You too can see the light!

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:57 pm

Just got back and updated myself on the thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
-You mention the golden rule. If every culture has a golden rule, then good and evil are objective. morality is not base on individual, but based on something greater than you and me (conscience?).
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This does not follow. Unless you care to argue that polygamy is objectively correct since 98% of the world's cultures practice it.

omrec:

Exactly right about Easter, though I should mention that IIRC Eastre/Oestra is a nordic deity. Different cultures celebrate it in about the same context and rabbits and eggs are both holdovers to more pagan times Image

Azuth:

Oh please.

Believing that there is no Deity requires more faith than believing that there is a Deity.

Making the statement also won't change the situation or remotely affect anyone's belief.

Sok:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
If there is no objectivity, wouldn't this cause lawlessness?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) There is objectivity. Just not in morality.

For instance, I can objectively state 1 = 1.

2) Society can be built upon the ethical premises that:
a) The existence of society is necessary for the further advancement and subsequent survival of Individuals.
b) Individuals comprise a society.
c) Individual survival is a Good Thing™.

Then objectively designed from there.


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Eadgydd
Sojourner
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Eadgydd » Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:26 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>
2) Society can be built upon the ethical premises that:
a) The existence of society is necessary for the further advancement and subsequent survival of Individuals.
b) Individuals comprise a society.
c) Individual survival is a Good Thing™.

Then objectively designed from there.


</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I was expecting you to challenge me on the axioms behind my claimed axiomatic definition of evil, and instead you just listed them for me, much more succinctly than I could have Image

Here is what I was working on to post:

I tried to answer the question of applicability in my post on April 7... apparently I did so badly, so I'll try again.

Human society is based on cooperation. The fossil record indicates that early humans lived in groups, hunting and protecting themselves in an environment that would have meant certain extinction if faced individually. Humans had neither great speed to run away from predators, nor enough strength to take down prey, nor even a high enough birthrate to deal with heavy attrition.

Like it or not, we humans are social animals. We cooperate to our mutual benefit, and we war against each other to our mutual detriment.

We no longer need to cooperate directly to fend off predators or capture prey, but we still possess a deep psychological need to interact with others (excepting autistic people, and I guess you can argue if you want to that they are not disabled or diseased, but a genetic variation less selected against in our current social structure). More importantly, at its most extreme levels acting against one another has the potential to wipe out the human species.

I wasn't finished, but I think you can see the direction I was headed, which would mesh nicely with the ethical premises that Elseenas listed.

One thing I noticed I should edit: I guess I would have to restrict 'causes suffering' to 'causes suffering to others,' since suffering voluntarily taken upon oneself for the benefit of others is not evil, it's altruism.

Sok, I think Bible study is a great thing, as long as it includes debate and not simply indoctrination. Those who advocate the Bible as the literal truth and the absolute word of God obviously overlook the many translations it has gone through, as well as the many gospels that were left out by the early Church. Obviously you, Sok, are not in the absolutist camp, since you are willing to debate here Image

Just to throw a wrench in things: I'm surprised the current scandal about sexual abuse by priests has not come up here. Talk about evil. And I say this having been raised (more or less) Catholic... although, since I grew up in a 2-religion household, I learned to question all things religious at an early age.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Thu Apr 18, 2002 4:53 am

Eadgydd:

The problem is I do not believe that those are valid, self-evident objective axioms. I cannot point to any mathematical, logical, or physical--read as objective--reasons that support (c).

(b) is just a restatement of a definition and is something of a tautology. (a) can be shown for the human case, but breaks down when applied to other animals. (c) is the one that brings my argument into being: every moral and ethical system requires the basic assumption that individual survival is a Good Thing™.

While everyone on earth that isn't a sociopath may believe such, there really isn't anything to back it up on a physical level: the Universe cannot be shown to be anything other than indifferent to our problems.

Hence why I claim that there is no objective evil: it requires the arbitrary definition of good.

Once (c) is assumed, evil still cannot be defined objectively even given such allowances: only "right" and "wrong" within an ethical framework. These are not synonyms with "good" and "evil": is stealing bread when you are starving evil?

Most would say no, but in this framework it is most certainly "wrong."



