Guest Someone Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 On 12/20/06 9:16 AM, in article 1166634996.565997.182750@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Someone wrote: >> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article >> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >>> In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists. >>> It's not a matter of denial until then. >>> >> >> Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist" >> is somehow NOT denying God exists? >> >> To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come from... >> But I still think it's illogical. > > I think you mean deny in the sense "to refuse to recognize or > acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods." From my > point of view, if I said I denied your god's existence then that would > implicitly mean I concede he exists. I don't. We're not there yet. You > have to convince me he exists before I get around to denying it. If I > do. > Ah, when I started reading newsgroups, I vowed to never get into semantic arguments. sigh To "deny" is to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of something." But if you're definition makes more sense to you than the dictionary's, who am I to complain? >>>> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does >>>> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he >>>> comes >>>> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was >>>> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try >>>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). >>> >>> If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you >>> forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the >>> wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence >>> for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to >>> me. >>> >> >> Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God . >> Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is >> in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had a >> point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was >> (and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it >> is you believe you have in there in place of one): > > You seemed to have glossed over the part where I asked you what would > happen if you picked the wrong god. That's part of the wager, betting > that you have picked the right deity. And I think you're playing with > your eternal soul if you think you can act like an asshole in front of > the god while claiming to have been good. > If being wrong has a negative result of "N" And there are G gods in existence... Getting a negative result of N by choosing a god at random if there is a God is N = O(G-1) Getting a negative result of N by not choosing a god at all if there is a God is N=O(G) .... Hence, Pascal was right, the odds are better if you choose a god... But gets marginally so as the set G gets larger. But let's look at it the other way. If there is no gods at all... then: N = 0 O(G-1) = 0 in the first case and N = 0 O(G) = 0 in the second. Add up the two probabilities and Pascal is still right (ignoring the fact that we don't know what God really judges us by). >> "We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ... >> See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time >> understanding that? > > You are apparently incapable of abstract thought, it's not my fault. > As you apparently occasionally lose the capability of objective thought--at least when the capital-G word is used. >> My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was... >> >> >>>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" >>> >>> Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the >>> ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete >>> lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting >>> "Christ-like." >> >> Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a >> phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to >> act 'Gandhi-like?'" >> >> People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely >> secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ >> that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious >> perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's >> attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ... > > Oh. And here I was thinking that you were talking about the whole > package. My bad for not reading your mind. I love being blamed when > someone else is unclear. Unclear? Sorry, communication takes two people (and in the case of Newsgroups, apparently lots of people ). I thought I was clear by separating the idea of "Christ" from "Christian." Even Bertrand Russell acknowledges that Christ was a decent fellow, and only appears to take issue with his "what happens after death" views. That's like saying Abraham Lincoln was a horrible person because he believed in God. If people are incapable of separating a person's actions from WHAT THEY PERCEIVE a person's belief's are, then humanity is doomed regardless of religion, deism or atheism. > By the way, I'm not convinced that Christ even > existed. I tend to think he did, but existant or not, I'm not impressed > by him. The fabled "love and forgiveness" turned out to be pretty > conditional, and the part about believing him or else god would be > unhappy was fairly coersive. Which I want no part of. > >> So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead. > > a. Gandhi made no claims of divinity. > b. Gandhi was real. > c. Gandhi was a politician. > > How does anything I have to say about Gandhi relate to anything I have > to say about Christ? > I didn't know you were a Gandhi admirer, I was just choosing a "good man" at random from history. His name came to mind first (actually, second, "Jesus Christ" came to my mind first). .. .. <<SNIP>> .. > Me again...I think Christ was a lunatic (my word) based on the above. > >> And if you can't get over that mental block, then remove him from the >> sentence altogether: what harm does it do if we live as if we'll be checked >> at the end of our lives? > > I see a difference between "we might be checked at the end of our > lives" and "as if we'll be checked at the end of our lives." Both of > which you're tossing out. "As if" implies that you're acting without > believing, which I can manage, "might" implies that you're acting on > belief, which I can't. You should come over to my place. I have quite a few more nits you can pick. > Either way though, I think acting "good" because > you're scared a deity might be pissed off is delusional (until you > prove that a deity actually exists), and acting delusionally can be > harmful. Look at the number of theists, Christian theists included, who > thought they were acting "good" when in fact they were inflicting great > pain and causing tremendous social upheaval. The guys who flew the > planes into the World Trade Tower thought they were acting good. > > I prefer that people base their social behaviour on the rational > concept that we're all better off if we're all supportive of each > other, and follow the secular laws of the land. Something like that. No > threat of god or religious delusions required, since I think any good > parts of the religious message just get twisted. > >>>> I'm not saying Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't >>>> get >>>> into a tizzy. >>> >> >> And I suppose you didn't understand that sentence either. > > It didn't apply to me so I ignored it. I'm not a radical, and you have > a long ways to go for me to achieve "tizzy." Up to now I've thought you > were sort of funny. > Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote > >> A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true >> without proof. > > But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the > discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. > > --Wax Yes, the postulate is useless, except in the special case where you do not accept it as true and you will agree to "set" it to true just for the sake of testing and checking out and examining the logic of an argument. Setting a statement to true just for the sake of argument is not the same as accepting it as true. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 ']'''''''''' 'An atument may logical evern if it is based on false premises. a major premise that is false. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 On 12/20/06 9:52 AM, in article %Leih.535251$QZ1.531033@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > > "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote > >> >> Why deny it? I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for >> it (does anyone see a flaw in his logic?) > > Philosophers have torn Pascal's Wager apart many years ago. There are > numerous flaws in it. The biggest of them is his assumption that there are > only two choices. There are really thousands of religions and religious > sects, and several times that many possible religions. The chance of > choosing the one TRUE RELIGION is against you. Chossing the wrong religion > could be interpreted as worse than joining no religion, therefore you may be > condemning youself to eternal punishment by choosing to follow a false God.. > > Another problem is that you are choosing God out of the hope of receiving a > reward, rather than the purer motive of choosing God because it is right. > It may be the nature of God to reject you on that point alone. > > Finally, people may use that argument in confronting others, but I have > never heard of anybody giving that as the reason they became religious. > I have to discount my perceptions of what it is that God will judge me on, because, frankly, I don't know. Christians believe that God will judge me solely on the basis of "accepting Jesus Christ as my Personal Lord and Savior" .. Jews believe that I will be judged according to how well I keep "God's Law." I'm not sure what noodlists believe we'll be judged on. So lacking any miraculous revelation, I can only assume that the "punishment" is equal for being an unbeliever and being a wrong-believer. The allusion (if you didn't get it below) is from the Christian Bible that says "..cast into a furnace of fire; and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew, I think). I concede, I may be wrong with my attitude towards Pascal's Wager, but I would think that if God really wanted me to believe in Him in order to pass that Judgment, He'd give me a little more than historical anecdotal evidence for that belief; barring that, I'll do the best that I can do. > >> Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes to me and says "Look, I >> know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was up to you to >> provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try >> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). >> >> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" I'm not saying >> Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a >> tizzy. > > I follow the theory that Jesus was a political rebel. That is exactly what > the title "Messiah" means. According to the Old Testament, the messiah will > sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. > Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and he did not restore the kingdoms > of Israel and Judah. Therefore Jesus could not have been the messiah. > > Christianity has made Jesus into a God. If you are a Christian, you may be > violating the 2nd Commandment by worshipping a false god, and will bring the > anger of Yahweh upon your children even unto the fourth generation (Exodus > 20:5). You are gambling your children's souls. You and your children may > be better off not worshipping any God at all. > > --Wax > > I was not referring to the worshiping of Christ--I was trying to build the picture of "acting good because Ye Think Ye Wilst Be Judged" and ask again, what would the harm to a secular society if believers strove to be like Christ? Frankly, a lot of Christianity scares me--the ones where people "read between the lines" (e.g. Make up stuff to fit their preconceived notions of How the World Ought To Be); and therefore justify condemning teenagers because they had abortions, wives because they left their abusive husbands, daughters for being promiscuous... And bombing abortion clinics because they are the tools of ev-il. That's scary. I wish Christians would be more Christ-like too. And you will notice, I'm trying not to pass judgment on even Christians--I only state my concern as it pertains to me. I still hold fast to the notion that we each eventually have to come to grips with with our own mortality. If God doesn't fit into that, then good for you. If it does, then good for you too. Each of us gets the answer sheet when it happens... Or are in a state where we won't care. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Someone wrote: > On 12/20/06 9:16 AM, in article > 1166634996.565997.182750@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone wrote: > >> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article > >> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > . > . <<SNIP>> > . > >>> In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists. > >>> It's not a matter of denial until then. > >>> > >> > >> Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist" > >> is somehow NOT denying God exists? > >> > >> To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come from... > >> But I still think it's illogical. > > > > I think you mean deny in the sense "to refuse to recognize or > > acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods." From my > > point of view, if I said I denied your god's existence then that would > > implicitly mean I concede he exists. I don't. We're not there yet. You > > have to convince me he exists before I get around to denying it. If I > > do. > > > > Ah, when I started reading newsgroups, I vowed to never get into semantic > arguments. sigh > > To "deny" is to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of something." But > if you're definition makes more sense to you than the dictionary's, who am I > to complain? That part in quotes was straight from an online dictionary. > >>>> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does > >>>> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he > >>>> comes > >>>> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was > >>>> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try > >>>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). > >>> > >>> If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you > >>> forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the > >>> wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence > >>> for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to > >>> me. > >>> > >> > >> Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God . > >> Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is > >> in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had a > >> point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was > >> (and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it > >> is you believe you have in there in place of one): > > > > You seemed to have glossed over the part where I asked you what would > > happen if you picked the wrong god. That's part of the wager, betting > > that you have picked the right deity. And I think you're playing with > > your eternal soul if you think you can act like an asshole in front of > > the god while claiming to have been good. > > > > If being wrong has a negative result of "N" > And there are G gods in existence... > Getting a negative result of N by choosing a god at random if there is a God > is N = O(G-1) > Getting a negative result of N by not choosing a god at all if there is a > God is N=O(G) > > ... Hence, Pascal was right, the odds are better if you choose a god... But > gets marginally so as the set G gets larger. I look at it more as wasting your precious time if there isn't a god, and since there's no evidence whatsoever that there is, I'll play the odds (the odds are zero anyway) and go on about my business without religion. If I do end up on a god's doorstep (I won't), I'll apologize profusely. And I'll really mean it. I'm hoping if there is a god, it's Aphrodite. > But let's look at it the other way. If there is no gods at all... then: > > N = 0 O(G-1) = 0 in the first case and > N = 0 O(G) = 0 in the second. > > Add up the two probabilities and Pascal is still right (ignoring the fact > that we don't know what God really judges us by). And I wtill won't waste my precious life chasing after phantasms. I like that wager better than Pascal's. > >> "We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ... > >> See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time > >> understanding that? > > > > You are apparently incapable of abstract thought, it's not my fault. > > > > As you apparently occasionally lose the capability of objective thought--at > least when the capital-G word is used. You first have to prove objectively that a god exists. > >> My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was... > >> > >> > >>>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" > >>> > >>> Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the > >>> ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete > >>> lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting > >>> "Christ-like." > >> > >> Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a > >> phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to > >> act 'Gandhi-like?'" > >> > >> People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely > >> secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ > >> that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious > >> perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's > >> attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ... > > > > Oh. And here I was thinking that you were talking about the whole > > package. My bad for not reading your mind. I love being blamed when > > someone else is unclear. > > Unclear? Sorry, communication takes two people (and in the case of > Newsgroups, apparently lots of people ). I thought I was clear by > separating the idea of "Christ" from "Christian." Even Bertrand Russell > acknowledges that Christ was a decent fellow, and only appears to take issue > with his "what happens after death" views. So you didn't read the essay. > That's like saying Abraham > Lincoln was a horrible person because he believed in God. If people are > incapable of separating a person's actions from WHAT THEY PERCEIVE a > person's belief's are, then humanity is doomed regardless of religion, deism > or atheism. So you didn't