Footwedge;1224170 wrote:Bring back Sleeper. You cannot exclude the personalities on here. What are we, British Parliament with crow bars crammed up our collective asses?

He earned it. I'm not going to bring him back because of his personality. That would show bias.

O-Trap;1224317 wrote:I'm not going to bring him back because of his personality.

Which one?

gut;1224293 wrote:Honestly, I don't find belief in God and evolution as conflicting, not if you don't take the Bible literally.
I kind of lean toward the Lisa Simpson as creator perspective, in the sense that the universe is/was some supreme being's science experiment. How and where that supreme being came from is another question all together.

Hell, is there any room for some sort of circular continuum theory where very advanced humans/aliens millions of years from now travel back in time to create the universe?

Anyway, my guess is that as science continues to evolve, our understanding and definition of God will continue to evolve. And if God were nothing more than a very advanced & enlightened human/alien millions of years ahead of our evolutionary scale, I tend to think for all intents and purposes such person WOULD be God as we think we know him. Yuuch....sounds like something a Scientologist might believe.

Very true.

But my thing is, I don't see why any of the supernatural accounts found in holy books should be believed. I mean, you don't find it a bit odd that as we've advanced and become more learned about science and the world that god who was so active in the Bible/other holy books straight up disappeared? I have trouble reconciling that.

gut;1224279 wrote:Isn't that essentially what BOTH scientists and creationists believe? One in the big bang the other in God? There was nothing and then there was something, one way or another.

For me it's hard to comprehend that something just existed - even more so when you take into account the complex interactions and laws following fairly precise and common mathematical models dictating evolution and all these events. Maybe matter did just exist, but it seems a pretty big leap that such orderly laws/forces of nature and the universe would RANDOMLY exist as well... but taken to the extreme how did God and his world come into existence?

That's a pretty gross oversimplification.

It seems to me that if you have trouble grasping the fact that things exist at all saying god made it is just pushing the question up one level and complicating it because then you have to ask how a god came into existence, etc, etc.

This book was interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342115611&sr=8-1&keywords=everything+from+nothing

queencitybuckeye;1224322 wrote:Which one?

What I meant was, despite his personality, he's not going to be "un-banned."

FatHobbit;1224281 wrote:I think that is safe to say, although I think one theory states that the universe expands and contracts and then expands and contracts again repeatedly.

That is actually one of the most 'interesting' theories I've seen.

It can be explained like this, basically.

All 'living' things have a major 'cycle'. For animals it is a heart beat. One thing proven in biology that there is a significant trend that the larger the animal, the slower the heart beat. A small hamster has a heart rate of 450 beats per minute. A human has about 60, a huge whale as low as 20.

So the larger the 'living thing' the slower the 'cycle'. For instance, a major metropolitan city's 'cycle' is twice a day (cars rushing in the morning rush our, cars rushing out in afternoon rush hour).

They applied this theory to cosmology and think the 'cycle' of the universe, like one GIANT 'heart beat' that cycles about every 100 billion years or more.

Like I said, fascinating idea.

I Wear Pants;1224341 wrote:Very true.

But my thing is, I don't see why any of the supernatural accounts found in holy books should be believed. I mean, you don't find it a bit odd that as we've advanced and become more learned about science and the world that god who was so active in the Bible/other holy books straight up disappeared? I have trouble reconciling that.

True. My Lisa Simpson theory explains that quite nicely, though. Alternatively, you can look at it from a parent's perspective, and as your children "get older" you intervene less.

Also, how "active" was God, really? I think people lose sight of parables as a teaching tool. He certainly wasn't appearing to many people of note even as late as Jesus' time. And in today's world, most people might bite their tongue or being labeled as cooks for citing similar experiences. Kind of like alien encounters - no one can prove it and so most people write if off as imagined or made-up.

I Wear Pants;1224351 wrote:That's a pretty gross oversimplification.

It seems to me that if you have trouble grasping the fact that things exist at all saying god made it is just pushing the question up one level and complicating it because then you have to ask how a god came into existence, etc, etc.