------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
omrec
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby omrec » Fri Apr 19, 2002 10:23 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
2) Omrec how can you accept Gorts statement as fact without him even providing the scripture verse? You did not state it, but i believe it was imply that the bible do not advocate searching, questioning, or testing of one's faith.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was actually referring to the little known story of adam and eve, not really remarking on what gort stated. Don't eat the apple, because it contains knowledge! knowledge is bad for you! do as I say, puny mortals! mwahaha....The quote you gave, however, seemed to be saying this:

Look for A. Don't you find A? You did? Good! You found B? Oh, you must be wrong, go back and look until you find A.

Any part of that seem problematic to you?

Anyway, back to our regular programming. To remark on elseenas' comments: You are exactly correct, the best we can hope for is to define a set of rules that we, as a society, feel are "Good Things", and work from there. These, by nature, are subjective.

Stating that not believing in god takes more faith than belief is a strange statement, but true if you are speaking of 'faith in yourself, and in reason, and the stupidity of others' If I had no contamination with others, and noone had every told me that there was even the CONCEPT of a god, then what leap of faith would I need to not believe in it? None, of course, since I can disbelieve by default. It takes faith in your ability to think for yourself to attempt to reach a state of minimum influence, where you can say "here is what I belief, and why, and other's influences don't affect it." Once you are there, there is no faith at all required to state that God doesn't exist. Well, just as much as to state the Purthelaxima doesn't exist.

Oh, and as for the whole scandal with the catholic priests...I guess I haven't bothered mentioning it because a) I am not really surprised, and b) just because you get some bad seeds running the show, doesn't invalidate the show...it just makes you wonder why people go to it.

My goal isn't to show that organized religions can be "bad" (subjectively, of course), but rather to show that religious thought itself is invalid. A much more difficult undertaking. Showing that religions have done as much harm as good is immaterial, and useless to argue...proving that any claim to know the existence of god is flawed and invalid is much more gratifying.

One thought experiment I recently engaged in was to replace "god" with "eb" everytime I see it, and see if it would have any real effect on the world. One useful aspect of this is that, as above, you don't have an outside influence telling you that "eb" exists. Which means the total ridiculousness of it is more readily apparent.

"Eb created the world, and all in it. Eb gave her only child, who also happened to be Eb herself, to fix the terrible wrongs that our people did way back when. Because, of course, people are bad, and need Eb's guidance and help. Without Eb, you are lost! Eb also is queen of the moon, and the stars, and is buddha herself. Eb walks the path to enlightenment, only by listening to the words of Eb can you be happy and free! All praise Eb!"

20 plat to whoever knows who Eb is... Image

-Om
Mishre
Sojourner
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ US
Contact:

Postby Mishre » Fri Apr 19, 2002 11:45 pm

RAH BAH BAH BAH! *dismissive gesture to everything in this thread*

------------------
Mishri }-Sentinel-{ Shades of Twilight
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:30 pm

Omrec:
"I was actually referring to the little known story of adam and eve, not really remarking on what gort stated. Don't eat the apple, because it contains knowledge! knowledge is bad for you! do as I say, puny mortals! mwahaha...."

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:5

well, i did a little research on 'knowing'. The knowing in not knowing intellectually, but knowing experientially. So up until this point they did only experience good.

anyways i will try to do more thorought word study on knowing for better explanation.

sok

ps. found a decent greek dictionary so expect the different translation soon.
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Tue Apr 23, 2002 8:00 pm

omrec:

What are your premises for your disproof?

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Tue Apr 23, 2002 10:18 pm

1) There is objectivity. Just not in morality.

For instance, I can objectively state 1 = 1.

2) Society can be built upon the ethical premises that:
a) The existence of society is necessary for the further advancement and subsequent survival of Individuals.
b) Individuals comprise a society.
c) Individual survival is a Good Thing™.

Then objectively designed from there.


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning

---------------
If i believe my enjoyment of life is all that matter and everything and everyone can suffer in pain and misery, you cannot build upon this. You cannot build society on subjectivity. There has to be a standard. something has to be good and something has to be evil.

"I enjoy torturing babies for fun"

Is this right or is this wrong?

If it's right because morality is subjective, then there is no grounds for punishment. You cannot force your ideas of right and wrong on me.

If this is wrong, then there is an objective morality. Does everyone have a conscience? Can people be born without a conscience? People who dont have a conscience because of nature or nuture.

If there is no objective morality, what is the standard. Are human being perfect? Can a god created from human ideas/understand be perfect? Can a God greater than human understanding exist?

(my break is over i will continue when i get home.)

Sok

[This message has been edited by sok (edited 04-24-2002).]
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:49 am

sok:

I don't think you understand.