read the part about Christs's actions. That aside, I think talking IS an action. > > By the way, I'm not convinced that Christ even > > existed. I tend to think he did, but existant or not, I'm not impressed > > by him. The fabled "love and forgiveness" turned out to be pretty > > conditional, and the part about believing him or else god would be > > unhappy was fairly coersive. Which I want no part of. > > > >> So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead. > > > > a. Gandhi made no claims of divinity. > > b. Gandhi was real. > > c. Gandhi was a politician. > > > > How does anything I have to say about Gandhi relate to anything I have > > to say about Christ? > > > > I didn't know you were a Gandhi admirer, I was just choosing a "good man" at > random from history. His name came to mind first (actually, second, "Jesus > Christ" came to my mind first). It's debatable whether Jesus was an historical character. Either way, I like Gandhi a whole lot better than Christ, but I see them as being qualitatively different, starting with existence and proceeding to sanity. Christ in the Bible reminds me so much of those megalomaniac psychopaths with Messianic complexes that I've had the pleasure to know, promoting themselves as divine and full of love while acting in a despicably hateful manner. Gandhi was just a good guy who did a lot for humanity in a pragmatic manner, no divining the supernatural required. Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 duke wrote: > On 12 Dec 2006 13:17:27 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Nothing created the universe?? Science says it's only 14.5 billion years old? > >> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator? > >Complex cause arg #99,999,543,123 > > Well, if not the supreme creator, then matter and energy created themselves. > This is a fallacy of anthropomorphism. "Matter" and "energy" are not "themselves" in the personified sense. "They" do not "do" anything in of themselves. They are not intelligent entities. It is a straightforward prediction of quantum mechanics (ref. heisenberg uncertainty principle) that at any moment, matter or energy have a probability to spontaneously appear - so long as the amount of energy or its lifespan fit within the uncertainty 'window'. For example, just now, a bowling ball materialized over your head - but then vanished immediately because the amount of energy for that to happen is so enormous that the lifespan had to be infinitesmally short. :-) It had to fit within the uncertainty window for measuring time, given the large mass/energy. Conversely, if you have enough time to wait, such that the uncertainty in time starts to stretch out - then spontaneous objects can start to have long life spans. It all is relative. Given an infinite amount of _eventless_ time, the uncertainty describing any point in time becomes itself infinite (or at least very, very big). Within that window, suddenly out of nowhere, a huge blob of energy is permitted by the principle to spontaneously appear because QM predicts that eventually / probabilistically the eventless time will include an event. Boom - the Big Bang. Once you have the Big Bang, the rest (Time and Matter as We Know It) follows. There, I just created the universe for ya with no god. All I needed was pure nothingness to start with (eventless time). This all follows from sophmore college physics, if you paid attention. Another way of looking at it is that our universe, all its matter and all its lifespan, exist within a bubble of uncertainty. :-) Eventually, the REAL god (who exists outside all that if he exists at all) is going to look this way and make a measurement, collapsing the uncertainty and it will all end. We are Shroedinger's Cat. The universe is the box. Enjoy your time in the box. Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Jim07D6 wrote: > "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> said: > > > > >duke wrote: > >> On 12 Dec 2006 13:20:09 -0800, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> >Just maybe it always was and always will be! > >> >> It always.......................was?????????? > >> >> And you're foolish enough to vote against "God did it"? > >> >Why? What will happen? > >> > >> Meat spoils. > > > >Not if you freeze it. But what's that got to do with god's > >existance? > Don't forget drying / salting / smoking / pickling / etc. Technology good. Lotsa ways to preserve meat. Beef Jerky - Yummm.... > God-meat doesn't spoil? > -- Jim07D6 What does God-meat taste like? Chicken? Lamb? How is it best served? Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > Bill M kirjoitti: > > > "duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message > > news:i2prn2h2n8d8rik4q54upsooscpj5vc9hm@4ax.com... > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" > > > <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > >>I suggest that God could not exist before there was somewhere in which he > > >>could exist, and that was the universe. > > > > > > Then what created the universe? > > > > > > > Just maybe it always was and always will be! > > That's not really compatibe with observation. If the universe had > always existed, the night sky would be bright, as all lines of sight > would end on a star whose light had had time to reach us. Furthermore, > the universe would be much closer to thermal equilibrium - stars do not > burn forever. The fact that they are still burning tells us the > universe hasn't existed forever. Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar tried > to argue for a steady-state theory of the universe, by introducing the > idea that some matter is created all the time to keep the universe > approximately in the state it's in, but not only is violation of energy > conservation dodgy++ scientifically, observations have nailed the last > nail in that coffin. Just to nit-pick - you are correct in your arguments against a _static_ universe, but the above argument says nothing about whether the universe always existed and always will exist. You can have an eternally existing universe that has changed over time and still get the dark sky at night. (Not that I'm proposing such because it would fail to fit other aspects of the observed universe ). Otherwise, you are completely correct. Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 On 12/20/06 10:31 AM, in article 1166639463.899165.144100@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Someone wrote: >> On 12/20/06 9:16 AM, in article >> 1166634996.565997.182750@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Someone wrote: >>>> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article >>>> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" >>>> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> . >> . <<SNIP>> >> . >>>>> In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists. >>>>> It's not a matter of denial until then. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist" >>>> is somehow NOT denying God exists? >>>> >>>> To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come >>>> from... >>>> But I still think it's illogical. >>> >>> I think you mean deny in the sense "to refuse to recognize or >>> acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods." From my >>> point of view, if I said I denied your god's existence then that would >>> implicitly mean I concede he exists. I don't. We're not there yet. You >>> have to convince me he exists before I get around to denying it. If I >>> do. >>> >> >> Ah, when I started reading newsgroups, I vowed to never get into semantic >> arguments. sigh >> >> To "deny" is to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of something." But >> if you're definition makes more sense to you than the dictionary's, who am I >> to complain? > > That part in quotes was straight from an online dictionary. Mine came from the Oxford American Dictionary. Can you see, that according to my definition, your stance is inconsistent? > >>>>>> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does >>>>>> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he >>>>>> comes >>>>>> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it >>>>>> was >>>>>> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll >>>>>> try >>>>>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). >>>>> >>>>> If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you >>>>> forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the >>>>> wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence >>>>> for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God . >>>> Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is >>>> in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had >>>> a >>>> point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was >>>> (and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it >>>> is you believe you have in there in place of one): >>> >>> You seemed to have glossed over the part where I asked you what would >>> happen if you picked the wrong god. That's part of the wager, betting >>> that you have picked the right deity. And I think you're playing with >>> your eternal soul if you think you can act like an asshole in front of >>> the god while claiming to have been good. >>> >> >> If being wrong has a negative result of "N" >> And there are G gods in existence... >> Getting a negative result of N by choosing a god at random if there is a God >> is N = O(G-1) >> Getting a negative result of N by not choosing a god at all if there is a >> God is N=O(G) >> >> ... Hence, Pascal was right, the odds are better if you choose a god... But >> gets marginally so as the set G gets larger. > > I look at it more as wasting your precious time if there isn't a god, > and since there's no evidence whatsoever that there is, I'll play the > odds (the odds are zero anyway) and go on about my business without > religion. If I do end up on a god's doorstep (I won't), I'll apologize > profusely. And I'll really mean it. I'm hoping if there is a god, it's > Aphrodite. > I'm actually hoping that I get the Muslim view of Paradise. 