This book was interesting: http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342115611&sr=8-1&keywords=everything+from+nothing

It begets the question, but again, when you deal with non-natural, we're discussing things which are less restricted than with natural things.

Most things in nature appear to have a beginning, if not an end as well. The assumption is that matter and energy are potential exceptions because we currently do not view them as being able to be created or destroyed. The suggestion is that the universe could be this way as well. The difference is that we've been able to observe the former two, while the latter is at least as much a shot in the dark as any non-natural origin of a natural universe.

To the point of matter an energy, it's possible that we simply cannot, in our current level of understanding, fathom a way for energy or matter to be created or destroyed, but we have yet to see anything COMPRISED of matter and/or energy that also bears that characteristic.

When you deal in non-natural, the need to adhere to conventional natural law is no longer necessary. Hence, a non-natural origin of the natural universe can plausibly need no explanation of origin, as there is no authority by which we can establish that said being is bound by natural law, or even time itself.

O-Trap;1224369 wrote:It begets the question, but again, when you deal with non-natural, we're discussing things which are less restricted than with natural things.

Most things in nature appear to have a beginning, if not an end as well. The assumption is that matter and energy are potential exceptions because we currently do not view them as being able to be created or destroyed. The suggestion is that the universe could be this way as well. The difference is that we've been able to observe the former two, while the latter is at least as much a shot in the dark as any non-natural origin of a natural universe.

To the point of matter an energy, it's possible that we simply cannot, in our current level of understanding, fathom a way for energy or matter to be created or destroyed, but we have yet to see anything COMPRISED of matter and/or energy that also bears that characteristic.

When you deal in non-natural, the need to adhere to conventional natural law is no longer necessary. Hence, a non-natural origin of the natural universe can plausibly need no explanation of origin, as there is no authority by which we can establish that said being is bound by natural law, or even time itself.

So what's the point then. If it's impossible to learn about, impossible to observe, impossible to verify, etc, etc, why even bother thinking about it? Also, if it is all of those things how do you possibly believe in it (not necessarily you, but anyone)? There has to be reasoning and logic behind a belief and I can't imagine what it is in this instance. What makes that seem plausible/likely?

gut;1224359 wrote:True. My Lisa Simpson theory explains that quite nicely, though. Alternatively, you can look at it from a parent's perspective, and as your children "get older" you intervene less.

Also, how "active" was God, really? I think people lose sight of parables as a teaching tool. He certainly wasn't appearing to many people of note even as late as Jesus' time. And in today's world, most people might bite their tongue or being labeled as cooks for citing similar experiences. Kind of like alien encounters - no one can prove it and so most people write if off as imagined or made-up.

Because they are.

For your parents perspective to parallel with god that would mean god is a parent that completely abandoned his/her child when they were 8 years old.

jmog;1224356 wrote:That is actually one of the most 'interesting' theories I've seen.

It can be explained like this, basically.

All 'living' things have a major 'cycle'. For animals it is a heart beat. One thing proven in biology that there is a significant trend that the larger the animal, the slower the heart beat. A small hamster has a heart rate of 450 beats per minute. A human has about 60, a huge whale as low as 20.

So the larger the 'living thing' the slower the 'cycle'. For instance, a major metropolitan city's 'cycle' is twice a day (cars rushing in the morning rush our, cars rushing out in afternoon rush hour).

They applied this theory to cosmology and think the 'cycle' of the universe, like one GIANT 'heart beat' that cycles about every 100 billion years or more.

Like I said, fascinating idea.

The multiverse theory is very interesting as well IMO.

O-Trap;1224369 wrote: When you deal in non-natural, the need to adhere to conventional natural law is no longer necessary. Hence, a non-natural origin of the natural universe can plausibly need no explanation of origin, as there is no authority by which we can establish that said being is bound by natural law, or even time itself.