Torturing babies is not either "right" or "wrong" objectively:

It can only be such within a given framework. That is: GIVEN a, b, and c we can conclude that torturing babies is wrong.

Pain and misery for everyone does not aid and in fact hampers Individual Survival (this can be shown in nature), therefore such violates (c) of my postulates.

Once again though, we are assuming that (c) is correct a priori and completely without evidence. Why does there have to be good and evil? The universe as a natural entity is indifferent to our problems. If we all die, why, objectively,[i/] does it matter[/i]?

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed Apr 24, 2002 6:24 am

Once again though, we are assuming that (c) is correct a priori and completely without evidence.

-------------

Without objective morality, we do not know if torturing babies is right or wrong. If we go with darwin's survival of the fittest, only the best (fittest) babies will survive. The fittest babies will procreate stronger babies; therefore, resulting in a stronger, better society. So then, torturing babies can be used as a way to test if the babies are the fittest to survive.

folks i'm not psycho, i do not have babies to torture. i'm just trying to say without a set morality, anything goes (anarchy?).

Sok
nubug
Sojourner
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2002 6:01 am

Postby nubug » Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:54 am

wank wank wank wank wank
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:16 pm

Side note:

If Adam and Eve were created by god as two people rather than the generic men and women, wouldn't the whole genetic redundancy thing nail the hell out of us? I mean that's why we have laws about brothers marrying sisters and such, but their kids, and further decendants wouldn't have a choice about marrying a relative.

Makes you wonder if we're a lot dumber now, or if the later of the top two is true (assuming you believe in that whole paradigm). Of course the incredible infant mortality rate up to the second half of this century in most places could explain much of that being weeded out, and "evolution in action" with only the best and brightest surviving. If that's true, then we're dumbing ourselves down now by such a high percentage of "at risk" children surviving to lead full lives, and propagating any genetic abnormalities...

But I digress...

Oh wait, that was the point of this post, sorry.

Toplack *idle ramblings from a hung over shaman* Frostbear

------------------
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:53 pm

Sok:

::shakes head::
You truly not only do not get not only what I'm saying, but you don't get natural selection, do you?

Look, you are assuming (c) without evidence. Don't tell me the consequences of not believing (c) to be an objective truth, show me any evidence of (c) being an objective truth.

You are also incorrect that believing such to be arbitrary leads to anarchy because we as humans naturally place ourselves into social groups (as I said, (b) is a tautology and (a) can be shown for the human case). Therefore we can create whatever rules we wish within these societies, they are simply not objective and most of the time they aren't even rational.

I have given postulates which, once assumed, can be used to found a rational society even if its rules are based on something for which there exists no evidence. That is not anarchy, it just acknowledges that even under the most ideal circumstances our rules are arbitrary and, in the end, there is no objective evil.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
omrec
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby omrec » Wed Apr 24, 2002 6:19 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." Gen 3:5

well, i did a little research on 'knowing'. The knowing in not knowing intellectually, but knowing experientially. So up until this point they did only experience good.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Eb! You think it is better to experience only good than it is to experience both good and evil? That's like kicking someone out of the house for wanting to learn what pain feels like...seems sorta silly, doesn't it? A life free from pain would be miserable, for without pain, how do we understand pleasure? Good cannot exist without evil, only "knowing" good would be a waste of existence.

Elseenas: I'm not entirely sure what you are asking after with your "premises for disproof"...Thats like asking me to prove unicorns don't exist, and asking for the premise. My premise is that if there is exactly the same amount of proof in favor of unicorns as there is in favor of a deity, then we should maintain an equal likelihood of them existing (in my case, very very low). Dragons, Unicorns, Leprechauns, Gods, Vampires, Ghosts...all of these should be equaly likely, or unlikely. If you give a higher probability to one, and not the rest, you MUST have a valid reason for doing so, NOT based on emotions.

One experiment we can do is to assume that God does not exist, and try to find an invalid situation, which would prove that he does exist. The other is to assume he does exist, and find an invalid situation, proving he does not. I forget the logical terms for this type of proof. The problem is, to assume god exists, we need a careful definition of God. Assuming he doesn't exist, and trying to prove he does, should be MUCH easier. After all, you don't need to define something that doesn't exist. All you need is ONE tiny bit of evidence that God HAS TO EXIST, and you're done, bang, God exists, and everyone should believe in her.

