you?..
>>>
>>> That's an extraordinarily kind offer - I would love some seed if it's
>>> possible. Sending it might present difficulties, in which case please
>>> don't expose yourself to any unpleasantness, but barring that it's a
>>> lovely idea. We should arrange it by e-mail when the time comes [...]
>>
>>
>> You can send torrent seeds by email, but not primrose seed. Sorry, but
>> this won't work.
>
> Well, why not torrent primrose seed?
>
> Maybe if everybody starts growing primroses like mad now, we'll all have
> gardens full of primroses by the end of the day.
What a lovely thought!
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267136 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 00:35 |
|
Richard Bos wrote:
> Or, perhaps equivalently, has an omnipresent physical existence, so that
> we can't prove His existence because there's nowhere where you can point
> and say: that's _not_ God.
Incredibly good and close to what's so, I think.
>>>Proof of God's existence would deny faith -- no need to believe in the
>>>existence of chairs, when there's a padded seat right under your
>>>backside. Any God that you could just go and see would become both
>>>quotidian and explicable; and hence ordinary. A worthwhile deity has
>>>to be both numinous and immaterial. Which is to say a thing that can
>>>be imagined and wondered about, but that does not exist.
>
>
> That's a premature conclusion. You can't prove His existence _using
> physics_. That doesn't mean that He does not exist - it may mean that He
> transcends physics, because He created them in the first place.
Or because God exists in a higher dimension than the one our physics
explains, so that what we can see of God is only a small part of what's
there.
--Brutal snippery--
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267150 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:00 |
|
in article 86fyjc2xvr.fsf [at] happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk, Matthew
Seaman at m.seaman [at] infracaninophile.co.uk wrote on 14/05/2006 12:46 PM:
> "Peter Ellis" <pjie2 [at] cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> If you can't define something, you can't say anything about it's
>> properties - including existence. That's what inability to define something
>> *means*.
>
> Excuse me? That is just plain false. You can often say quite a lot
> about an indefinite or unknown thing; generally but not exclusively
> about what that thing is not.
>
> For instance you might not have much idea about what exactly the
> nature of Art is but you can certainly state with confidence that the
> discarded wrapper of a bag of crisps poking out of the rubbish bin at
> the bus stop is not a work of Art.
Not really - look at Tracey Emin's work.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267156 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 00:53 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267157 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:21 |
|
SeekUp wrote:
> Er, no. Science says "Think! Test! Think again!" Religion says "Stop
> thinking, just believe!"
Maybe some do, but I don't get that impression from Zen Buddhism or
Taoism. That unfortunate tendency seems to go hand-in-hand with having
an "infallible Holy Book."
(Which is impossible, since words are not events or things.)
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267159 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:34 |
|
E.S. wrote:
> Rocky Frisco wrote:
>>In your own experience, you are undoubtedly the context within which
>>your whole world appears. You have absolutely no way to prove, even to
>>yourself, whether this world of yours is real or a figment of your
>>imagination, no way to know if others represent experiencing beings like
>>yourself or just figments animated by the same process by which you
>>create the rest of your universe. Few normal humans are prepared to see
>>or to admit this to themselves, but comprehension of this undeniable
>>fact is the beginning of wisdom.
> I, myself, have read "Sophie's World" and seen the Matrix trilogy. I
> think I understand this undeniable fact. Even if I really don't, I want
> to know this:
> What is the next part of wisdom?
Not accepting the Devil's Bargain.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Testing for the Existence of God(s) [message #267160 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:37 |
|
E.S. wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>
>>SeekUp said:
>>
>>
>>>What I don't get is people's need to believe in Something other than what
>>>they experience.
>>
>>Has it occurred to you that at least some of them might actually believe in
>>Something because they have in fact experienced Him?
>
>
> Oh, Richard! I was just wondering where you were.
> That one there is Rocky Frisco. He also (thinks he) has experienced
> God. In fact, he (thinks he) is God.
> I'll go make some popcorn...
Never mind, I'll just materialize some.
-Rocky
--
O'Toole's Corollary: Murphy was an optimist.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:48:57 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11269 Sekunden |