To that point, if we take bacteria from somewhere, perhaps modify it, and then grow a colony in a petri-dish then to that bacteria we are essentially God. If you take a very narrow and literal definition of God, it perhaps does sound a bit ridiculous. But I don't think anything has really detracted or suggested some supreme being doesn't or can't exist, and in that sense although God would not be a unique being, he could still be our one and only God (i.e our "parent" or this being "his" universe).

gut;1224390 wrote:To that point, if we take bacteria from somewhere, perhaps modify it, and then grow a colony in a petri-dish then to that bacteria we are essentially God. If you take a very narrow and literal definition of God, it perhaps does sound a bit ridiculous. But I don't think anything has really detracted or suggested some supreme being doesn't or can't exist, and in that sense although God would not be a unique being, he could still be our one and only God (i.e our "parent" or this being "his" universe).

That's a neat way to think about it. But I guess then I'd still say that it would be a waste of time/money/anything else you put into it to spend your life praising and worshiping this scientist/god.

I Wear Pants;1224387 wrote:Because they are.

For your parents perspective to parallel with god that would mean god is a parent that completely abandoned his/her child when they were 8 years old.

No it wouldn't. Your falsely confusing "diving inspiration" as observable, verifiable "fact" that never really occurred. Moses came down from the mountains with two tablets, but no one actually saw him talking to God. God told Noah to build an ark, but nobody saw that conversation taking place. There are still plenty of people in this world who feel inspired and touched by God, so your argument that he abandoned us is simply wrong. Not to mention the way society mocks, doubts and marginalizes such claims.

I think if you were to be fair and objective about it there is no less or more interaction/intervention today vs. the past. A central theme of the Bible is the Lord works in mysterious ways, which is very indicative of not being able to observe or even comprehend.

People tend to discredit his existence by citing all the bad in the world. Yet we know from personal experience that adversity does build character and bring people closer together. The idea that God would make life easy and perfect just goes against not only free will but also what we know as parents is part of a healthy maturity and that the bad enhances the experience of the good.

I Wear Pants;1224380 wrote:So what's the point then. If it's impossible to learn about, impossible to observe, impossible to verify, etc, etc, why even bother thinking about it?

I don't think it is impossible, but again, that's because I don't accept that scientific study is the only way to know things.

I Wear Pants;1224380 wrote:Also, if it is all of those things how do you possibly believe in it (not necessarily you, but anyone)?

I already answered the 'if' part.

I do wonder sometimes where we get the idea that science is the only way to know something. I don't know if that's something you've considered much, but if you have, I'm curious to hear what you think.

I Wear Pants;1224380 wrote:There has to be reasoning and logic behind a belief and I can't imagine what it is in this instance.

Certainly. I whole-heartedly agree.

I Wear Pants;1224380 wrote:What makes that seem plausible/likely?

Lots of things together. The overall notion that the finite ... that which has limits in the entire realm of reality ... has the capability to pose questions about what exists outside those limits, but it lacks the ability to study them in the same way it studies what exists within the limits.

The idea that virtually everything we empirically sense, sans pure matter and energy themselves, has a beginning and end, but things we do not empirically sense, such as time (natural) or social constructs (such as moral values) are deemed real despite the fact that they cannot be viewed empirically at all, and cannot be known to have beginning or end.

The fact is, we already accept some things that are non-empirically sensed. Whether we think of them as "things" or not, we still believe that they are manifest in some form.

I Wear Pants;1224398 wrote:That's a neat way to think about it. But I guess then I'd still say that it would be a waste of time/money/anything else you put into it to spend your life praising and worshiping this scientist/god.

Again I think this is another gross generalization of far right ignorants who take everything literally. I suspect most people have varying degrees of what God is, or means in their lives, but embrace religion for the community and a value system to raise a family in. As a society we create laws to enhance the functioning. For similar reasons, people choose religions that promote values they share.

I Wear Pants;1224387 wrote:For your parents perspective to parallel with god that would mean god is a parent that completely abandoned his/her child when they were 8 years old.

Not at all. Think of the way he used to interact with the people on earth like "baby talk." Just because my parents don't pinch my cheeks and say "a-coochie-coochie-coo" to me today doesn't mean we don't communicate or interact. It's merely different.

I Wear Pants;1224387 wrote: The multiverse theory is very interesting as well IMO.