Someone give me a definition of God so I can find a logical inconsistency, proving God doesn't exist. Or, find me one single shred of proof that if God doesn't exist, there would be an inconsistency. Either way, we'd know for sure. Of course, people have proved God doesn't exist, and you know what the response is? CHANGE THE DEFINITION. Lovely solution, isn't it?

Gort:
There is some evidence that it seems, as a whole, that the human race is getting smarter (thank Eb!). Perhaps it is because of nutrition, or the environment in which children are being raised, but since the end of the 19th century, average IQ has bee increasing significantly. Of course, this is just data for the united states, and its just IQ, which generally denotes abstract reasoning...we are possibly getting a bit more int, and a bit less wisdom... Image

Sok:
Have to agreed with elseenas here, you are kind of missing the point of her arguments. You haven't given us any reason to state that her c) is objective, you just state that not following it would be bad..without any evidence as to why. Assuming that individual survival is a Good Thing lets us make society. "Good Thing" is subjective, but thats OK. In fact, the assumption that Individual Survival is "Good" IS evolution, individuals who were hard-wired to maintain individual survival tend to do better than those who don't care. All we can really say is: "Individual survival being considered desirable will let the human race last longer than if it wasn't desirable." Give me an objective reason that if the entire human race was wiped out, the universe would be a "worse" place. You can't. Oh, and sok, there have been societies who have done things similar to your torturing babies thing, and considered it ok. They would leave newborn children out in the environment, if they survived the night, they were strong enough to join the tribe. Just cause you think it is wrong, doesn't mean they did.

-Om
Gort
Sojourner
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Ft. Collins, CO

Postby Gort » Wed Apr 24, 2002 8:59 pm

In China (less so now I hear) it was common to leave female babies out, or simply kill them. This is not isolated to that culture, its just an example. There its not considered bad, we in the US would consider it barbaric at best, and be somewhat horrified (evil).

Goes to the perspective issue on good/evil not being absolute but relative to the society you happen to live in.

Toplack

------------------
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Wed Apr 24, 2002 9:50 pm

omrec:

gotcha, was wondering from which angle you were approaching.

Let me throw this out then Image

1) Quantum Physics and Cosmology are Mutually Exclusive. Any and all theories of cosmology completely abdicate the laws of the Physics as we understand them. Deity is a potential theory that, indeed, has fewer problems than most.

2) I have had interaction with Deity. I do not expect you to believe such, but as I am not discussing a physical entity and have secondary verification from others (and have had a psychologist tell me that if I am suffering from a host of other phenomena that would cause such experiences I am the best adjusted and in the most control of the that type he has every seen).

3) I do not expect you to believe (2) but to reject it as "emotional" or "irrational" without at the least investigating it is hardly rational itself.

------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Wed Apr 24, 2002 9:52 pm

Continuation on discussion:

You are discussing a proof by contradiction.


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:21 am

So they sat down to discuss the Big Things...
and wound up in a shouting match over the details.
Forest? trees? no?
. . .
guess not.
omrec
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby omrec » Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:58 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
1) Quantum Physics and Cosmology are Mutually Exclusive. Any and all theories of cosmology completely abdicate the laws of the Physics as we understand them. Deity is a potential theory that, indeed, has fewer problems than most.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really agree with you here. A discussion of the problems and potential solutions to various physics theories is probably beyond the scope of this thread, but suffice to say that I strongly disagree.

And again, I thought we had agreed that theories are only valid if they are verifiable and possibly disprovable? At least we can check if relativity is correct or not (we have, it is). That a deity created the universe is just as valid as saying that amazonian women from mars did. It doesn't actually tell us anything.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2) I have had interaction with Deity. I do not expect you to believe such, but as I am not discussing a physical entity and have secondary verification from others (and have had a psychologist tell me that if I am suffering from a host of other phenomena that would cause such experiences I am the best adjusted and in the most control of the that type he has every seen).</font>


I'd be interested to hear about your experience. You have perhaps the only valid reason for a belief in a deity, you experienced something directly that would lead you to have a higher belief in a deity than in other similar phenomenon. So for you, you can say that you have a valid reason. I, however, do not, nor do I believe that most religious people do. If there was a god, and he desired belief, we would all have similar experiences to yours. We do not.

Not knowing the nature of your experience, I cannot really ask valid questions, but I'm assuming that you had been contacted by a deity was the most reasonable explaination of what happened (since you seem to be a reasonable person). What are the nature of your secondary sources? How thorough of an investigation did you undertake to understand what had happened to you? How did it lead you to become a pagan? I know I sound overly curious, and if you don't feel like discussing this over this thread, please email me, because I am interested in hearing your story...I am, afterall, always open minded (as much as my critics would like to think otherwise).