77 Virgins! Actually, if I had my choice, 77 Pornstars... But what the hey. To each his own. >> But let's look at it the other way. If there is no gods at all... then: >> >> N = 0 O(G-1) = 0 in the first case and >> N = 0 O(G) = 0 in the second. >> >> Add up the two probabilities and Pascal is still right (ignoring the fact >> that we don't know what God really judges us by). > > And I wtill won't waste my precious life chasing after phantasms. I > like that wager better than Pascal's. > That's perfectly OK. I know the odds of playing Blackjack by the book... 49.5% versus 47.2%. But playing by the book is boring, so I never play by the book. >>>> "We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ... >>>> See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time >>>> understanding that? >>> >>> You are apparently incapable of abstract thought, it's not my fault. >>> >> >> As you apparently occasionally lose the capability of objective thought--at >> least when the capital-G word is used. > > You first have to prove objectively that a god exists. > Does it make sense to say "you should act morally because You Will Be Happier?" ... And that statement is invalid because I don't define "Happier?" (indeed, science has tried to determine emotions, but what they see and what we -feel- has always been incompatible). >>>> My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was... >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" >>>>> >>>>> Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the >>>>> ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete >>>>> lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting >>>>> "Christ-like." >>>> >>>> Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a >>>> phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to >>>> act 'Gandhi-like?'" >>>> >>>> People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely >>>> secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ >>>> that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious >>>> perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's >>>> attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ... >>> >>> Oh. And here I was thinking that you were talking about the whole >>> package. My bad for not reading your mind. I love being blamed when >>> someone else is unclear. >> >> Unclear? Sorry, communication takes two people (and in the case of >> Newsgroups, apparently lots of people ). I thought I was clear by >> separating the idea of "Christ" from "Christian." Even Bertrand Russell >> acknowledges that Christ was a decent fellow, and only appears to take issue >> with his "what happens after death" views. > > So you didn't read the essay. > Yes I did. His first few paragraphs were on "gee, he's a great fellow." His criticisms are about "but he threatens people with Hell" (i.e. What happens after death), he manipulates people towards God (i.e. What happens after death), etc. I wish I preserved the text here, but I still hold that as a person, Jesus was a pretty decent guy (though, Russell thought other historical figures were better--that's just preference). >> That's like saying Abraham >> Lincoln was a horrible person because he believed in God. If people are >> incapable of separating a person's actions from WHAT THEY PERCEIVE a >> person's belief's are, then humanity is doomed regardless of religion, deism >> or atheism. > > So you didn't read the part about Christs's actions. That aside, I > think talking IS an action. > As humans, we're doomed to action due to our beliefs. Even you, as an atheist, act according to what you believe in--even if that belief has nothing to do with "supreme beings." Your belief may just be that you think what you good will be "better for society" or "in accordance with secular laws of the land." >>> By the way, I'm not convinced that Christ even >>> existed. I tend to think he did, but existant or not, I'm not impressed >>> by him. The fabled "love and forgiveness" turned out to be pretty >>> conditional, and the part about believing him or else god would be >>> unhappy was fairly coersive. Which I want no part of. >>> >>>> So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead. >>> >>> a. Gandhi made no claims of divinity. >>> b. Gandhi was real. >>> c. Gandhi was a politician. >>> >>> How does anything I have to say about Gandhi relate to anything I have >>> to say about Christ? >>> >> >> I didn't know you were a Gandhi admirer, I was just choosing a "good man" at >> random from history. His name came to mind first (actually, second, "Jesus >> Christ" came to my mind first). > > It's debatable whether Jesus was an historical character. Either way, I > like Gandhi a whole lot better than Christ, but I see them as being > qualitatively different, starting with existence and proceeding to > sanity. Christ in the Bible reminds me so much of those megalomaniac > psychopaths with Messianic complexes that I've had the pleasure to > know, promoting themselves as divine and full of love while acting in a > despicably hateful manner. Gandhi was just a good guy who did a lot for > humanity in a pragmatic manner, no divining the supernatural required. I think the evidence for Jesus' existence is satisfactory--unless there is a real desire NOT to believe Jesus existed. What is debatable is whether or not he was more than just a historical figure (i.e. a prophet, a Son of God, or God incarnate). Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 duke wrote: > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:25:58 GMT, justme <somewhere@earth.int> wrote: > > >You did not answer the first question. Repeating: if God created the > >universe then what (or who) created God? > > Nobody can answer that one. I vote for the big bang as God's action to begin > the universe as we know it today. > > duke, American-American > > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > Vote all you want. Reality is not a democracy. No god was required to initiate the big bang. Simple quantum mechanics shows that it can (did) happen without the need for a god. In fact, EVERYTHING that happens happens without the need for a god to have 'caused' it. Quote
Guest Neil Kelsey Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Someone wrote: > On 12/20/06 10:31 AM, in article > 1166639463.899165.144100@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Someone wrote: > >> On 12/20/06 9:16 AM, in article > >> 1166634996.565997.182750@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > >> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Someone wrote: > >>>> On 12/19/06 9:17 PM, in article > >>>> 1166591859.574812.80720@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com, "Neil Kelsey" > >>>> <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >> . > >> . <<SNIP>> > >> . > >>>>> In order to deny god exists it first has to be proven that god exists. > >>>>> It's not a matter of denial until then. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ho ho! That's so funny. "I deny that God exists because he doesn't exist" > >>>> is somehow NOT denying God exists? > >>>> > >>>> To give you credit, I think I understand where you're trying to come > >>>> from... > >>>> But I still think it's illogical. > >>> > >>> I think you mean deny in the sense "to refuse to recognize or > >>> acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods." From my > >>> point of view, if I said I denied your god's existence then that would > >>> implicitly mean I concede he exists. I don't. We're not there yet. You > >>> have to convince me he exists before I get around to denying it. If I > >>> do. > >>> > >> > >> Ah, when I started reading newsgroups, I vowed to never get into semantic > >> arguments. sigh > >> > >> To "deny" is to "refuse to admit the truth or existence of something." But > >> if you're definition makes more sense to you than the dictionary's, who am I > >> to complain? > > > > That part in quotes was straight from an online dictionary. > > Mine came from the Oxford American Dictionary. Can you see, that according > to my definition, your stance is inconsistent? If you notice the word "deny" comes with different nuances. I picked the nuance that seemed to convey our discussion appropriately. Doesn't matter, we'll use your definition. I am not 'refusing to admit the truth or existence of something;" you haven't provided enough evidence for it to reach that stage. You have not established a truth and you have not established existence. Do that first and then see if I'm denying anything. > >>>>>> I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for it (does > >>>>>> anyone see a flaw in his logic?) Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he > >>>>>> comes > >>>>>> to me and says "Look, I know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it > >>>>>> was > >>>>>> up to you to provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll > >>>>>> try > >>>>>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). > >>>>> > >>>>> If I was that god I'd kick your ass for acting like a weasel. And you > >>>>> forget, you might have more problems than that. What if you picked the > >>>>> wrong god? Doesn't matter to me, you are so far from having evidence > >>>>> for ANY god that you all look like Don Quixote attacking windmills to > >>>>> me. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Lucky for me then that you're not an all-powerful, all-knowing God . > >>>> Listen, I frankly don't care what you believe--this part of the argument is > >>>> in relation to "Pascal's Wager." What I'm pointing out is that Pascal had > >>>> a > >>>> point... So let me use smaller words so that you can understand what it was > >>>> (and remove that "G" word that evidently burns your soul... Or whatever it > >>>> is you believe you have in there in place of one): > >>> > >>> You seemed to have glossed over the part where I asked you what would > >>> happen if you picked the wrong god. That's part of the wager, betting > >>> that you have picked the right deity. And I think you're playing with > >>> your eternal soul if you think you can act like an asshole in front of > >>> the god while claiming to have been good. > >>> > >> > >> If being wrong has a negative result of "N" > >> And there are G gods in existence... > >> Getting a negative result of N by choosing a god at random if there is a God > >> is N = O(G-1) > >> Getting a negative result of N by not choosing a god at all if there is a > >> God is N=O(G) > >> > >> ... Hence, Pascal was right, the odds are better if you choose a god... But > >> gets marginally so as the set G gets larger. > > > > I look at it more as wasting your precious time if there isn't a god, > > and since there's no evidence whatsoever that there is, I'll play the > > odds (the odds are zero anyway) and go on about my business without > > religion. If I do end up on a god's doorstep (I won't), I'll apologize > > profusely. And I'll really mean it. I'm hoping if there is a god, it's > > Aphrodite. > > > > I'm actually hoping that I get the Muslim view of Paradise. 77 Virgins! > Actually, if I had my choice, 77 Pornstars... But what the hey. To each his > own. I'm too realistic about this to be hoping anything. > >> But let's look at it the other way. If there is no gods at all... then: > >> > >> N = 0 O(G-1) = 0 in the first case and > >> N = 0 O(G) = 0 in the second. > >> > >> Add up the two probabilities and Pascal is still right (ignoring the fact > >> that we don't know what God really judges us by). > > > > And I wtill won't waste my precious life chasing after phantasms. I > > like that wager better than Pascal's. > > > > That's perfectly OK. I know the odds of playing Blackjack by the book... > 49.5% versus 47.2%. But playing by the book is boring, so I never play by > the book. And I think sitting around singing lame devotional songs to an imaginary being pretty boring. Among other mind-numbing religious activities. > >>>> "We might be checked at the end of our lives, so we should be good" ... > >>>> See, I COULD use one syllable words, do you still have a hard time > >>>> understanding that? > >>> > >>> You are apparently incapable of abstract thought, it's not my fault. > >>> > >> > >> As you apparently occasionally lose the capability of objective thought--at > >> least when the capital-G word is used. > > > > You first have to prove objectively that a god exists. > > > > Does it make sense to say "you should act morally because You Will Be > Happier?" Maybe, but I think you could still act morally and be perfectly miserable. I see people act morally all the time (i.e. they are fine citizens) but they are perfectly miserable. >... And that statement is invalid because I don't define > "Happier?" (indeed, science has tried to determine emotions, but what they > see and what we -feel- has always been incompatible). There is a broad range as to what makes people happy, including (in many cases) seeing others being miserable. Not sure what you're getting at here. > >>>> My question was: "what harm?" And your answer was... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" > >>>>> > >>>>> Christ was a charismatic schizophrenic at best, I think, and he is the > >>>>> ultimate passive aggresive role model. I think he was a complete > >>>>> lunatic, if he managed to exist. That's the harm I see in acting > >>>>> "Christ-like." > >>>> > >>>> Sounds like you have a case of "penis envy." I guess I should've used a > >>>> phrase that didn't push your buttons: "Really, what harm does it cause to > >>>> act 'Gandhi-like?'" > >>>> > >>>> People like you are disgusting (and I'm saying that from a completely > >>>> secular sense). It's as if you have such an animosity towards Jesus Christ > >>>> that you cannot even look at him from a historical, non-Religious > >>>> perspective (as I was) without blowing up. -I- was referring to Christ's > >>>> attitudes towards forgiveness, violence, love, brotherhood, etc. ... > >>> > >>> Oh. And here I was thinking that you were talking about the whole > >>> package. My bad for not reading your mind. I love being blamed when > >>> someone else is unclear. > >> > >> Unclear? Sorry, communication takes two people (and in the case of > >> Newsgroups, apparently lots of people ). I thought I was clear by > >> separating the idea of "Christ" from "Christian." Even Bertrand Russell > >> acknowledges that Christ was a decent fellow, and only appears to take issue > >> with his "what happens after death" views. > > > > So you didn't read the essay. > > > > Yes I did. His first few paragraphs were on "gee, he's a great fellow." > His criticisms are about "but he threatens people with Hell" (i.e. What > happens after death), he manipulates people towards God (i.e. What happens > after death), etc. He also gave examples of questionable petulant behaviour (actions) by Jesus. > I wish I preserved the text here, but I still hold that > as a person, Jesus was a pretty decent guy (though, Russell thought other > historical figures were better--that's just preference). I didn't get that at all. I thought Russell was being scathingly polite towards Jesus in that British way. > >> That's like saying Abraham > >> Lincoln was a horrible person because he believed in God. If people are > >> incapable of separating a person's actions from WHAT THEY PERCEIVE a > >> person's belief's are, then humanity is doomed regardless of religion, deism > >> or atheism. > > > > So you didn't read the part about Christs's actions. That aside, I > > think talking IS an action. > > > > As humans, we're doomed to action due to our beliefs. Even you, as an > atheist, act according to what you believe in--even if that belief has > nothing to do with "supreme beings." Your belief may just be that you think > what you good will be "better for society" or "in accordance with secular > laws of the land." Fine, except that I wouldn't describe that as being "doomed." > >>> By the way, I'm not convinced that Christ even > >>> existed. I tend to think he did, but existant or not, I'm not impressed > >>> by him. The fabled "love and forgiveness" turned out to be pretty > >>> conditional, and the part about believing him or else god would be > >>> unhappy was fairly coersive. Which I want no part of. > >>> > >>>> So if Gandhi is more palatable to you, pretend I said him instead. > >>> > >>> a. Gandhi made no claims of divinity. > >>> b. Gandhi was real. > >>> c. Gandhi was a politician. > >>> > >>> How does anything I have to say about Gandhi relate to anything I have > >>> to say about Christ? > >>> > >> > >> I didn't know you were a Gandhi admirer, I was just choosing a "good man" at > >> random from history. His name came to mind first (actually, second, "Jesus > >> Christ" came to my mind first). > > > > It's debatable whether Jesus was an historical character. Either way, I > > like Gandhi a whole lot better than Christ, but I see them as being > > qualitatively different, starting with existence and proceeding to > > sanity. Christ in the Bible reminds me so much of those megalomaniac > > psychopaths with Messianic complexes that I've had the pleasure to > > know, promoting themselves as divine and full of love while acting in a > > despicably hateful manner. Gandhi was just a good guy who did a lot for > > humanity in a pragmatic manner, no divining the supernatural required. > > > I think the evidence for Jesus' existence is satisfactory--unless there is a > real desire NOT to believe Jesus existed. What is debatable is whether or > not he was more than just a historical figure (i.e. a prophet, a Son of God, > or God incarnate). His existence is debatable too, and I've read very good cases for him not existing, but I lean towards him having lived. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote > "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > >> >> "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote > . > . <<SNIP>> > . >>>> If you drew a number from a barrow, even if there is an infinite >>>> number of choices, you will still come up with some number. It is >>>> the chance of that same number coming up again that verges upon >>>> zero. And even in an infinite universe, there is no reason why it >>>> would have to. >>> >>> Ah, but I am asking what the probability of my existence was >>> BEFORE I existed. If you take Kupper's number, it is on the order >>> of 1:10^-130 ... But some finite number (i.e. Not 1:a sideways 8). >>> I argue that if that was the probability of a random biological process >>> creating me, then that probability is about the same as having a >>> duplicate of me. >> >> The probability for you to exist would be no greater or less than the >> probability for any other form of intelligent life. If you hadn't >> happened, something else would have. But for you to happen twice >> would be nearely impossible. >> >> For example, assume that a store has two doors at its front. Two >> men enter the building and choose which door to go through at >> random. The question is: What is the probability that both men >> enter through the same door. >> >> Most people would answer one in four. However, which door the >> first man enters is irrelevant. The question is whether the second >> man will enter by the same door. The odds of that is only one in >> two. In the same way, the question is not the probability for you to >> happen, but the probability for you to happen twice. >> > > What is the probability of one man going through a particular door? > 1:2. > > What is the probability of the second man going through the same > door? 1:2. > > What is the probability of me being biologically created? 1:n (where > n is on the order of 1:10^130 [i noticed my typo previously]). > > What is the probability of an identical me being biologically created? > 1:n. > > It's the same analogy. It is not the same analogy because you are setting up the pre-condition that both men entering "a particular door". That is a different problem, and does not apply to your existence. Your birth was not pre-conditioned. Another example. If I flip a coin ten times, whiat is the probability that it will come up heads all ten flips? The odds are 1 in 1024. A person who flips a coin ten times would find that to be very remarkable. So now I take out a coin and flip it to obtain the following sequence: H H T H T H H H T H There appears to be nothing remarkable about that sequence, yet the odds against that sequence is exactly the same as the odds against getting ten heads in a row. I.e. 1 in 1024. There just happens to be exactly 1024 possible sequences, and any one of those sequences is just as likely to come up as the other. If you make a pre-condition that a particular sequence (such as ten heads in a roll) will happen, then the odds are 1 in 1024. But without calling for the pre-condition any sequence is just as likely as the other. My objection to your analogy is that there was no pre-condition to your existence. Your existence just happened to have been one of the possibilities, and it was certain that one of those possibilities would happen. > Hehe still just a mental exercise because I really > don't accept the estimates on the probability for life (I agree with you > that we simply don't know the dynamics of that process)--and there is > a huge difference between the published estimates of Kupper (10^- > 130) and Hoyle (10^-40,000) that they may as well have been > SWAGs. I once read a statistical proof that Mormonism was the TRUE religion. The authors examined several events in Mormon history and asked what the probability of any one of these events occuring. Then they calculated the probability of all of those events happening and came out with a figure which was astronomical. Therefore, Mormonism must be TRUE. What the authors ignored is that any set of historical events will have astronomical odds against it, but events happen nevertheless. --Wax Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Someone <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> said: >If being wrong has a negative result of "N" >And there are G gods in existence... >Getting a negative result of N by choosing a god at random if there is a God >is N = O(G-1) >Getting a negative result of N by not choosing a god at all if there is a >God is N=O(G) > >... Hence, Pascal was right, the odds are better if you choose a god... But >gets marginally so as the set G gets larger. It is conceivable that a member D of the set G is the one that exists, and D is unfriendly to those who choose a god, even if they choose D. >But let's look at it the other way. If there is no gods at all... then: > >N = 0 O(G-1) = 0 in the first case and >N = 0 O(G) = 0 in the second. > >Add up the two probabilities and Pascal is still right (ignoring the fact >that we don't know what God really judges us by). It is conceivable that D is friendly to those who do not choose a god. It is also conceivable that D is friendly or unfriendly on the basis of the reason the choice is made or not made, or is friendly or unfriendly on some other basis entirely, or at random, or is friendly to all, or unfriendly to all. I believe your math needs to take this into account, otherwise, it boils down to "If Pascal was right, then Pascal was right." -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Chris wrote: > Bill M wrote: > > Your uneducated logic is appalling. Science, whether String or Quantum > > Physics is of the opinion that the Universe expanded from a very tight > > compact ball of energy into the Universe. There is NO data that supports the > > creation by your god. > > > > > 5) The fact is, the universe did not exist. Then it did. > > > You think a valid premise is that it created itself, > > > no matter how much you try to deny that. And > > > frankly son, the fact that you're trying to deny that > > > it created itself, shows that you know what an asinine > > > idea it is! And why would anyone deny that it created > > > itself, while trying to deny that God created it? > > You insist that the Universe had to have a creator, your god. Why does your > > god not need a creator? Oh! He always was and always will be. > > Well so could the Universe! > > > > I just answered this question in another thread, but for the sake or > argument, since he repeated his answer, I'll repeat mine. > > You contend that everything follows certains laws of physics and can be > observed, documented, and learned from these laws to determine truths > that explain your existence. These laws of physics only go so far in > their explanation. You still have to explain where everything came > from... Your laws of physics don't work! They can't explain where > everything came from! You've come up with a bag of axioms that don't > solve the most important equations of all -- where did we come from and > why are we here? Don't give me google this or that, can you explain a > theory here (don't give me a link) that doesn't take someone through a > labyrinth of theories and require a reasonable person to jump through > hoops to believe? I've yet to see one. > > Now consider a God who _created_ a closed system which has time, space, > and all the laws of physics that accompany what we observe. Think > about it. If you have a eternal, infinite God, why couldn't he created > a closed system that contains time and space and operates according to > certain laws.. Since God is outside this closed this, He doesn't have > to operate under these same laws; after all, he created the laws... > Thus he doesn't really need a beginning... After all, he created the > law as part of this closed system that requires that everything has a > beginning (cause/effect), but only in this closed system that we live. > > Chris > This is just silly. If there is a 'god' then he must exist outside our universe. I will accept that. However, since he exists outside our universe, we are excluded by the physical laws of our universe from recieving any information from him. Therefore, from our point of view, he does not exist. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >"Weatherwax" > <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: >> "Someone" <someone@daiichi.me.as-a.com> wrote >> >>> >>> Why deny it? I for one know what Pascal's Wager is and I'm all for >>> it (does anyone see a flaw in his logic?) >> >> Philosophers have torn Pascal's Wager apart many years ago. >> There are numerous flaws in it. The biggest of them is his assumption >> that there are only two choices. There are really thousands of >> religions and religious sects, and several times that many possible >> religions. The chance of choosing the one TRUE RELIGION is >> against you. Chossing the wrong religion could be interpreted as >> worse than joining no religion, therefore you may be condemning >> youself to eternal punishment by choosing to follow a false God.. >> >> Another problem is that you are choosing God out of the hope of >> receiving a reward, rather than the purer motive of choosing God >> because it is right. It may be the nature of God to reject you on >> that point alone. >> >> Finally, people may use that argument in confronting others, but I >> have never heard of anybody giving that as the reason they became >> religious. >> > > I have to discount my perceptions of what it is that God will judge > me on, because, frankly, I don't know. Christians believe that God > will judge me solely on the basis of "accepting Jesus Christ as my > Personal Lord and Savior" .. Jews believe that I will be judged > according to how well I keep "God's Law." I'm not sure what > noodlists believe we'll be judged on. So lacking any miraculous > revelation, I can only assume that the "punishment" is equal for being > an unbeliever and being a wrong-believer. > > The allusion (if you didn't get it below) is from the Christian Bible that > says "..cast into a furnace of fire; and there will be wailing and > gnashing > of teeth" (Matthew, I think). I concede, I may be wrong with my > attitude towards Pascal's Wager, but I would think that if God really > wanted me to believe in Him in order to pass that Judgment, He'd give > me a little more than historical anecdotal evidence for that belief; > barring > that, I'll do the best that I can do. > >> >>> Yeah, yeah, if there is a God and he comes to me and says "Look, I >>> know you were faking it" I'd say "yeah, but it was up to you to >>> provide better evidence in order to motivate me" (and I'll try >>> to say that without gnashing my teeth once). >>> >>> Really, what harm does it cause to act "Christ-like?" I'm not saying >>> Christian-like... So you radical atheists out there, don't get into a >>> tizzy. >> >> I follow the theory that Jesus was a political rebel. That is exactly >> what the title "Messiah" means. According to the Old Testament, >> the messiah will sit on the throne of David and restore the kingdoms >> of Israel and Judah. Jesus never sat on the throne of David, and he >> did not restore the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Therefore Jesus >> could not have been the messiah. >> >> Christianity has made Jesus into a God. If you are a Christian, you >> may be violating the 2nd Commandment by worshipping a false >> god, and will bring the anger of Yahweh upon your children even >> unto the fourth generation (Exodus 20:5). You are gambling your >> children's souls. You and your children may be better off not >> worshipping any God at all. >> >> --Wax >> >> > > I was not referring to the worshiping of Christ--I was trying to build the > picture of "acting good because Ye Think Ye Wilst Be Judged" and > ask again, what would the harm to a secular society if believers strove > to be like Christ? > > Frankly, a lot of Christianity scares me--the ones where people "read > between the lines" (e.g. Make up stuff to fit their preconceived notions > of How the World Ought To Be); and therefore justify condemning > teenagers because they had abortions, wives because they left their > abusive husbands, daughters for being promiscuous... And bombing > abortion clinics because they are the tools of ev-il. That's scary. I > wish Christians would be more Christ-like too. > > And you will notice, I'm trying not to pass judgment on even Christians- > -I only state my concern as it pertains to me. I still hold fast to the > notion that we each eventually have to come to grips with with our > own mortality.If God doesn't fit into that, then good for you. If it > does, > then good for you too. Each of us gets the answer sheet when it > happens... Or are in a state where we won't care. You see the predicament Pascal's Wager has already gotten you into? You are defying Christianity because you do not accept Jesus Christ, and you are defying Judaism because you do not follow all of its commandments. It's a no win situation all around. I admire your intention to do the best that you can do, but belief in a God is not a pre-requisite for that. And, as you pointed out, a lot of evil has been done in the name of God. Therefore I do not see any benefit to believing in God. --Wax Quote
Guest Ted King Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 In article <0MKhh.523880$QZ1.278557@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote > > > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true > > without proof. > > But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the > discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. > > --Wax I just want to make it clear that it was Samuel Heywood that said the above. I stated a modified form of it: > > I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world > > created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true > > within a certain logical domain. The "...accepted as true within a certain logical domain" is important. Ted Quote
Guest aversiveness Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 tereshka@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm not actually in particle physics, so I haven't used a textbook > specifically centered on that subject. However, I just found <a > href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Elementary-Particles-David-Griffiths/dp/0471603864/sr=8-3/qid=1165957188/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">a > new book by my favorite textbook author David Griffiths on particle > physics,</a> so if I was going to pick a book I'd go with that. > Griffiths is a good writer and his books make sense to read on your > own. You may have to re-read them to really appreciate the subtleties > of what he's saying, but it's all there. (I remember realizing that > after more than a few exams - oh, look, it's exactly as he says!) > > I'm not quite sure what you already know and what you'd like to learn, > so to save time I'll just give the recommendations that relate to > cosmology I can so you can pick what you need out of that. The > necessary math to do the physics I learnt in math classes. > > Newtonian mechanics and calculus are an obvious match and so common you > can probably dig out a textbook that you like on your own for both if > you are interested, but it sounds like you're more curious about less > commonplace physics anyway. > > For quantum mechanics, <a > href="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Quantum-Mechanics-David-Griffiths/dp/0131118927/sr=8-2/qid=1165957188/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">Griffiths</a> > is a great and widely used book in introductory undergraduate classes. > A more advanced book, but harder to work from on your own, is <a > href="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Quantum-Mechanics-Ramamurti-Shankar/dp/0306447908/sr=1-1/qid=1165957513/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3587579-0913709?ie=UTF8&s=books">Shankar's > Principles of Quantum Mechanics</a>. It takes a higher-level view than > Griffiths, including a nice section on the path integral formulation. > However, for both, you need to know some elementary linear algebra. > Griffiths includes a primer, but I don't know how easily you can learn > what you need from just that. Any introductory linear algebra book > should be fine. > > Special relativity is a scalar theory, so you can find it in any modern > physics textbook. You don't need much math for that. Unfortunately, > general relativity is a field theory, so you need a lot of math for > that. I haven't taken it myself, one of the things I regret about my > education. A lot of my connecting bits and pieces I've picked up from > here and there as well as popular science books on cosmology. The > Nature of Space and Time is a favorite of mine, even though I can't > rigorously follow everything. If you can read it, that's a great read. > > Have fun! I'll put in a second promo for any textbook by David Griffiths. I haven't read the particular book referenced above, but I did use his ElectroDynamics book, which is excellent. The Shankar book was the book used in my Intro QM class years ago. Another good survey book that imho is a somewhat easier read than Shankar is by Stephen Gasiorowicz : http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Stephen-Gasiorowicz/dp/0471057002 Quote
Guest Jim07D6 Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said: >In article ><0MKhh.523880$QZ1.278557@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > >> "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true >> > without proof. >> >> But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the >> discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. >> >> --Wax > >I just want to make it clear that it was Samuel Heywood that said the >above. I stated a modified form of it: > >> > I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world >> > created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true >> > within a certain logical domain. > >The "...accepted as true within a certain logical domain" is important. > >Ted I'd state it even more strongly, if a tad pedantically -- "... a statement that is set to a value of "true" in a given formal logic system, and is not derivable from other statements treated according to the rules of the system." -- Jim07D6 Quote
Guest gebobs Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 duke wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:38:17 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote: > > >> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator? > >'God's' just as imaginary 'parent's', perhaps? > > You're stumped. No you are...where did God come from then? What created God? If God did not require a creator, then why does the Universe? Your argument fails on the basis of parsimony. Quote
Guest Weatherwax Posted December 20, 2006 Posted December 20, 2006 "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote > Weatherwax wrote: >> "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote >> >>> A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true >>> without proof. >> >> But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the >> discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. >> >> --Wax > > Yes, the postulate is useless, except in the special case where > you do not accept it as true and you will agree to "set" it to > true just for the sake of testing and checking out and examining > the logic of an argument. Setting a statement to true just for > the sake of argument is not the same as accepting it as true. That is done only to show that assuming the truth of a postulate will result in a contradiction, thus proving that the postulate was false. The is no way this type of argument can prove the the postulate is true. --Wax Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Weatherwax wrote: > "Samuel W. Heywood" <sheywood@MyRealBox.com> wrote >> Weatherwax wrote: >>> "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote >>> >>>> A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true >>>> without proof. >>> >>> But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the >>> discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. >>> >>> --Wax >> >> Yes, the postulate is useless, except in the special case where >> you do not accept it as true and you will agree to "set" it to >> true just for the sake of testing and checking out and examining >> the logic of an argument. Setting a statement to true just for >> the sake of argument is not the same as accepting it as true. > > That is done only to show that assuming the truth of a postulate will result > in a contradiction, thus proving that the postulate was false. > > The is no way this type of argument can prove the the postulate is true. > > --Wax A paper purporting itself to be an argument for or against something, and which presents as its conclusion that the postulate upon which the so-called argument is based is true is just circular reasoning, also known as drivel. Many atheist extremists and also many creationist extremists are masters of drivel. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Samuel W. Heywood Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, gebobs wrote: > duke wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:38:17 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote: >> >>>> So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme Creator? >>> 'God's' just as imaginary 'parent's', perhaps? >> >> You're stumped. > > No you are...where did God come from then? What created God? If God did > not require a creator, then why does the Universe? Your argument fails > on the basis of parsimony. Your comments prove that you're stumped. Sam Heywood -- Message handled by Pine, Version 4.62 Quote
Guest Someone Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 On 12/20/06 12:59 PM, in article 8vhih.241267$Fi1.27205@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: .. .. <<SNIP>> .. >> And you will notice, I'm trying not to pass judgment on even Christians- >> -I only state my concern as it pertains to me. I still hold fast to the >> notion that we each eventually have to come to grips with with our >> own mortality.If God doesn't fit into that, then good for you. If it >> does, >> then good for you too. Each of us gets the answer sheet when it >> happens... Or are in a state where we won't care. > > You see the predicament Pascal's Wager has already gotten you into? You are > defying Christianity because you do not accept Jesus Christ, and you are > defying Judaism because you do not follow all of its commandments. It's a > no win situation all around. > > I admire your intention to do the best that you can do, but belief in a God > is not a pre-requisite for that. And, as you pointed out, a lot of evil > has been done in the name of God. Therefore I do not see any benefit to > believing in God. > > --Wax > > I think they serve as a good starting point for a moral compass. Take Judaism and the 10 commandments, for example, except for the first 3 or 4 (depending on if one is Jewish, Protestant or Catholic) they are a pretty decent starting point for a compass to steer one's life by. You don't have to buy in to any religion to think that not coveting your neighbor's wife is a good idea (and a survival trait to boot). Not to leave Islam out, in addition to the 10 commandments (not explicitly spelled out, but found throughout the Quran), Al-Israa has some good ones too: - Be not miserly or wasteful with money - Do not engage in mercy killing for fear of starvation - Care for orphaned children - Keep your promises - Be honest and fair - Do not be arrogant in one's beliefs Buddhists have their own moral code. So do Hindu... I would find it strange to be a scientist who believes that it's more efficient to stand on the shoulders of the giants that preceded me when making technological breakthroughs--but refuse to start with some written moral code to make an ethical one. And I don't have to believe in God in order to incorporate "Honor your father and your mother" into my life. Furthermore, if I borrow from those doctrines, then I would be lower than amoeba if I insult the actual believers of those religions. Ergo, live and let live. Quote
Guest stoney Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:55:32 -0000, "josh" <jillywoodsabc@jillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism He was licking his pussy. -- Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters. Quote
Guest Scott Richter Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 gebobs <gebobs@yahoo.com> wrote: > duke wrote: > > > > >So where did the universe come from except from God, the Supreme > > >Creator? 'God's' just as imaginary 'parent's', perhaps? > > > > You're stumped. > > No you are...where did God come from then? What created God? If God did > not require a creator, then why does the Universe? Your argument fails > on the basis of parsimony. Which is a change, because usually Duke's arguments fail on the basis of stupidity... Quote
Guest Ted King Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 In article <knejo2953h5o0hajtfucg1u7hgm7gjapib@4ax.com>, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote: > Ted King <lodited@yahoo.com> said: > > >In article > ><0MKhh.523880$QZ1.278557@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > > "Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote: > > > >> "Ted King" <lodited@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> > A postulate is a basic assumption that is accepted as true > >> > without proof. > >> > >> But the postulate must be accepted by all people participating in the > >> discussion. Otherwise, it is useless. > >> > >> --Wax > > > >I just want to make it clear that it was Samuel Heywood that said the > >above. I stated a modified form of it: > > > >> > I will grant you that one could posit the statement, "We live in a world > >> > created by God," as a postulate - an assumption that is accepted as true > >> > within a certain logical domain. > > > >The "...accepted as true within a certain logical domain" is important. > > > >Ted > > I'd state it even more strongly, if a tad pedantically -- "... a > statement that is set to a value of "true" in a given formal logic > system, and is not derivable from other statements treated according > to the rules of the system." > -- Jim07D6 Well, if you want to get all pedantic about it... :-) Very often a definition of postulate also includes the terms "obvious" or "self evident" and Samuel Heywood used the term "obvious" with reference to the supposed "We live in a world created by God" postulate. I'm glad you did not include such terminology in your formulation. For one thing, it doesn't actually seem to be correct that postulates are obviously or self-evidently true - even in formal mathematical systems like geometries. For example, hyperbolic geometries do not take Euclid's fifth postulate to be obviously or self-evidently true. For another thing, if a "logical system" is not as clearly "tightly" constrained to one area of knowledge (this thanks to Wikipedia) as a formal mathematical or formal logical system, then a postulate of such a "loose" logical system can very easily be confused with an empirical claim that carries a burden of proof. To say that a postulate like "We live in a world created by God" or "God exists" of a loose logical system is obviously or self-evidently true just exacerbates the confusion about whether or not it is a postulate or a claim carrying a burden of proof. With a lack of the statements being given within the context of a logical system I think it is inevitable, and therefore understandable, that many would take the such statements as empirical claims rather than as postulates. I would say that in the case of the "God" postulates here that the lack of any enunciation of anything approaching a "system" of logic of which God postulates are a part suggests that the introduction of the notion that "We live in a world created by God" or "God exists" are postulates verges on being a tactless ploy to say something that is essentially a claim yet avoid taking on a burden of proof. Ted Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.