I actually blended this idea with the notion of omniscience, explaining that knowing what I might do in every aspect of life could be explained as simply having that thorough a knowledge of all the potential options.

I love the multiverse theory.

gut;1224390 wrote:To that point, if we take bacteria from somewhere, perhaps modify it, and then grow a colony in a petri-dish then to that bacteria we are essentially God. If you take a very narrow and literal definition of God, it perhaps does sound a bit ridiculous. But I don't think anything has really detracted or suggested some supreme being doesn't or can't exist, and in that sense although God would not be a unique being, he could still be our one and only God (i.e our "parent" or this being "his" universe).

Not a perfect parallel, but that works pretty well, yeah.

It actually made me think of Men In Black II and the little race of people who live in a locker in Central Station.

We can study morality or at least what most people find to be their "built in" morality on a scientific level. Michael Shermer has some interesting presentations/writing on this.

I disagree that time isn't empirically sensed. In fact I'd argue that there might not be anything that isn't.

You keep bringing up that you don't think science is the only way to know things but seem to be (at least I'm having trouble with it) quite vague in regards to what the alternative methods of knowing/learning something are. Because as far as I'm concerned even something like a person reading the Bible and coming to believe it is true (which I disagree with) is something that's based on what you are calling science learning. It's based on judgements of fact and reality or it should be.

I see no reason to believe that there are things with magical/supernatural abilities or properties because I have not experienced anything of the sort nor have I read any account of such things that can't be just as easily explained using either logic or science or even when they're things that we currently do not understand entirely like "how the universe began" I find it far more likely that there is a method/catalyst/whathaveyou which we could understand scientifically/logically if we were able to see it than that a supernatural force/being/entity created it.

I don't see how one leaps from "we do not understand some things about the universe" to "supernatural things exist/can exist". Could that be an explanation for some of the questions we have? Sure. But it seems to be skipping a bunch of steps/logic. I mean, if I go out to the parking lot and see my car is smashed it could have been smashed by a meteoroid/other space debris. But it would make no sense to assume this without reason. If I'm going to assume something I'd probably assume some jackass backed into my car. Hopefully I'm articulating why I'm having trouble grasping the logic of believing in supernatural entities well enough. I'm not exactly excellent at writing philosophically.

Isn't it amazing this thread hasn't been run into the ground yet?

Well I mean so far everyone has realized that calling someone an idiot asshole isn't an effective way to engage in philosophical/education policy discussion. Which is refreshing.

I Wear Pants;1224441 wrote:Well I mean so far everyone has realized that calling someone an idiot asshole isn't an effective way to engage in philosophical/education policy discussion. Which is refreshing.

This. This, right here, is why I appreciate discussing this topic with you. Reps.

FatHobbit;1224434 wrote:Isn't it amazing this thread hasn't been run into the ground yet?

That's just because I haven't posted on it enough...lol.

O-Trap;1224442 wrote:This. This, right here, is why I appreciate discussing this topic with you. Reps.

I think it's just that many people seem to think that if they understand something and others don't then those people are somehow inferior intellectually. It's not a perfect parallel because this is a more complex topic but it'd be like me thinking my dad isn't intelligent because he doesn't understand the things I do about computers and how they work/operate. That isn't true, he's a double major in math and physics and is smart as hell. Just doesn't know as much about that particular topic.

So even though I may feel that the way I understand the question of is/are there deities is the correct one (no is how I understand it) it certainly doesn't make the people who either disagree or haven't yet understood any less intelligent. They just disagree. Different doesn't equal worse/more stupid in this instance.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:We can study morality or at least what most people find to be their "built in" morality on a scientific level.

I submit that we have yet to establish scientifically that "built in morality" exists, though I believe it does, on some level.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:Michael Shermer has some interesting presentations/writing on this.

I hope they're better than Sam Harris' musings/rants on the subject. If you happen to know where I could find them, they might make a nice read this evening. If not, I'll see if I can find them as well.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:I disagree that time isn't empirically sensed. In fact I'd argue that there might not be anything that isn't.