One closing note (I know most of you have not fallen prey to this, but I thought I'd mention it): Please remember that demoting God to being based solely in faith is the same as going from thought to emotion. If the existence of deities is solely the responsibility of the emotions, then so be it. But if anyone holds that stance, let them never state that they think God exists. Only that they _believe_ it is so.

-Om, The Guardian
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Thu Apr 25, 2002 4:35 am

omrec:

Its not a matter of agree or disagree, its a fact. The laws of physics have to be abdigated to allow for the creation of the Universe.

If we agree that a theory is only functional if verifiable and can be disproven, then the following theories get thrown out the window:

1) String/M Theory.
2) Quantum Cosmology
3) Multiple Universes (Multiverse)

Also, to discuss evidence of deity, look into abiogenesis. Proof by mathematical impossibility.

As to my personal experiences: I don't have time right now (working on analyzing olympic medals for a final exam) but will get to it later.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Please remember that demoting God to being based solely in faith is the same as going from thought to emotion.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to mention, not necessary to mention with me though :-)


------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Sartorix
Sojourner
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Rolla, MO

Postby Sartorix » Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:37 am

oh my god

is this thread still alive?

Damn you Yayaril.

Disco

[This message has been edited by Sartorix (edited 04-25-2002).]
omrec
Sojourner
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Santa Monica, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby omrec » Thu Apr 25, 2002 5:42 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
Its not a matter of agree or disagree, its a fact. The laws of physics have to be abdigated to allow for the creation of the Universe.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I also disagree with this.
1) I am not convinced yet that the universe needed to have a single beginning (lots of theories either way, still).
2) I am not saying the theories are right, in fact what I am saying is the opposite, they are only approximately correct for a particular set of problems. There is no universal theory, and noone would claim that there is. Quantum mechanism is useful in the same way euclidian geometry is useful; For a particular set of problems, it gives useful results. Your assumption that I think quantum mechanics, or einsteinian relativity, or inflationary cosmology are actually correct is wrong. I just think they are useful. If it is shown that the universe did come from a single point, and it is shown that our current theories no longer give useful results in those realms, well, then, we need new theories (hence String/M-Theory, the fluctuating universe theories, etc)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>If we agree that a theory is only functional if verifiable and can be disproven, then the following theories get thrown out the window:

1) String/M Theory.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

String/M Theory is a mathematical construct. The day it becomes unverifiable, is the day it can become valid. Until then it is only useful as an interesting way to think, and an experiment in high-dimensional math. If there is anyone out there claiming that String Theory is "right" they are doing themselves, you, and science all a disservice. I have never heard a physicist claim it is correct, they only claim it is potentially useful.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">2) Quantum Cosmology</font>


Not entirely sure what you mean by this...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">3) Multiple Universes (Multiverse)</font>


I haven't really looked into this either, but I wasn't aware there even were Multiverse theories. And again, if they aren't verifiable, noone can claim they are correct.

Perhaps you aren't quite understanding my position. My position is not that science has a bunch of valid theories, and religion does not. My position is that we can only claim something is correct if it is verifiable and disprovable. Otherwise it is just a model. If you want to say that deity is a model for the universe, go ahead, just don't claim it is correct. And what does this model gain us? I mean in real terms, not in emotional ones.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, to discuss evidence of deity, look into abiogenesis. Proof by mathematical impossibility.</font>


Abiogenesis is not mathematically impossible. Certain creationists have created abiogenesis models that _are_ impossible, but there are a lot of other models that are not. In fact, it is often just a misunderstanding into the nature of probability itself: Chemical/Physical processes are at work, not just pure randomality. Using probability to disprove abiogenesis is like using probability to disprove that proteins should fold into the same shape more than once: there are so many possible shapes, it should be mathematically impossible for them to fold the same way! And interesting conclusion, but an invalid one, nonetheless.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Good to mention, not necessary to mention with me though :-)</font>


Yes, hence the preface to it, but I still thought some people might find it useful.. Image

-Om

P.S...maybe we should move this discussion to email? I think people want this thread to die, die, die....
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Fri Apr 26, 2002 6:45 pm

My Eb! You think it is better to experience only good than it is to experience both good and evil? That's like kicking someone out of the house for wanting to learn what pain feels like...seems sorta silly, doesn't it? A life free from pain would be miserable, for without pain, how do we understand pleasure? Good cannot exist without evil, only "knowing" good would be a waste of existence.

