why we still believe in a god

[tylerbrowner]

in theory I think that the reason a lot of people still believe in god is that at one time we didn't understand how the world works so the easiest explanation for many of are questions is god. now that we have many answers to are questions. it is very easy to question the existence of god. The reason religious people seem sometimes not to ever consider that god is not real is that to them there is a hell. Hell is the most negative and painful thing possible. so its like bags full of water repel fly's. the myth busters have proven with experiments that bags of water do not repel fly's so we can all agree on this but lets say half of us where told since we where born that if we didn't believe that bags full of water repel fly's that all your limes will be slowly ripped from you body and ground to make human hamburger to be force fed to your family. The other half of us where left to figure it out are selves and later we watch myth busters and find that to believe that bags of water repel fly's is foolish. so people would be scared into believing in this instance. so hell is a impossible roadblock to get through. and when people do not believe in god than its is to them religious people will think making you go to church and making you believe is like saving you from infinite torture. so don't blame people for trying to preside you to believe in god and if you are religious don't be stereo typical to atheist because we can all be a little different in our believes.

 

most importantly arguing if god is real and if god is not real will get us nowhere because there will always be another reason to why there is or isn't a god.

[recursion]

in theory I think that the reason a lot of people still believe in god is that at one time we didn't understand how the world works so the easiest explanation for many of are questions is god. now that we have many answers to are questions. it is very easy to question the existence of god. The reason religious people seem sometimes not to ever consider that god is not real is that to them there is a hell. Hell is the most negative and painful thing possible. so its like bags full of water repel fly's. the myth busters have proven with experiments that bags of water do not repel fly's so we can all agree on this but lets say half of us where told since we where born that if we didn't believe that bags full of water repel fly's that all your limes will be slowly ripped from you body and ground to make human hamburger to be force fed to your family. The other half of us where left to figure it out are selves and later we watch myth busters and find that to believe that bags of water repel fly's is foolish. so people would be scared into believing in this instance. so hell is a impossible roadblock to get through. and when people do not believe in god than its is to them religious people will think making you go to church and making you believe is like saving you from infinite torture. so don't blame people for trying to preside you to believe in god and if you are religious don't be stereo typical to atheist because we can all be a little different in our believes.

 

most importantly arguing if god is real and if god is not real will get us nowhere because there will always be another reason to why there is or isn't a god.

 

This is certainly not a scientific argument nor is it founded on scientific methodology. While the scientific method does enable a consensus as to the nature of physical phenomenon, in general, it has done little so far to explain either God or sentience. A large problem with science today is the hasty conclusions so often made. In order to find the truth, your logic must be with no error, and thus this argument provides little progress in our collective understanding, except by the statement that some things have been misunderstood, attributed to other phenomenon (of which our scientific language disagrees with, to be completely accurate), and further explained with new vocabulary. Our logic is the most important part of this puzzle and it must be completely accurate. To deduce reality, one must be careful in his thinking as to not be deceived by fallacious intervening logic, stemming from whatever it may be, be it emotion, haste, or exaggerated egoism.

Edited January 4, 2015 by recursion

[Strange]

A large problem with science today is the hasty conclusions so often made.

 

Well, that is a refreshing change from the usual criticism that science is unable to accept new ideas (usually made by cranks, with their own "pet" theory).

[Duncle]

I'm not convinced that fear of damnation is the biggest thing that leads people to believe in religion. It's surely one factor, at least for some people, but I don't think that it's the most important one.

 

Some other factors:

 

1. Upbringing. Most people follow the dominant faith of their culture, which they were brought up into. Breaking with these culturally validated beliefs can be difficult.

 

2. Ignorance. Most people don't understand science, and lack critical thinking skills. For them, the idea that God created the world in 4004 BCE is just as plausible as the scientific alternative. They simply have no way of discriminating a lousy argument (e.g. creationism) from a good one (e.g. arguments from Planetary Science and Evolutionary Biology).

 

3. Propaganda. There are a lot of people with a strong vested interest in the continuation of religion. Those people do their best to convince themselves and others of the veracity of religious claims, sometimes resorting to every fallacious argument in the book (check out creationist websites to see what I mean).

 

4. Social Conformism. In many countries, including the US but probably excluding Japan and most of Northern Europe, believing in religion is the norm, and atheists face discrimination. In some Islamic countries, apostasy is a capital crime.

 

5. Misplaced Search For Meaning. People seem to naturally anthropomorphize the world, and look for meaning and pupose in the inanimate universe. This is a simple category error: meaning and purpose are human ideas, which simply don't apply to stuff like stars and galaxies. Religion gives meaning to the meaningless- it's completely wrong, but many people find it comforting.

[Strange]

I'm not convinced that fear of damnation is the biggest thing that leads people to believe in religion.

 

After all, you would have to believe before you were worried about "damnation".

[MigL]

Number 5 hits the nail squarely on the head .

 

We human beings need hope. When someone is diagnosed with cancer and given weeks to live, he has no hope left.

Now you ( and science ) might say he should just accept the inevitable, but we are not wired like that, we need hope, and so we turn to religion, our last hope.

Now I just used terminal cancer as an example, but it could be any stressful situation in a person's life.

Some of us have a higher tolerance to this 'stress', while others need this 'crutch' simply to survive and deal with life.

[recursion]

I'm not convinced that fear of damnation is the biggest thing that leads people to believe in religion. It's surely one factor, at least for some people, but I don't think that it's the most important one.

 

Some other factors:

 

1. Upbringing. Most people follow the dominant faith of their culture, which they were brought up into. Breaking with these culturally validated beliefs can be difficult.

 

2. Ignorance. Most people don't understand science, and lack critical thinking skills. For them, the idea that God created the world in 4004 BCE is just as plausible as the scientific alternative. They simply have no way of discriminating a lousy argument (e.g. creationism) from a good one (e.g. arguments from Planetary Science and Evolutionary Biology).

 

3. Propaganda. There are a lot of people with a strong vested interest in the continuation of religion. Those people do their best to convince themselves and others of the veracity of religious claims, sometimes resorting to every fallacious argument in the book (check out creationist websites to see what I mean).

 

4. Social Conformism. In many countries, including the US but probably excluding Japan and most of Northern Europe, believing in religion is the norm, and atheists face discrimination. In some Islamic countries, apostasy is a capital crime.

 

5. Misplaced Search For Meaning. People seem to naturally anthropomorphize the world, and look for meaning and pupose in the inanimate universe. This is a simple category error: meaning and purpose are human ideas, which simply don't apply to stuff like stars and galaxies. Religion gives meaning to the meaningless- it's completely wrong, but many people find it comforting.

 

I also do not think that "fear of damnation" is the most significant contribution to the support of religion. However, considering the permanence of things and the likely tracibility of all matter, energy, and actions with the plethora of reference points we have (to track past events with, even at a sub-atomic level), it is a component of wisdom to be thoughtful of future judgement.

 

As a reply to the second point, I think a great flaw in popular "scientific" thought is that science provides any explanation whatsoever to the initial creation of the universe. It is literally a paradox -- that something can exist from nothing. I think the desire to explain reality in a definite way leads people to assume science, through its understanding of what are essentially complicated legos, would have some sort of explanation for one of the most pressing questions of all thoughtful human history. This would also apply to religion, however, traditionally religion has been strongest with societies that were not material-based, but thought-based. To think that a thinking being was responsible is certainly not an invalid idea, considering they were wondering where the thinking beings that they are came from. The ability to self-identify and to perceive oneself is very non-random, such that even modern engineering and psychology cannot explain the existence of sentience (as in the ability to be aware of oneself, to reflect personally, to have personal identity, and personal attachment).

 

 

After all, you would have to believe before you were worried about "damnation".

 

As mentioned earlier in this post, considering future judgement is actually not fallacious logic; it is actually a sound consideration.

 

Number 5 hits the nail squarely on the head .

 

We human beings need hope. When someone is diagnosed with cancer and given weeks to live, he has no hope left.

Now you ( and science ) might say he should just accept the inevitable, but we are not wired like that, we need hope, and so we turn to religion, our last hope.

Now I just used terminal cancer as an example, but it could be any stressful situation in a person's life.

Some of us have a higher tolerance to this 'stress', while others need this 'crutch' simply to survive and deal with life.

A natural propensity of problem-solving beings is to continuously search for a solution until either exhaustion, the perception of futility, or the solution has been been found.

[John Cuthber]

 

As a reply to the second point, I think a great flaw in popular "scientific" thought is that science provides any explanation whatsoever to the initial creation of the universe. It is literally a paradox -- that something can exist from nothing. I

Well, if it's a paradox then it kills theology just as well as it kills science.

Or had you not realised that God can't have come from nothing?

[Strange]

However, considering the permanence of things and the likely tracibility of all matter, energy, and actions with the plethora of reference points we have (to track past events with, even at a sub-atomic level), it is a component of wisdom to be thoughtful of future judgement.

 

a) What evidence do you have for the "permanence of all things"?

 

b) What evidence do you have to the the "tracibility [sic] of all matter, energy, and actions?

 

This one is fairly easily falsified by both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and chaos theory. So doubly wrong.

 

c) What do either of these dubious assertions have to do with "future judgement"?

 

 

As mentioned earlier in this post, considering future judgement is actually not fallacious logic; it is actually a sound consideration.

 

By "mentioned", I think you mean "asserted with no evidential or logical basis".

[Duncle]

As a reply to the second point, I think a great flaw in popular "scientific" thought is that science provides any explanation whatsoever to the initial creation of the universe. It is literally a paradox -- that something can exist from nothing. I think the desire to explain reality in a definite way leads people to assume science, through its understanding of what are essentially complicated legos, would have some sort of explanation for one of the most pressing questions of all thoughtful human history. This would also apply to religion, however, traditionally religion has been strongest with societies that were not material-based, but thought-based. To think that a thinking being was responsible is certainly not an invalid idea, considering they were wondering where the thinking beings that they are came from. The ability to self-identify and to perceive oneself is very non-random, such that even modern engineering and psychology cannot explain the existence of sentience (as in the ability to be aware of oneself, to reflect personally, to have personal identity, and personal attachment).

 

First of all: Why do you assume that the universe was created- that something did come out of nothing? It's at least as plausible that the universe has always existed. Some interesting lines of current scientific inquiry that seem to point in that direction:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rainbow-gravity-universe-beginning/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-futures-can-explain-time-s-mysterious-past/

 

Secondly: The 'God of the Gaps' is an exceptionally poor argument for the intellectual viability of religious belief. Just because science can't explain some phenomenon now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Rather than resorting to supernatural pseudo-explanations, it's much more rational (and intellectually honest) to say that we simply don't know the answers to certain questions, but we're working on them.

 

To return to the question posed by the OP....

 

I think another relevant issue here is the nature of scientific truth. Science gives us models which approximate the behaviour of some element(s) of reality as we apprehend it. All scientific theories are falsifiable, and science as an enterprise encourages, indeed depends on, attempts to falsify them. All scientific disciplines are subject to revolutions/ paradigm shifts. And historically, major disciplines have had their underlying assumptions radically revised by new theoretical insights- Biology by Evolution and then Genetics; Physics by Relativity and QM; Geology by Plate Tectonics; Psycholgy by the 'Cognitive Revolution' of the 1950s-60s.

 

Religion, by contrast, purports to offer something very different- access to absolute knowledge. The Bible/ Torah/ Qur'an/ Vedas/ whatever are claimed to be perfect knowledge, divinely given. They're also, of course, much easier to understand than science (see my point 3 above). So the choice that people have is:

 

- Believe in truth that makes no claim to absolute certainty, is frequently revised, and is bloody hard to understand.

or

- Believe in truth which comes from God, represents absolute certainty, is eternal and not subject to revision, and is completely comprehensible.

 

Unsurprisingly, many choose the second option.

[recursion]

Well, if it's a paradox then it kills theology just as well as it kills science.

Or had you not realised that God can't have come from nothing?

It's only a paradox in a matter-based existence. There is another valid possibility that still abides by the scientific idea of repeatability of specific events without variance. While much of science is concerned with tests, if there are events that happen without human evocation, then those, too, can be observed in the same way testable phenomena can be observed. Thus, understanding the fundamental principles of existence, which is primarily logic (and more often associated with computer science and engineering, as logic and intelligence as of the same topic), is also of the scientific method. However, to restrict your understanding to "what did the rock do when I threw it," you would have never solved much of anything. It requires logical deduction and there is a great deal of information available from what the average person knows and simply logic, so long as the logic is completely error-free. This principle of logical deduction, in fact, is how the vast majority of profound discovery happens (simply viewing data without understanding any of it cannot actually produce profound insight, just measurements).

 

So with that in mind, we should try and understand the concept of eternality. The concept of truth, or a difference between one thing and another, is a timeless concept, thus if time was created, this concept would have existed prior, as our manifest reality relies on truth (without it, we literally could not exist).

 

The common atheist argument, and it is not a scientific argument because in order for it to be considered scientific, it needs to be without error, is that either the universe always existed or that it came from nothing. I see no way around the flaws in each, them being 1) If the universe existed and I was created, then the person created before me was indeed created before me and continuing, there are an infinite number of beings created before me, thus it was over an infinitely long time ago that another being existed, which is logically impossible, and 2) It is a logical paradox and impossibility in material science for something to come from nothing, there is no way around it, no matter how hard you beat around the bush.

 

However, if existence is instead founded on truthful collaboration between codefining entities and eternal existences (such as the idea of truth or truthiness itself), then it is indeed possible for life to have come from an eternal intelligence rather than a nothing. To understand that the concept of differentiation is timeless predicates understand the possibility of eternal intelligence, as sentience itself is a timeless emergence from a hardly understood, very specific, and hard to accidentally create arrangement. As such, if you remove yourself from codefinition (material existence is codefining), you will find certain truths, such as the idea of differentiation, the idea of harmony and disharmony, and other non-random components of any existence that can harbor sentience. Thus, it is possible to understand the concept of an eternal intelligence as well and how it may truly be.

 

 

a) What evidence do you have for the "permanence of all things"?

 

b) What evidence do you have to the the "tracibility [sic] of all matter, energy, and actions?

 

This one is fairly easily falsified by both the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and chaos theory. So doubly wrong.

 

c) What do either of these dubious assertions have to do with "future judgement"?

 

 

By "mentioned", I think you mean "asserted with no evidential or logical basis".

The Heisenbreg uncertainly principle is a principle, however the idea of randomness is a presentation of doubt. Thus it is truly divided in science as to whether it is possible to trace particles. Still, you can consider the statistics of randomness (a large part of chaos theory, if you remember), and understand that through understanding random behavior, you can deduce non-random behavior from the greater system, leaving possibility to trace anything. You have what appears to be an infinite amount of reference points surrounding you, which from its mass correlation may very well present a clear view of all history, as well as current statistics regarding the location of any pieces of history, if they are encapsulated in a recoverable way. Also, remember that we do not know if the uncertainty we perceive in quantum mechanics is indeed (absolutely) random, partially random, or non-random. It is logical to conclude that it is probably no more than partially random, as there is much information that is unavailable, and randomness is, in its essence, unpredictable behavior. And to briefly reminisce over the basics of chaos theory, the average of a completely random system approaches the bias (in physics, we hypothesize the bias may be a representation of 0) with less error as there are more independently random variables in the system.

 

For the last question ©, the topic was reasons for a fear of future damnation, to which I reply that it is of wisdom, responsibility, and care to consider future judgement with present actions and there is no evidence to suggest that your body will not be resurrected physically in at least near-perfect form (respectful to what it was) in the future upon a global agreement of what the truth is and the ideal law (or agreement between all sentient and knowledgeable life), and you will be judged according to it, by beings significantly more developed than people today generally are. That being said, with that exact thing being prophesized for as long as it has been and the surprisingly unknown 19 code in the Qur'an (which presents remarkable statistical improbability -- indicating possibly alien influence), I would definitely not push any limits of acceptable behavior and if it is indeed true (there is no true evidence to suggest contrary), no deterministic argument will change that you are who you are and you are accountable, just to make that clear.

 

For your last comment, I just answered why considering future judgement is a wise and responsible thing to do, not to mention that everyone now will thank you for not being a deterministic jerk or worse.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[david345]

It's only a paradox in a matter-based existence. There is another valid possibility that still abides by the scientific idea of repeatability of specific events without variance. While much of science is concerned with tests, if there are events that happen without human evocation, then those, too, can be observed in the same way testable phenomena can be observed. Thus, understanding the fundamental principles of existence, which is primarily logic (and more often associated with computer science and engineering, as logic and intelligence as of the same topic), is also of the scientific method. However, to restrict your understanding to "what did the rock do when I threw it," you would have never solved much of anything. It requires logical deduction and there is a great deal of information available from what the average person knows and simply logic, so long as the logic is completely error-free. This principle of logical deduction, in fact, is how the vast majority of profound discovery happens (simply viewing data without understanding any of it cannot actually produce profound insight, just measurements).

So with that in mind, we should try and understand the concept of eternality. The concept of truth, or a difference between one thing and another, is a timeless concept, thus if time was created, this concept would have existed prior, as our manifest reality relies on truth (without it, we literally could not exist).

The common atheist argument, and it is not a scientific argument because in order for it to be considered scientific, it needs to be without error, is that either the universe always existed or that it came from nothing. I see no way around the flaws in each, them being 1) If the universe existed and I was created, then the person created before me was indeed created before me and continuing, there are an infinite number of beings created before me, thus it was over an infinitely long time ago that another being existed, which is logically impossible, and 2) It is a logical paradox and impossibility in material science for something to come from nothing, there is no way around it, no matter how hard you beat around the bush.

However, if existence is instead founded on truthful collaboration between codefining entities and eternal existences (such as the idea of truth or truthiness itself), then it is indeed possible for life to have come from an eternal intelligence rather than a nothing. To understand that the concept of differentiation is timeless predicates understand the possibility of eternal intelligence, as sentience itself is a timeless emergence from a hardly understood, very specific, and hard to accidentally create arrangement. As such, if you remove yourself from codefinition (material existence is codefining), you will find certain truths, such as the idea of differentiation, the idea of harmony and disharmony, and other non-random components of any existence that can harbor sentience. Thus, it is possible to understand the concept of an eternal intelligence as well and how it may truly be.

 

 

The Heisenbreg uncertainly principle is a principle, however the idea of randomness is a presentation of doubt. Thus it is truly divided in science as to whether it is possible to trace particles. Still, you can consider the statistics of randomness (a large part of chaos theory, if you remember), and understand that through understanding random behavior, you can deduce non-random behavior from the greater system, leaving possibility to trace anything. You have what appears to be an infinite amount of reference points surrounding you, which from its mass correlation may very well present a clear view of all history, as well as current statistics regarding the location of any pieces of history, if they are encapsulated in a recoverable way. Also, remember that we do not know if the uncertainty we perceive in quantum mechanics is indeed (absolutely) random, partially random, or non-random. It is logical to conclude that it is probably no more than partially random, as there is much information that is unavailable, and randomness is, in its essence, unpredictable behavior. And to briefly reminisce over the basics of chaos theory, the average of a completely random system approaches the bias (in physics, we hypothesize the bias may be a representation of 0) with less error as there are more independently random variables in the system.

Wow I just wasted a lot of time reading your post. To sum it up: Quantum mechanics -> uncertainty ->many worlds theory is correct or everything is uncertain ->Everything I say is correct or at least possible. I am bored to sleep good night. Edited January 5, 2015 by david345

[recursion]

 

First of all: Why do you assume that the universe was created- that something did come out of nothing? It's at least as plausible that the universe has always existed. Some interesting lines of current scientific inquiry that seem to point in that direction:

http://www.scientifi...erse-beginning/

http://www.scientifi...ysterious-past/

 

There is a lot of excitement in those theories and they are certainly not considered to be highly plausible with the social scientific consensus. In complete truth, they are spawned from desire to do what we have been trying to do for a long time, and in the excitement that the theorist carries, they miss some very important logical arguments, similar to what Aristotle did upon the theory of spontaneous generation (although technically it wasn't completely untrue, if you actually read what was being suggested). No, nothing physical can come from nothing, there is absolutely no way around that argument. Also, time cannot have existed for an infinitely long time ago as that would imply someone was created over an infinitely long time ago, that person being the person created before the person created an infinitely long time ago, which is paradoxical in that something can be created and have always existed. The notion that the universe stems from an eternal intelligence is actually a much more apt solution to the puzzle, particular when you understand some things are eternal, like the idea of differentiation, which would have to exist before time could possibly exist, and as such forms a necessary immutable basis for mutable existence. The same idea can apply to ultimate, or perhaps archetypal ultimate intelligence (although when considering existential fundamentals, i.e. what's necessary for existence to even exist, they are usually considered separate from the archetypes, which are human-based).

 

 

 

Secondly: The 'God of the Gaps' is an exceptionally poor argument for the intellectual viability of religious belief. Just because science can't explain some phenomenon now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Rather than resorting to supernatural pseudo-explanations, it's much more rational (and intellectually honest) to say that we simply don't know the answers to certain questions, but we're working on them.

 

No, it is not even an argument, it is definitive in nature. If science explains it in scientific language, then it has explained God, by the definition that God is whatever is responsible for the creation and/or perhaps sustaining of the universe. In other worse, "The Explanation of the Creation and/or Sustaining of the Universe," in this case, would be, by this definition presented, "God," whatever the explanation may be. Keep in mind intelligence is extremely non-random and a sentient machine hasn't been produced even on accident, as far as the majority of the world knows, at the very least. Sentience is a complicated and highly specific phenomenon, for which science has also no explanation. If what exists is indeed inherently sentient in nature, then the universe could plausibly be a manifest display of sentient systems (ourselves and other intelligences, with perspective, coherence, and manifest explanation seen as the occurrences of interconnected non-sentient phenomena), rather than a randomly generated pile of random entities that luckily formed what is extremely non-random and not of material (although seemingly evoked by material systems -- it could be a simultaneous production of a naturally ingrained propensity towards sentience forming from the nature of an inherently intelligent existential basis for the manifest world).

 

 

 

Religion, by contrast, purports to offer something very different- access to absolute knowledge. The Bible/ Torah/ Qur'an/ Vedas/ whatever are claimed to be perfect knowledge, divinely given. They're also, of course, much easier to understand than science (see my point 3 above). So the choice that people have is:

- Believe in truth that makes no claim to absolute certainty, is frequently revised, and is bloody hard to understand.

or

- Believe in truth which comes from God, represents absolute certainty, is eternal and not subject to revision, and is completely comprehensible.

Unsurprisingly, many choose the second option.

 

I think if you suggest that what was said was that "God" is definitively the reason for existence, then it is true as it's definition, not assertion. Also, science that deals with the material world is codefining, but the process of truthful deduction is definite and immutable regardless of environment, although the application is variable.

 

Also, if you consider the process of truthful deduction (the ultimate basis of science), then by its strict abidance you find what is ultimately true and also what is true with regard to environment. To do that, you must be completely error-free in your logic. Then, if you consider the sincere effort to deduce truth with absolutely no error or erroneous assumption to be kin to prayer, then upon the sincere effort you will find the truth, which can be considered the word of God, if you were to define it that way. I think a part of the issue is assumptive semantics rather than carefully understood and perhaps explicated definition, such that we may consider the same word to mean the same thing, rather than arguing whether or not apples are the president of the united states with two incoherent definitions of "apple", we can use the same definition of apple.

 

It appears you consider the definition of God to be some dude born from some mother similar to how a human is born, instead of an eternal intelligence, from which all existence may exist. To consider it impossible is to ignore eternality in favor of temporal mechanics, and thus you have to ignore the understanding that the idea of what is true is timeless and thus eternal -- so long as there is manifest reality and sentience to perceive it knowingly, there is the idea of what is true, thus the idea of what is true precludes any manifest existence. The idea of an impossible from timelessness creation stems from a purely mechanic set of assumptions, which considering eternality and the paradox of mechanical creation from nothing or the paradox of a creation being created an infinitely long time ago (reviewed prior in this post), an eternal intelligence is certainly rational.

Wow I just wasted a lot of time reading your post. To sum it up: Quantum mechanics -> uncertainty ->many worlds theory is correct or everything is uncertain ->Everything I say is correct or at least possible. I am bored to sleep good night.

 

Uncertainty, in its strictest understanding, is literally not knowing something and this is the foundation for general quantum mechanics, where behavior is largely unpredictable by humans and thus statistical approaches are preferred. When considering possibilities of phenomena similar to entanglement, there could be variables on the other side of the universe responsible for some of the unpredictable behavior. Strictly speaking, random only means "unpredictable," not inherently random with reference to everything in existence. Furthermore, completely random systems are extremely predictable upon a critical complexity (which defines "extremely predictable") as a whole and as it approaches infinite complexity, it becomes completely predictable.

Edited January 5, 2015 by recursion

[david345]

From one troll to another. Shorten your posts. No one is reading them. I know exactly what your troll tactic is. You post long fancy sounding comments thinking it will convince people you are some sort of expert. It is not working.

[John Cuthber]

It's only a paradox in a matter-based existence.

 

 

 

No it's not. If you can't answer the question "whence came God?" then you have a paradox.

BTW, this "There is another valid possibility that still abides by the scientific idea of repeatability of specific events without variance. While much of science is concerned with tests, if there are events that happen without human evocation, then those, too, can be observed in the same way testable phenomena can be observed. Thus, understanding the fundamental principles of existence, which is primarily logic (and more often associated with computer science and engineering, as logic and intelligence as of the same topic), is also of the scientific method. However, to restrict your understanding to "what did the rock do when I threw it," you would have never solved much of anything. It requires logical deduction and there is a great deal of information available from what the average person knows and simply logic, so long as the logic is completely error-free. This principle of logical deduction, in fact, is how the vast majority of profound discovery happens (simply viewing data without understanding any of it cannot actually produce profound insight, just measurements). "

is word salad. It has nothing to do with the issue, and (as far as it has any meaning) it's wrong

You can't just sit there and deduce how the universe works- you need to make observations.

This "simply viewing data without understanding any of it cannot actually produce profound insight," is particularly clearly wrong.

It's common observation that people look at a problem till they "see" the solution.

 

David is right: you are not fooling anyone.

[david345]

There is a lot of excitement in those theories and they are certainly not considered to be highly plausible with the social scientific consensus. In complete truth, they are spawned from desire to do what we have been trying to do for a long time, and in the excitement that the theorist carries, they miss some very important logical arguments, similar to what Aristotle did upon the theory of spontaneous generation (although technically it wasn't completely untrue, if you actually read what was being suggested). No, nothing physical can come from nothing, there is absolutely no way around that argument. Also, time cannot have existed for an infinitely long time ago as that would imply someone was created over an infinitely long time ago, that person being the person created before the person created an infinitely long time ago, which is paradoxical in that something can be created and have always existed. The notion that the universe stems from an eternal intelligence is actually a much more apt solution to the puzzle, particular when you understand some things are eternal, like the idea of differentiation, which would have to exist before time could possibly exist, and as such forms a necessary immutable basis for mutable existence. The same idea can apply to ultimate, or perhaps archetypal ultimate intelligence (although when considering existential fundamentals, i.e. what's necessary for existence to even exist, they are usually considered separate from the archetypes, which are human-based).

 

I TRIED TO DELETE THE PART OF THE POST NOT REFERRING TO ME. IT WAS TAKING TOO LONG.

 

 

Uncertainty, in its strictest understanding, is literally not knowing something and this is the foundation for general quantum mechanics, where behavior is largely unpredictable by humans and thus statistical approaches are preferred. When considering possibilities of phenomena similar to entanglement, there could be variables on the other side of the universe responsible for some of the unpredictable behavior. Strictly speaking, random only means "unpredictable," not inherently random with reference to everything in existence. Furthermore, completely random systems are extremely predictable upon a critical complexity (which defines "extremely predictable") as a whole and as it approaches infinite complexity, it becomes completely predictable.

 

Quantum mechanics -> unpredictability, and action at a distance-> forces beyond your knowledge which only recursion understands. Goodnight.

[Duncle]

The issue of why people continue to have supernatural beliefs while living in the modern world- a world that is shaped by the fruits of scientific inquiry- is to my mind a really fascinating question. It's a shame that it can't be discussed without the thread being terminally derailed by bizarre theistic meanderings.

 

Much of what recursion says falls into the category of nonsense. For example, this paragraph:

 

 

 

It appears you consider the definition of God to be some dude born from some mother similar to how a human is born, instead of an eternal intelligence, from which all existence may exist. To consider it impossible is to ignore eternality in favor of temporal mechanics, and thus you have to ignore the understanding that the idea of what is true is timeless and thus eternal -- so long as there is manifest reality and sentience to perceive it knowingly, there is the idea of what is true, thus the idea of what is true precludes any manifest existence. The idea of an impossible from timelessness creation stems from a purely mechanic set of assumptions, which considering eternality and the paradox of mechanical creation from nothing or the paradox of a creation being created an infinitely long time ago (reviewed prior in this post), an eternal intelligence is certainly rational.

 

There isn't any sort of argument here. Just a lot of long words being used to say nothing.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Duncle

[Strange]

The common atheist argument, and it is not a scientific argument because in order for it to be considered scientific, it needs to be without error, is that either the universe always existed or that it came from nothing.

 

A scientific argument does not have to "be without error". If that were so, then science would have nothing to do because we would know all there is to know. The whole point about science is that it is a series of approximations.

 

I see no way around the flaws in each, them being 1) If the universe existed and I was created, then the person created before me was indeed created before me and continuing, there are an infinite number of beings created before me, thus it was over an infinitely long time ago that another being existed, which is logically impossible

 

1. You were not "created"

2. Evolution does not require their to have been an infinite number of people before you.

3. "Logically impossible" is just an opinion, with no supporting evidence.

 

2) It is a logical paradox and impossibility in material science for something to come from nothing, there is no way around it, no matter how hard you beat around the bush.

 

There are several very good hypotheses, based on known physics, for how the universe could come from "nothing" (with various definitons of what that "nothing" is). So, again, this is an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

The Heisenbreg uncertainly principle is a principle

 

Yes... hence the name.

 

However, it is, as far as wee can tell, a fundamental aspect of the physical world.

 

Thus it is truly divided in science as to whether it is possible to trace particles.

 

Are you suggesting that there are scientists who doubnt the HUP? (I'm not really sure what this sentence means, otherwise.)

 

 

Still, you can consider the statistics of randomness (a large part of chaos theory, if you remember), and understand that through understanding random behavior, you can deduce non-random behavior from the greater system, leaving possibility to trace anything.

 

Er no. The behaviour of chaotic systems cannot be predicted (except to a very limited extent). This applies to double pendulums, the weather and even a game of billiards.

 

It is logical to conclude that it is probably no more than partially random, as there is much information that is unavailable, and randomness is, in its essence, unpredictable behavior.

 

It is not logical to conclude that, in the absence of any evidence supporting that view.

 

For the last question ©, the topic was reasons for a fear of future damnation, to which I reply that it is of wisdom, responsibility, and care to consider future judgement with present actions and there is no evidence to suggest that your body will not be resurrected physically in at least near-perfect form (respectful to what it was) in the future

 

It is equally possible that we will all be reconstituted as jars of peanut butter. Based on the level of evidence you present.

[tylerbrowner]

I can totally agree

[Strange]

No, nothing physical can come from nothing, there is absolutely no way around that argument.

 

So your goid didn't create the universe?

 

But there are plenty of ways around that argument (which is why people are considering them) apart from some mythical superbeing did it.

 

 

Also, time cannot have existed for an infinitely long time ago as that would imply someone was created over an infinitely long time ago, that person being the person created before the person created an infinitely long time ago, which is paradoxical in that something can be created and have always existed.

 

For someone so fond of "perfect logic" you do like to repeat the same illogical nonsense.

 

 

The notion that the universe stems from an eternal intelligence is actually a much more apt solution to the puzzle

 

Well, it might be if there were any evidence for that eternal intelligence to start with.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Strange

[Hendrick Laursen]

People make wars and people die in wars. How is this related to God?

[Strange]

People make wars and people die in wars. How is this related to God?

 

God made people?

[Hendrick Laursen]

He did but it doesn't mean he interferes in our daily deeds.

[Robittybob1]

 

God made people?

In what way?

[overtone]

People still believe in Newton's Laws of Motion, and the usefulness of flat highway maps, and the fundamental goodness of human beings, also.

 

Is that OK?