Which empirical senses would you say we use to observe time? Moreover, which ones would you suggest we use to observe innate morality (should it exist)? We can observe actions themselves with our own eyes, but the morality of the actions ... that's a little different discussion.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:You keep bringing up that you don't think science is the only way to know things but seem to be (at least I'm having trouble with it) quite vague in regards to what the alternative methods of knowing/learning something are.

My sincerest apologies for coming across that way. I promise you that I try to balance clarity and accuracy in my explanation of exactly what I'm thinking, but I admit that when I try that, it often comes out in a muddled mess ... hence my lengthy posts at times.

The one that got me started was philosophy. I think philosophy can address what science can address, as well as what science cannot address. The very use of abstracts without natural example in such a way as to make logical sense is a perfect example.

As for why, THAT is where this fun starts. I am a huge fan of epistemology as a study, and it got me thinking that from a logical standpoint, there is no filter by which we can process our experience on earth that isn't accepted as authoritative without completely logical cause, scientific naturalism included. As such, not one of them is an automatic plum line for our interpretation of existence. We rely on one verses another for a variety of reasons, but ultimately, the reason to use one is, at best, circular reasoning ... a logical fallacy.

While some might see that as depressing, I feel like it opens up the possibility for more knowledge of what may exist in the realm of reality, and that seems exciting to me, god or no god.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:Because as far as I'm concerned even something like a person reading the Bible and coming to believe it is true (which I disagree with) is something that's based on what you are calling science learning. It's based on judgements of fact and reality or it should be.

Indeed, though I would hope this wouldn't be the starting point. If it is, then I would say the reasons for believing it are either existential (cannot be explained without experience) or arbitrary (cannot be explained without desire). I don't inherently discredit the former, though I admit I have issues with the latter.

I can't imagine many people opting for the latter if they've read it thoroughly. Not everything in there is exactly rainbows, puppies, and unicorns.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:I see no reason to believe that there are things with magical/supernatural abilities or properties because I have not experienced anything of the sort nor have I read any account of such things that can't be just as easily explained using either logic or science or even when they're things that we currently do not understand entirely like "how the universe began" I find it far more likely that there is a method/catalyst/whathaveyou which we could understand scientifically/logically if we were able to see it than that a supernatural force/being/entity created it.

You may lean that way, but there is no more proof to believe that than anything else, scientifically speaking.

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to convince you, ultimately. Just trying to answer questions as best I can.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:I mean, if I go out to the parking lot and see my car is smashed it could have been smashed by a meteoroid/other space debris. But it would make no sense to assume this without reason.

Correct. We're dealing in natural things, so one would assume that natural evidence would exist.

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:If I'm going to assume something I'd probably assume some jackass backed into my car.

Ah, but wouldn't assuming even fly in the face of needing proof to think something is true?

I Wear Pants;1224422 wrote:Hopefully I'm articulating why I'm having trouble grasping the logic of believing in supernatural entities well enough. I'm not exactly excellent at writing philosophically.

No worries. I think you're doing okay. It's not the kind of conversation that gets summed up quickly. Hell, it took me about three years.

Yeah it's good that you make that distinction about not trying to convince people. When I talk on these sort of subjects I have no intent ,nor do I imagine I would be able to even if I did, of convincing people my position is correct.

I'll try to find a link for the Michael Shermer stuff as well. YSU brought him in to do a presentation for us which I thought was pretty fascinating.

I Wear Pants;1224465 wrote:I think it's just that many people seem to think that if they understand something and others don't then those people are somehow inferior intellectually. It's not a perfect parallel because this is a more complex topic but it'd be like me thinking my dad isn't intelligent because he doesn't understand the things I do about computers and how they work/operate. That isn't true, he's a double major in math and physics and is smart as hell. Just doesn't know as much about that particular topic.

So even though I may feel that the way I understand the question of is/are there deities is the correct one (no is how I understand it) it certainly doesn't make the people who either disagree or haven't yet understood any less intelligent. They just disagree. Different doesn't equal worse/more stupid in this instance.

Precisely. Even before I ever believed in any deity whatsoever, there were people who I couldn't deny were very smart who believed much differently than I.