------------

You right. Evil is good. You win. I have no comeback.

God being infinitely good is unable to show up that goodness without inflicking pain on us. We create being in his likeness are unable to comprehend what good is without experience evil.

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are reaching here. Pain/suffering helps you grow to become like Christ; however, if you were already like christ you would not need evil to get you there.

ex. I get straight A's, I am happy that I get straight A's and school is going well for me. But you are saying I do not understand that getting straight A's is good, so I decide to do someting that causes me to fail all my classes. I can no longer get the pell grant cuz, it's based on me not failing all my classes. So now I have to get a job to pay for school, so i'm working and going to school. It takes even more effort to get decent grades cuz i'm now taking upper level classes, so I dont quite get A's. But I want to go to law school, and I know the only way to get into law school is to get straight A's; however, straight A's is unacceptable because I like to mud. Mud being the addiction that it is causes me to alway forget to do a homework, or cut a class, etc. So I can never get to law school.

NT.

God seeing that I screwed up and failed all the classes, send his son to work all my job and pay all my bills, and get me into law school. All i have to do is accept his help. Once you accept his help, he tells you you still need to go to class until you get into law school, and to tell others tey can get into law school as well, if they accept his help.

Sok
Elseenas
Sojourner
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Golden, CO US

Postby Elseenas » Fri Apr 26, 2002 7:48 pm

Sok:

I'm resisting the urge to flame you to oblivion right now.

Suffice it to say:
1) You don't understand what I am arguing.

2) You are attempting to put words in my mouth and ascribe moral values to me that I do not accept (e.g., "good is evil," I reject the idea that either exist on an objective level and therefore your statement is invalid).

3) "God being infinitely good is unable to show up that goodness without inflicking pain on us."

And this, my friend, is Why I Am Not a Christian (with apologies to Bertrand Russell).

"...I never failed to sense a hostility to life [in Christianity]--a furious, vengeful antipathy to life itself: for all of life is based on semblance, art, deception, points of view, and the necessity of perspectives and error." ("An Attempt at Self-Criticism", The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche)

omrec:

Reply coming after I get this exam finished. Turns out only statistics of a single variable can be considered "easy."



------------------
Elseenas of No House Worth Mentioning
Jegzed
Sojourner
Posts: 1240
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Jegzed » Fri Apr 26, 2002 8:01 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sok:
<B>
3) "God being infinitely good is unable to show up that goodness without inflicking pain on us."

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what do you base that on?

Are you referring to the twisted evil diety in the Bible?

Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."



------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Fri Apr 26, 2002 10:09 pm

Sok:
I'm resisting the urge to flame you to oblivion right now.

Suffice it to say:
1) You don't understand what I am arguing.

2) You are attempting to put words in my mouth and ascribe moral values to me that I do not accept (e.g., "good is evil," I reject the idea that either exist on an objective level and therefore your statement is invalid).

------------------

I should've put omrec quoted as saying
"My Eb! You think it is better to experience only good than it is to experience both good and evil? That's like kicking someone out of the house for wanting to learn what pain feels like...seems sorta silly, doesn't it? A life free from pain would be miserable, for without pain, how do we understand pleasure? Good cannot exist without evil, only "knowing" good would be a waste of existence."

so no Elseenas this wasn't a response to your objective good statement. it was a response to say omrec saying evil is a good thing.

3) "God being infinitely good is unable to show up that goodness without inflicting pain on us?"

I was posing a question, Can an infinitely good God show his goodness without inflicting pain on us?

based Omrec said
"A life free from pain would be miserable, for without pain, how do we understand pleasure? Good cannot exist without evil, only "knowing" good would be a waste of existence."

The answer is no.

I will attempt to be more clear in my quotes next time; however, if seem by your reaction I should not bother to post any longer. You believe I am out to get you.

Sok

ps. What you think of my school analogies. what is it missing?

[This message has been edited by sok (edited 04-26-2002).]
Mishre
Sojourner
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Flagstaff AZ US
Contact:

Postby Mishre » Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:11 am

3) "God being infinitely good is unable to show up that goodness without inflicking pain on us."


Without pain and suffereing you wouldn't know happiness or even tell the difference ups and downs are what makes life interesting....

------------------
Mishri }-Sentinel-{ Shades of Twilight
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed May 01, 2002 4:10 pm

Without doing heroin, I would not know it's addictive or can kill me.

[This message has been edited by sok (edited 05-01-2002).]
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Mon May 06, 2002 11:49 pm

never will it die
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Sun Sep 29, 2002 11:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>String Theory

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything in the universe is connected by a set of strings that vibrate in the 11th dimension.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My math and physics skills are not the best, but I have studied string theory some, and i don't recall ANYTHING that looked like this.


------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Sun Sep 29, 2002 11:57 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Fact is that religions have caused nothing but war, death and pain over the centuries. If it were not for science, we'd still be burning witches and living in the squalid middle ages. I'm proud that my ancestors fought the church and the inquisition, giving me the right to dismiss religion as a fraud. Because it is.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the duration of this thread, I am totally in agreement with Cherzra.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
celara
Sojourner
Posts: 163
Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:01 am

Postby celara » Sun Sep 29, 2002 3:22 pm

*decides not to waste life on 7 pages of posts*

That site, that started this thread, that manual thing, is totally F*CKED UP!!!

Celery

------------------
Just as soon as I belong/Then its time I disappear
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B> For the duration of this thread, I am totally in agreement with Cherzra.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uh daz, you are a bit late yo. The duration of this thread was like uh..almost 5 months ago.


------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:31 am

Well, then my time has expired and I can go back to disagreeing with Cherzra about american foreign policies.

------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
Zoldren
Sojourner
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:01 am
Location: mt. vernon, il
Contact:

Postby Zoldren » Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:43 pm

Politics, religion, and money should all be banned from public discussion.

they only start fights

------------------
MoM-D
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Mon Sep 30, 2002 2:44 pm

Zoldren = Josef Stalin?

------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

[This message has been edited by Kifle (edited 09-30-2002).]
Teyaha
Sojourner
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Teyaha » Mon Sep 30, 2002 3:14 pm

i've never seen so many coherent sok posts. this thing is doing wonders for his typing!

keep it up!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Sep 30, 2002 6:07 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zoldren:
<B>Politics, religion, and money should all be banned from public discussion.

they only start fights

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. We should just let the enlightened religious leaders, polititians and rich people make all the important decisions for us. While we're at it, why bother letting people vote? If we are unable to discuss politics we sure as hell can't be qualified to choose leaders....



------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Krogenar
Sojourner
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 5:01 am
Location: New York,NY USA
Contact:

Postby Krogenar » Tue Oct 01, 2002 4:57 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B> True. We should just let the enlightened religious leaders, polititians and rich people make all the important decisions for us. While we're at it, why bother letting people vote? If we are unable to discuss politics we sure as hell can't be qualified to choose leaders....

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! Politics and religion are my two favorite subjects. If people followed politics and religion the way they followed the SuperBowl, we'd all be a lot better off.

As for the conflict, that's part of the fun! Why get upset over it?


John Stuart Mill once



------------------
- Krogenar
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Oct 01, 2002 6:59 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Elseenas:
<B>sok: If we all die, why, objectively,[i/] does it matter[/i]?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Find out!! Fol Mori!

------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:05 pm

Oh yeah,

Elseenas, that's a nice trick us debaters learned early on. From an objectively neutral point, nothing matters. But neither should it matter what Sok says if you're taking that mindset Image So if you were to be completely objectively neutral you wouldn't have posted at all Image because, following that line, it doesn't bother or affect you.

String theory doesn't necessarily say things just vibrate in the 11th dimension... Some string theories have gone up to 20D iirc. I might be missing something cause I'm really tired atm but I can see no point in your posting that Image

Are you trying to say how arbitrary theories can be developed to show how things are? I accept that. Does that mean that it makes anyone's beliefs not relevant? I don't think so.

------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
Krogenar
Sojourner
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 5:01 am
Location: New York,NY USA
Contact:

Postby Krogenar » Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:48 pm

Are we discussing moral relativism, or whether anything can be objectively proven?
(scans through the previous posts, and seems $10 words like 'quantum' and 'super-string')

Ack.

Nothing like a philosophical moebius strip to brighten your day!



------------------
- Krogenar
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Tue Oct 01, 2002 7:54 pm

Objectively, it doesn't matter if humans can or can't prove that things can be objectively proven.

------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
Moja
Sojourner
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Tigard, Or USA

Postby Moja » Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:18 am

VOCABULARY: (Christian) Christ like

I do not back away in any way shape or form for my position of trying to be Christian (christ like).

If you believe what the bibile says Christ was the perfect son of God knowing no sin.
I can not make that claim only keep striving and falling but getting back on my feet and trying again.


Jesus said James 1:26

If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but decieves his own heart, this mans religion is vain.


and continues James 1:27

Pure RELIGION and undefiled before GOD and the FATHER is this, To visit the Fatherless and Widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

I personally do not "believe" that this has any leanings twords genocide.


God does not show any support for the "Roman Catholic Church" in the bible. In fact many of the Roman Catholic teachings are directly opposed to what God teaches us to do and be.


Any evil plan could be put into motion under the guise of Christanity but that does not mean that it is a Christian course of action. Many times rulers in the past and present and probably future, have and will, use Chritianity or any other "Religion" as an excuse to get others to follow them and help carry out thier plans regardless of their true reasons for devising the course of action in the first place. If others group all "Christians" with people or groups who are directly opposed to God's will then there is no longer any room for individuals or the truth.


Thia is just a statement of where I stand, not support or condemnation for any other viewpoints or beliefs.



------------------
Silly Dorf
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Oct 02, 2002 12:24 pm

Ok, so here's a question for all you pro-religion types:

If someone were raised in a society that had never heard of God or the Bible, but lived his life well according to the tenets of whatever morals he was taught would he be able to get into Heaven?

I know it's worded in a Christian biased way... so if you aren't Christian then just say what religion you are and how your deity or deities would handle it. Image

------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Zoldren
Sojourner
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 6:01 am
Location: mt. vernon, il
Contact:

Postby Zoldren » Wed Oct 02, 2002 1:27 pm

for you people with a firm grasp of the obvious i was infering we ban it from here, it only causes flames

------------------
MoM-D
moritheil
Sojourner
Posts: 4845
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2001 6:01 am

Postby moritheil » Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>Ok, so here's a question for all you pro-religion types:

If someone were raised in a society that had never heard of God or the Bible, but lived his life well according to the tenets of whatever morals he was taught would he be able to get into Heaven?

I know it's worded in a Christian biased way... so if you aren't Christian then just say what religion you are and how your deity or deities would handle it. Image
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That, actually, is the subject of debate. IIRC. And it varies somewhat.

Mormons believe in something called the 'honorable heathen'.... Dante spoke of 'virtuous pagans' but specified that they lived before Christ came. I'm unaware of the Islamic stance on this.

------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
Arases
Sojourner
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Arases » Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:40 pm

<quote> If someone were raised in a society that had never heard of God or the Bible, but lived his life well according to the tenets of whatever morals he was taught would he be able to get into Heaven? </quote>

Based on the stipulations provided above, yes.

PS: I'm a Muslim.
Moja
Sojourner
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Tigard, Or USA

Postby Moja » Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:21 pm

Sarvis

If someone were raised in a society that had never heard of God or the Bible, but lived his life well according to the tenets of whatever morals he was taught would he be able to get into Heaven?

-----------------------------------

in the Bible God says "the Heavans (or sky, stars etc) declare the glory of God"

I gave the true Christian definition of religion above, that is a prinicple, not necessarily an actual action that you must do at least once each weak as organized "religions" try to dictate. God makes it very clear in the Bible that he wishes for all to fol him and none to reject him that all might be saved. Wether someone has a King James Bible or has never heard the word GOD makes no difference, if they do not reject God and embrace good morals as best they can according to thier consious, God will keep those who are his.

It is organized "Religions" and people using relingion, wether it be Christainity, or Catholicism, or Muslim, or any other belief to further thier own causes that start drawing lines and limiting God. If I am running my "Religion" as a very profitable money-making or controlling enterprise then I am going to be sure to tell you that you will die if you do not do exactly what I say.

God has no ulterior motives, just want all to love him. To no two people will God be exactly the same. That is what makes us human.
Human find beauty in order and symetry, it is easy for us to understand. Nature, created by God,is intinitely variable, truely beautiful, and no two things are the same.
That requires a creater who's abilities to even comprehend, that are far greater than ours are presently.

God will get ALL who wish to fol him into heavan. He is not restricted by human frailties. It is very wrong to limit the creator of things we can't even understand by our own limitations.

------------------
Silly Dorf
sok
Sojourner
Posts: 1578
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 5:01 am
Location: santa ana, ca, usa
Contact:

Postby sok » Wed Oct 02, 2002 9:37 pm

well sarvis now that your heard within the christian faith, the way to heaven is through christ, you can't claim u didn't know.

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests