Define God

[panther.jd]

You know that thread on nothingland:"Do you believe in a god? How certain are you?" (http://www.nothingland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5094)

Well it seemed to mostly be a rehash of the god debate that didn't go anywhere. So, I thought that it might be more useful to instead try this. While it's useless for convincing anyone of the rightness of your view, if it's about trying to understand the views of others, this could be really interesting.

So what do you mean when you say god? Go on: define god. How hard can it be? :rolleyes:

[pandiculator]

I'll bite and start with the simplest and therefore most meaningless definition. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

He is also benevolent, but works in ways...well, that are very different from our order of thinking.

[Northcott]

Eh. I think that trying to convince somebody of the 'rightness' of your views on an unproveable subject is the height of arrogance. :) Much more fun to just hash out ideas. Probably more productive, too.

For clarification: I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God... but by that token, the more liberal versions of those faiths probably have a concept of divinity that shares a great deal with my personal view.

My take on the divine is, boiled down into a single term, "the infinite". Much like trying to visualize what the number of one million really represents, it's beyond the capacity of our minds to fathom. Our view of the universe is limited by our finite being. To perceive the infinite more fully, we must cease being finite -- transcendence, nirvana, what have you.

Being that the divine is infinite, no single thing can truly be apart from it... which is why I've always noted that people haven't offended my 'religious sensibilities' when they think they have. They too are of the infinite, as are their opinions. The huggly little bunnies that people think are so damned cute are part of the divine. So too is the grizzly that gnaws your thigh off because it wants a midday snack.

As such, no discovery of science nor twist of philosophy invalidates the belief, as all are a part of it, and so any exploration is simply a deeper learning of the divine, to be respected and pursued as individual inclination directs.

The divine is. To define it more than that is to reveal more about our limited perceptions than anything else. Experience is the filter.


...and that's probably going to sound like so much Hoodoo to most folks. 'Cept maybe Rich, and Maddman if he's still around. The Buddhists have a fairly similar view, iirc.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

God? He's just this guy, you know?

[Northcott]

God? He's just this guy, you know?

Just a slob like one of us? Just a stranger on the bus.

[Varaj]

I'm an animist and most people don't consider my definition of god to be a god. God is the universe, conscious in a way that is meaningless to humans.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

Just a slob like one of us? Just a stranger on the bus.

Pretty much. If there is a god (not that I believe there is, mid you), they we see god everyday, in every face, in every blade of grass, in every photon of light. God, see, we're standing in god. We're soaking in it, making our hands softer. We breathe god in, and shit god out. It's the universe. in all it's glory. God is bigger and more unfathomnable than we can ever grasp.

[Atropine Mama]

I remember Lisa saying something about God being like her drunk uncle. It was and remains to this day the best God analogy I've ever heard.

If God exists, I'd like to cockpunch the sonuvabitch, Just once.

I'm not bitter.

[panther.jd]

I'm an animist and most people don't consider my definition of god to be a god. God is the universe, conscious in a way that is meaningless to humans.What does conscious mean in that context. The universe is aware of it's own existence?

I've seen the universe is god idea in science fact books, but there it seems to me to be a kind of dodge, by calling the universe god, they can say they believe in god so they don't piss of the religious right who see science as a threat.

I like the view that the universe is so big, amazing, fascinating that it doesn't need anything "supernatural" in it to make it special. As our understanding of the world increases, it never ceases to be so fascinating to me.

From the weird quantum world, to discovers and theories on how the mind works, the natural world is full of wonder and surprise. The universe is in incredible place.

[Northcott]

Pretty much. If there is a god (not that I believe there is, mid you), they we see god everyday, in every face, in every blade of grass, in every photon of light. God, see, we're standing in god. We're soaking in it, making our hands softer. We breathe god in, and shit god out. It's the universe. in all it's glory. God is bigger and more unfathomnable than we can ever grasp.

I suppose I shouldn't be entirely surprised at the commonality of thought on this subject (here, at least). I suppose I'm too used to the people in my everyday life, for whom this kind of thinking is a huge stretch.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

I remember Lisa saying something about God being like her drunk uncle. It was and remains to this day the best God analogy I've ever heard.

If God exists, I'd like to cockpunch the sonuvabitch, Just once.

I'm not bitter.

Well. if we look at God in various religious texts, then, yes, God is my dumb-ass drunk uncle, they guy that when he's sober, is kinda cool, but when he's drunk, he turns mean, vindictive, and stupid. Plus whan he's drunk, he plays viscious jokes, behaves boorishly, and picks fights.

Does anyone wonder why I don't speak to my uncle anymore?

[Darkfire]

My take on the divine is, boiled down into a single term, "the infinite". Much like trying to visualize what the number of one million really represents, it's beyond the capacity of our minds to fathom. Our view of the universe is limited by our finite being. To perceive the infinite more fully, we must cease being finite -- transcendence, nirvana, what have you.

.......

The divine is. To define it more than that is to reveal more about our limited perceptions than anything else. Experience is the filter.


I'm going to grab what Northcott wrote, since I both agree with it and he writes better than I do ;)

Adding to it though, I also believe that the divine is aware, though not in a way which makes sense to us.

[Northcott]

Adding to it though, I also believe that the divine is aware, though not in a way which makes sense to us.

Yeah, I forgot to throw that in there. See what I mean about statements on the divine revealing more of our limitations than anything else? ;)

[panther.jd]

Adding to it though, I also believe that the divine is aware, though not in a way which makes sense to us.Does that mean that the divine is aware in a way that has no effect on us at all? Isn't that the same as the divine not being aware from our perspective. :p (Conversely, from the perspective of the divine, we are not aware!) :eek:

[Northcott]

Does that mean that the divine is aware in a way that has no effect on us at all? Isn't that the same as the divine not being aware from our perspective.

Do you believe that something which we cannot fathom does not have consequences for us? Gravity was functional long before we struggled with gravitational theory.

(Conversely, from the perspective of the divine, we are not aware!) :eek:

If you run with the idea that the divine is infinite, then we are all a part of the divine. To that extent, it would indeed be aware of our awareness -- as well as being aware of the limitations of our awareness. Far better than we are, as it would have greater context by which to measure such things.

[panther.jd]

If you run with the idea that the divine is infinite, then we are all a part of the divine. To that extent, it would indeed be aware of our awareness -- as well as being aware of the limitations of our awareness. Far better than we are, as it would have greater context by which to measure such things.If all physical laws are the "mind of god" then it certainly affects me. But on the other hand, what I thought about this morning has no observable affect on the universe. The things I do have an affect on the world, but they are insignificant on the scale of the universe. (Not to say that I think everything I do is meaningless, it matters a great deal to me after all!) I don't see how it's meaningful to say the universe is aware of me, but otherwise I don't see any reasonable disagreement with this line of thinking. :)

[Northcott]

If all physical laws are the "mind of god" then it certainly affects me. But on the other hand, what I thought about this morning has no observable affect on the universe. The things I do have an affect on the world, but they are insignificant on the scale of the universe. (Not to say that I think everything I do is meaningless, it matters a great deal to me after all!) I don't see how it's meaningful to say the universe is aware of me, but otherwise I don't see any reasonable disagreement with this line of thinking. :)

Just contrast this: I don't see how it's meaningful to say the universe is aware of me, but otherwise I don't see any reasonable disagreement with this line of thinking.

With this: Not to say that I think everything I do is meaningless, it matters a great deal to me after all!

If the content of our lives holds meaning for us, as individuals, then how can meaning be seperated from a concept of the divine that encompasses all of us? Working from the premise that the divine is indeed infinite, and aware of the things we are aware of (in addition to a great deal more) we are given one set of parameters to work with. Our second set is the idea that our awareness of our daily lives, even if we recognize the relative insignificance of minute tasks, is given meaning by our self-awareness.

How then could the universe being aware of you -- the whole of you, the true depth of you, not merely a shallow impression of you -- fail to hold meaning? The question, to me, is how we deal with that meaning as people, and how we choose to recognize it in those around us.


Edit for clarity: Not attempting to proselytize, merely clarifying my own POV. :)

[BOZ]

I'm an animist and most people don't consider my definition of god to be a god. God is the universe, conscious in a way that is meaningless to humans.

that simplified definition is amazingly similar to what i've come to accept as the basis for my own belief in what god is.

we probably differ a lot moving out from that point, but on that statement at least we're the same.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I don't think I can add anything more to what Ed and Darkfire have written

[Snatch]

If there is a God (or divine) I believe it will be in a form very different that what humans have expressed so far.

I think that as our scientific knowledge expands, along with our imagination and awareness of the universe, the concept of "God" will continue to evolve. I suspect that if you were to ask a typical Christian today to describe "God" you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask the typical Christian from 500 years ago.

Personally I have no spiritual bone in my body, but I derive lots of enjoyment reading about the religions, belieifs and myths of others.

[Northcott]

If there is a God (or divine) I believe it will be in a form very different that what humans have expressed so far.

I think that as our scientific knowledge expands, along with our imagination and awareness of the universe, the concept of "God" will continue to evolve. I suspect that if you were to ask a typical Christian today to describe "God" you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask the typical Christian from 500 years ago.

Agreed! ...Well, presuming we could find a 'typical' Christian. :) Although, on second thought -- I'm completely blanking at the moment about medieval (and older) concepts of God. Maybe Rich can help us out here. I've got this really vague notion about the formation of modern thought on divinity being related to older treatises on the subject. Sleepy as Hell and quite out of it this afternoon.

Personally I have no spiritual bone in my body, but I derive lots of enjoyment reading about the religions, belieifs and myths of others.

Minus the "no spiritual bone" part... ditto. :)

[Snatch]

Agreed! ...Well, presuming we could find a 'typical' Christian. :)

Don't you just mash a whole bunch of them together and take a sample of the composite just like a core sample? ;)

[Northcott]

Don't you just mash a whole bunch of them together and take a sample of the composite just like a core sample? ;)


That one got a grin. Almost laughed out loud!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

While it's useless for convincing anyone of the rightness of your view, if it's about trying to understand the views of others, this could be really interesting.

I disagree that its useless. Indeed, conversions happen through (in part) "convincing [someone] of the rightness of [someone else's] view"

So what do you mean when you say god? Go on: define god. How hard can it be? :rolleyes:

That's always been one of my concerns. Isn't the very un-definability of god evidence of it being man-made?

To me, god is an idea that has evolved over time in the minds of humans. Much of this I'm taking from Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Before there was the idea of gods, there were the twin ideas of (1) animistic spirits of certain natural objects and processes and (2) the idea that your ancestors stayed with you and watched over you and occasionally helped. Both are the products of what Dennett calls the "intentional stance", our evolved tendency to see changes in our environment as the result of an actor with intentions and to predict future changes and plan our reactions to them based on our suppositions of what those intentions may be (the tendency to ask "if I were a tiger and I wanted to eat me, where would I lie in wait? Ah yes, behind that rock!" also gives rise to "If I were the rain spirit what would cause me to make it rain tomorrow? I like cornbread, he must to. I'll offer him cornbread and ask him to make it rain!")

These ideas coalesced into formal gods of polytheistic religions - archetypal ancestor figures merged with archetypal animistic spirits. Later this idea merged in the monotheistic religions into a single god, probably by way of an intermediate stage whereby the Jews believed in multiple gods but only honoured and worshipped one, with whom they had a special relationship.

Then, in response to the growth of science as an alternative explanation for the world, this idea of god began to both shrink and expand. It became a place holder for the unknown, the mysterious and for the feeling of deep significance humans often feel in the face of great beauty or elegance or empathy.

There is, I think, a Zen story about a master who points to the moon and gets angry with his students because they aren't looking at the moon, but at his finger. In my view, God is the finger. And the moon is our own yearning for meaning and the brutal, wonderful, terrifying, exhilarating fact that the evidence seems to be that there is no-one to give meaning to us except us. That, to quote Joss Whedon, "if there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today." And that that responsibility to give our lives their own meaning is more than enough, because that is what makes us human.

But, without the finger, we might never have seen the moon.

Eh. I think that trying to convince somebody of the 'rightness' of your views on an unproveable subject is the height of arrogance. :)

But there are a whole host of unprovable subjects on which we convince each other of the rightness of our views every day. Indeed, the majority of human reasoning and argumentation are on unprovable subjects. The fact that a proposition is unprovable does not necessarily mean that one cannot come to a rational assessment as to the probability of it being true.

For clarification: I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of God... but by that token, the more liberal versions of those faiths probably have a concept of divinity that shares a great deal with my personal view.

My take on the divine is, boiled down into a single term, "the infinite". Much like trying to visualize what the number of one million really represents, it's beyond the capacity of our minds to fathom. Our view of the universe is limited by our finite being. To perceive the infinite more fully, we must cease being finite -- transcendence, nirvana, what have you.

Being that the divine is infinite, no single thing can truly be apart from it... which is why I've always noted that people haven't offended my 'religious sensibilities' when they think they have. They too are of the infinite, as are their opinions. The huggly little bunnies that people think are so damned cute are part of the divine. So too is the grizzly that gnaws your thigh off because it wants a midday snack.

As such, no discovery of science nor twist of philosophy invalidates the belief, as all are a part of it, and so any exploration is simply a deeper learning of the divine, to be respected and pursued as individual inclination directs.

The divine is. To define it more than that is to reveal more about our limited perceptions than anything else. Experience is the filter.

...and that's probably going to sound like so much Hoodoo to most folks. 'Cept maybe Rich, and Maddman if he's still around. The Buddhists have a fairly similar view, iirc.

Interestingly enough, some Buddhists, like Sam Harris, take the opposite view. The Dalai Lama, for example, has said that science may disprove reincarnation and if that happens, Buddhism will have to abandoned belief in reincarnation. There is a school of Buddhist scholarship that says that all the supernatural claims of Buddhism (including some of the more woo-woo aspects of "enlightenment') are really just window dressing, marketing bumph to get people in to experience the insights into the nature of human consciousness and the illusory nature of the self that can only be obtained through meditation.

I'm an animist and most people don't consider my definition of god to be a god. God is the universe, conscious in a way that is meaningless to humans.

There is that great Babylon 5 concept of the universe being conscious and having broken itself into pieces at the Big Bang in order to understand itself. I always liked that idea.

What does conscious mean in that context. The universe is aware of it's own existence?

I've seen the universe is god idea in science fact books, but there it seems to me to be a kind of dodge, by calling the universe god, they can say they believe in god so they don't piss of the religious right who see science as a threat.

I like the view that the universe is so big, amazing, fascinating that it doesn't need anything "supernatural" in it to make it special. As our understanding of the world increases, it never ceases to be so fascinating to me.

From the weird quantum world, to discovers and theories on how the mind works, the natural world is full of wonder and surprise. The universe is in incredible place.

Agreed.

Well. if we look at God in various religious texts, then, yes, God is my dumb-ass drunk uncle, they guy that when he's sober, is kinda cool, but when he's drunk, he turns mean, vindictive, and stupid. Plus whan he's drunk, he plays viscious jokes, behaves boorishly, and picks fights.

Does anyone wonder why I don't speak to my uncle anymore?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill's son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire Bible in a fortnight: 'Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud "I say I bet you didn't know this came in the Bible..." or merely slapping his side & chortling "God, isn't God a shit!"' Thomas Jefferson - better read - was of a similar opinion: 'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.'" (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 31.)

Does that mean that the divine is aware in a way that has no effect on us at all? Isn't that the same as the divine not being aware from our perspective. :p (Conversely, from the perspective of the divine, we are not aware!) :eek:

Indeed. I've never understood how that is suppsoed to work

If all physical laws are the "mind of god" then it certainly affects me. But on the other hand, what I thought about this morning has no observable affect on the universe. The things I do have an affect on the world, but they are insignificant on the scale of the universe. (Not to say that I think everything I do is meaningless, it matters a great deal to me after all!) I don't see how it's meaningful to say the universe is aware of me, but otherwise I don't see any reasonable disagreement with this line of thinking. :)

Agreed.

If there is a God (or divine) I believe it will be in a form very different that what humans have expressed so far.

I think that as our scientific knowledge expands, along with our imagination and awareness of the universe, the concept of "God" will continue to evolve. I suspect that if you were to ask a typical Christian today to describe "God" you would get quite a different answer than if you were to ask the typical Christian from 500 years ago.

Personally I have no spiritual bone in my body, but I derive lots of enjoyment reading about the religions, beliefs and myths of others.

Indeed. This is very close to what I say above.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Or maybe God is an alien computer geek?

From here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1526,Our-Lives-Controlled-From-Some-Guys-Couch,John-Tierney).

Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch
by John Tierney

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ref=science

Until I talked to Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, it never occurred to me that our universe might be somebody else's hobby. I hadn't imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims.

But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom's, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else's computer simulation.

This simulation would be similar to the one in "The Matrix," in which most humans don't realize that their lives and their world are just illusions created in their brains while their bodies are suspended in vats of liquid. But in Dr. Bostrom's notion of reality, you wouldn't even have a body made of flesh. Your brain would exist only as a network of computer circuits.

You couldn't, as in "The Matrix," unplug your brain and escape from your vat to see the physical world. You couldn't see through the illusion except by using the sort of logic employed by Dr. Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford.

Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or "posthumans," could run "ancestor simulations" of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.

Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn't matter for Dr. Bostrom's argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.

There would be no way for any of these ancestors to know for sure whether they were virtual or real, because the sights and feelings they'd experience would be indistinguishable. But since there would be so many more virtual ancestors, any individual could figure that the odds made it nearly certain that he or she was living in a virtual world.

The math and the logic are inexorable once you assume that lots of simulations are being run. But there are a couple of alternative hypotheses, as Dr. Bostrom points out. One is that civilization never attains the technology to run simulations (perhaps because it self-destructs before reaching that stage). The other hypothesis is that posthumans decide not to run the simulations.

"This kind of posthuman might have other ways of having fun, like stimulating their pleasure centers directly," Dr. Bostrom says. "Maybe they wouldn't need to do simulations for scientific reasons because they'd have better methodologies for understanding their past. It's quite possible they would have moral prohibitions against simulating people, although the fact that something is immoral doesn't mean it won't happen."

Dr. Bostrom doesn't pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. "My gut feeling, and it's nothing more than that," he says, "is that there's a 20 percent chance we're living in a computer simulation."

My gut feeling is that the odds are better than 20 percent, maybe better than even. I think it's highly likely that civilization could endure to produce those supercomputers. And if owners of the computers were anything like the millions of people immersed in virtual worlds like Second Life, SimCity and World of Warcraft, they'd be running simulations just to get a chance to control history — or maybe give themselves virtual roles as Cleopatra or Napoleon.

It's unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.

A more practical question is how to behave in a computer simulation. Your first impulse might be to say nothing matters anymore because nothing's real. But just because your neural circuits are made of silicon (or whatever posthumans would use in their computers) instead of carbon doesn't mean your feelings are any less real.

David J. Chalmers, a philosopher at the Australian National University, says Dr. Bostrom's simulation hypothesis isn't a cause for skepticism, but simply a different metaphysical explanation of our world. Whatever you're touching now — a sheet of paper, a keyboard, a coffee mug — is real to you even if it's created on a computer circuit rather than fashioned out of wood, plastic or clay.

You still have the desire to live as long as you can in this virtual world — and in any simulated afterlife that the designer of this world might bestow on you. Maybe that means following traditional moral principles, if you think the posthuman designer shares those morals and would reward you for being a good person.

Or maybe, as suggested by Robin Hanson, an economist at George Mason University, you should try to be as interesting as possible, on the theory that the designer is more likely to keep you around for the next simulation. (For more on survival strategies in a computer simulation, go to www.nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

Of course, it's tough to guess what the designer would be like. He or she might have a body made of flesh or plastic, but the designer might also be a virtual being living inside the computer of a still more advanced form of intelligence. There could be layer upon layer of simulations until you finally reached the architect of the first simulation — the Prime Designer, let's call him or her (or it).

Then again, maybe the Prime Designer wouldn't allow any of his or her creations to start simulating their own worlds. Once they got smart enough to do so, they'd presumably realize, by Dr. Bostrom's logic, that they themselves were probably simulations. Would that ruin the fun for the Prime Designer?

If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what's going on, then I really shouldn't be spreading Dr. Bostrom's ideas. But if you're still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.

It's also possible that there would be logistical problems in creating layer upon layer of simulations. There might not be enough computing power to continue the simulation if billions of inhabitants of a virtual world started creating their own virtual worlds with billions of inhabitants apiece.

If that's true, it's bad news for the futurists who think we'll have a computer this century with the power to simulate all the inhabitants on earth. We'd start our simulation, expecting to observe a new virtual world, but instead our own world might end — not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a message on the Prime Designer's computer.

It might be something clunky like "Insufficient Memory to Continue Simulation." But I like to think it would be simple and familiar: "Game Over."

See Nick Bostrom's Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom) entry for more info.

I find this idea both emotionally disturbing and intellectually credible. What starts as "this is a funny joke" turns into, "hold on a sec, this might actually be true" the more I read. And I don't like it.

[Northcott]

That's always been one of my concerns. Isn't the very un-definability of god evidence of it being man-made?

How often do you have difficulty defining or describing man-made objects?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

How often do you have difficulty defining or describing man-made objects?

Often, but I eventually get it done to a tolerable level of clarity if I try hard enough.

Concepts, OTOH, are devilishly hard to define or describe - especially when they haven't been properly thought through.

Of course, all descriptions of "things" are really descriptions of concepts. But by concepts here I'm referring to things that have no corresponding physical object. For example, defining a "trust" in law is damn near impossible. Why? Because its a concept that's been worked out ad hoc over centuries to deal with situations that would otherwise seem bloody unfair without it. That's why a trust is like a god. Though the one I'm advising on at the moment is more like a mother-fucking tax-avoiding, badly-drafted, badly-managed, barely-valid-if-at-all devil that I'm gonna find a way to break open like a pinyatta (sp?) and spill all over its tax-avoiding scumbag creators' heads if its the last thing I do.

Excuse me, I think my professional frustration was showing for a moment there...

[Northcott]

Often, but I eventually get it done to a tolerable level of clarity if I try hard enough.

Concepts, OTOH, are devilishly hard to define or describe - especially when they haven't been properly thought through.

Of course, all descriptions of "things" are really descriptions of concepts. But by concepts here I'm referring to things that have no corresponding physical object. For example, defining a "trust" in law is damn near impossible. Why? Because its a concept that's been worked out ad hoc over centuries to deal with situations that would otherwise seem bloody unfair without it. That's why a trust is like a god. Though the one I'm advising on at the moment is more like a mother-fucking tax-avoiding, badly-drafted, badly-managed, barely-valid-if-at-all devil that I'm gonna find a way to break open like a pinyatta (sp?) and spill all over its tax-avoiding scumbag creators' heads if its the last thing I do.

Excuse me, I think my profession frustration was showing for a moment there...

This may be a point of departure in terms of experience and ability to communicate around the concept, then; as I've never delved that far into the law, and I've never really had trouble defining man-made objects or concepts. Now concepts that aren't man-made, but elements of the very experience of being human or experience of raw perception -- those I find a pain to describe. Defining love, for example. Or describing the colour blue to somebody who can't see. Clinical descriptions can be drummed up for either, but they fail miserably at actually conveying the heart of the matter.

[Snatch]

That's always been one of my concerns. Isn't the very un-definability of god evidence of it being man-made?


I don't think so. There are several concepts in physics that, while mathmatically definable, they are beyond a conventional description. Perhaps "define" is the wrong word and "concieve" is a better one?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I don't think so. There are several concepts in physics that, while mathmatically definable, they are beyond a conventional description. Perhaps "define" is the wrong word and "concieve" is a better one?

Oh, definitely (though I've always suspected that with quantum physics, its because we haven't actually worked it out properly yet, but I'm way too dumb to have a hope of backing up that hunch). An inability to define or describe something I obviously not knock-down proof that its a man made concept, but it is a hint.

[Snatch]

An inability to define or describe something I obviously not knock-down proof that its a man made concept, but it is a hint.

You think so? I'm of the opinion that if we can define or describe something it falls into the realm of science and, basically, is a man-made concept. I suppose there is the arguement that our descriptions of the universe are merely tools we use to comprehend reality as opposed to actual fundamental workings. (ie, is math real or something we created that reaonably simulates reality - like language).

Of course I have the bias that if we can't describe something, it simply means we haven't developed the "language" or understanding to do so.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

You think so? I'm of the opinion that if we can define or describe something it falls into the realm of science and, basically, is a man-made concept. I suppose there is the arguement that our descriptions of the universe are merely tools we use to comprehend reality as opposed to actual fundamental workings. (ie, is math real or something we created that reaonably simulates reality - like language).

Of course I have the bias that if we can't describe something, it simply means we haven't developed the "language" or understanding to do so.

I think this is a marginally relevant tangent, but be that as it may. All I'm saying that vagueness makes be suspicious.

[Snatch]

I think this is a marginally relevant tangent, but be that as it may. All I'm saying that vagueness makes be suspicious.

Fair enough. I guess I'm in the middle where the vagueness really doesn't provide much in the way of evidence one way or the other. :cool:

[panther.jd]

Oh, definitely (though I've always suspected that with quantum physics, its because we haven't actually worked it out properly yet, but I'm way too dumb to have a hope of backing up that hunch). An inability to define or describe something I obviously not knock-down proof that its a man made concept, but it is a hint.If a concept is man made, does that mean it isn't true? If science is a model that approximates the real world, is god a model that approximates umm.... well something.

Oh, I think I can dispute the computer thing, if it all really was a simulation, how come we don't have magic or superpowers? Wouldn't the world be cooler with them? If you consider the population of "realist" sim runners to "super real" sim runners, which do you think will be more common? A lot of people play warcraft, but not to many people play office worker, the MMRPG. You might argue that they are war simers which would make these future people something like civil war enthusiasts. Well, I've never heard of a civil war MMRPG (I wonder if there's a market for that?) but I have heard of city of heroes, warcraft, and ironically the matrix MMRPG. Statistically speaking, the existence of a simulated world without cool powers of some kind is unlikely.

[Snatch]

Oh, I think I can dispute the computer thing, if it all really was a simulation, how come we don't have magic or superpowers? Wouldn't the world be cooler with them? If you consider the population of "realist" sim runners to "super real" sim runners, which do you think will be more common? A lot of people play warcraft, but not to many people play office worker, the MMRPG. You might argue that they are war simers which would make these future people something like civil war enthusiasts. Well, I've never heard of a civil war MMRPG (I wonder if there's a market for that?) but I have heard of city of heroes, warcraft, and ironically the matrix MMRPG. Statistically speaking, the existence of a simulated world without cool powers of some kind is unlikely.

I'm having trouble reading any sarcasm in there. Is this an honest explanation? :confused:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

If a concept is man made, does that mean it isn't true? If science is a model that approximates the real world, is god a model that approximates umm.... well something.

Of course science is a man made construct. But it's correspondence with the world "out there" is demonstrated and refined by repeated ruthless attempts at falsification.

Oh, I think I can dispute the computer thing, if it all really was a simulation, how come we don't have magic or superpowers? Wouldn't the world be cooler with them? If you consider the population of "realist" sim runners to "super real" sim runners, which do you think will be more common? A lot of people play warcraft, but not to many people play office worker, the MMRPG. You might argue that they are war simers which would make these future people something like civil war enthusiasts. Well, I've never heard of a civil war MMRPG (I wonder if there's a market for that?) but I have heard of city of heroes, warcraft, and ironically the matrix MMRPG. Statistically speaking, the existence of a simulated world without cool powers of some kind is unlikely.

But what of hte popularity of SimCity, SimEarth, etc?

I don;t think your MMORG analogy works. The suggestion is that we are not all avatars of beings in another universe, like in WoW; but that we are elements in a simulation, like SimEarth.

According to Paul Davies, this simulism stuff is beginning to be seriously considered in theoretical physics as it does have the potential to explain quantum weirdness - as the computer fudging things when they get too hard. Several serious people in theoretical physics are apparently saying things like "that's so crazy it just might be true". Scary stuff.

[Northcott]

Statistically speaking, the existence of a simulated world without cool powers of some kind is unlikely.

Poor panther. He didn't get the power-up. :(

According to Paul Davies, this simulism stuff is beginning to be seriously considered in theoretical physics as it does have the potential to explain quantum weirdness - as the computer fudging things when they get too hard. Several serious people in theoretical physics are apparently saying things like "that's so crazy it just might be true". Scary stuff.

It makes as much sense to me as anything else, really. But why do you find it scary? :confused:

One way or another, the only thing we can depend upon for our definition of reality is our perception of the world around us -- and that perception can be severely warped by any number of things. So to that extent, our reality is already fluid.

The program may shut down someday? Many religions have their own 'end time' stories, so from the POV of a divine, distant being and the end to all life... that's nothing new. Even from a hardcore atheistic POV, an aneurysm can take you at any time. A meteor could crash into the earth. Disco could kill you.

In short, if we're a simulation, it doesn't really matter.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Poor panther. He didn't get the power-up. :(



It makes as much sense to me as anything else, really. But why do you find it scary? :confused:

One way or another, the only thing we can depend upon for our definition of reality is our perception of the world around us -- and that perception can be severely warped by any number of things. So to that extent, our reality is already fluid.

The program may shut down someday? Many religions have their own 'end time' stories, so from the POV of a divine, distant being and the end to all life... that's nothing new. Even from a hardcore atheistic POV, an aneurysm can take you at any time. A meteor could crash into the earth. Disco could kill you.

In short, if we're a simulation, it doesn't really matter.

Intellectually, I get that.

But, emotionally, the though of being the plaything for some alien ArthurQ gives me the shivers.

[BOZ]

It makes as much sense to me as anything else, really.

when i was a kid, i kind of pictured god looking at the earth as something like a SimEarth type of experiment (before that game or concept even came into existence, mind you).

But why do you find it scary? :confused:

that's what i'm not getting. what is, is. why be scared of it, if it's not some kind of immediate threat to you? are we in the Matrix or something?

[BOZ]

But, emotionally, the though of being the plaything for some alien ArthurQ gives me the shivers.

ah. but then, if that were true, the question is would you be able to affect it? would resisting it make things harder on you or does that not even matter? would you go mad with that knowledge or come to accept it?

if that were the truth, i'd rather not know it at all.

[The Winslow]

Marilyn Manson said that God was in my TV. I don't have a TV; but then again I'm atheist.

There's always the "God is the whole cosmos" thing. Why not? But to me, the notion of god doesn't imply much necessarily; but it does imply sentience. Being. I think, therefore I am; you know the thing.

So, if God is everything out there, then everything out there ought to form a gestalt consciousness. On some level. And I don't feel that way. Maybe I lack midichlorians, though.

[Northcott]

Intellectually, I get that.

But, emotionally, the though of being the plaything for some alien ArthurQ gives me the shivers.

Could be worse... could be the Old Testament God. Besides, if this were Borko's playworld, there'd be elf porn all around us.



So, if God is everything out there, then everything out there ought to form a gestalt consciousness. On some level. And I don't feel that way. Maybe I lack midichlorians, though.

A researcher at (iirc) Calgary's University has managed to isolate the part of the brain responsible for religious experiences/epiphanies/visions, etc. By putting people in a room with moderate sensory deprivation, alone, and stimulating a part of the brain, it has almost universally triggered a response of perception of other presence; the feeling of being watched, of being connected, etc.

The experience varies by subject: some feel fear, some feel comfort, some feel a generalized presence that they can't name, others specifically feel the presence of a departed loved one, etc. But the commonality is one that, in description, was universally described in terms akin to deeper religious experiences.

Now, the scientist in question immediately jumped to the conclusion that this proves that religion is all in the head, and thus an illusion of sorts. I think this is an erroneous leap, as he's failed to take into account the other side of the coin: simply because something happens in the brain, and that something can be triggered by man-made stimulus, does not mean that the function within the brain is necessarily a function of delusion.

That is; if we break a leg, the experience has an observable effect in the brain as we react to the event. We can use drugs to dull the pain. While I've never heard of such a thing being done, my hunch is that we could probably fire off the right areas of the brain to create similar sensations in a body. Neurology isn't my cup of tea, so perhaps somebody who knows more about this will expand upon this for us. Either way; the capacity for the brain to deal with an event does not necessarily invalidate the possibility of the event.


The flipside of this is that they've also discovered that some people's brains simply don't allow for that function. So is there a God/Goddess/FSM? Maybe. Maybe not. It may be that the 'religious' function of the brain is superfluous. It may also be that it is, indeed, what you refer to; a primal, little understood way of tapping into what may be a gestalt consciousness of sorts... or as much as our limited minds could possibly do so with something so expansive.

On the other hand, sentience of the Infinite, does not, by necessity, imply a connection to that sentience by all things. The communication lines don't necessarily go both ways. Though they might.

Fascinating ideas, though. :)

[The Winslow]

I have had epiphanies, when I was younger. Moments when suddenly everything seems to make sense, and you feel like you're a genius and you're going to understand the whole world.

But it was never religion that did it to me. It was maths. http://forums.pcworld.co.nz/images/smilies/nerd.gif

And then maths became too complicated for my poor brain and I have no longer experienced any epiphany.

[doc]

God is the quiet voice you hear in your dispare

[Northcott]

I have had epiphanies, when I was younger. Moments when suddenly everything seems to make sense, and you feel like you're a genius and you're going to understand the whole world.

But it was never religion that did it to me. It was maths. http://forums.pcworld.co.nz/images/smilies/nerd.gif

And then maths became too complicated for my poor brain and I have no longer experienced any epiphany.

It's like a damned drug, isn't it? I get them periodically while doing illustration work -- sometimes long, drawn out bouts where the meeting between mind and medium blurs and the process becomes almost meditative.

I've had a couple in religious experiences, mostly while dealing with shamanic stuff, though I had one odd experience in a Voodoo drumming rit.

[Limper]

Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool

If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool

He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool

He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool

No wonder there are so many Christians
Jesus Was Way Cool

[Snatch]

Marilyn Manson said that God was in my TV. I don't have a TV; but then again I'm atheist.


You're an athiest because you have no TV? Or is it having no TV majes you an athiest?

If I have a high def TV what does that make me? :)

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Agreed! ...Well, presuming we could find a 'typical' Christian. :) Although, on second thought -- I'm completely blanking at the moment about medieval (and older) concepts of God. Maybe Rich can help us out here. I've got this really vague notion about the formation of modern thought on divinity being related to older treatises on the subject. Sleepy as Hell and quite out of it this afternoon.

Errr, dunno. Ask a real theologian rather than one who just plays one on the net?

Tillich ("God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.") would seem strange even a hundred years ago, but it's also a natural progression from (e.g.) Eckhart's view of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrines_of_Meister_Eckhart#View_of_God) or even Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-dionysius-areopagite/#MysThe) (and try saying that three times fast when you're drunk)

[Harry]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v123/greylock/god2.jpg

[Northcott]

Damn, Harry! :rotfl:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Errr, dunno. Ask a real theologian rather than one who just plays one on the net?

Tillich ("God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him.") would seem strange even a hundred years ago, but it's also a natural progression from (e.g.) Eckhart's view of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrines_of_Meister_Eckhart#View_of_God) or even Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-dionysius-areopagite/#MysThe) (and try saying that three times fast when you're drunk)

How would simulism affect your "God as Being" theology?

[Bagpuss]

To me God is a human creation that we use when we need to see order where none exists, or reason when there is no reason, or hope when there is no hope, or justice where there is no justice. We use it to explain things we can't understand.

[Northcott]

How would simulism affect your "God as Being" theology?


I guess that then depends on whether or not you view the program/simulation as God, or the person running it. And if the latter, how advanced is the theoretical human? Are they like us, hammering at a keyboard, or is it somebody in a far future, jacked into the system, and aware of the entire simulation, able to alter it at a moment's whim?

Better yet, if we're the simulation, what is the state of the reality beyond ours? Is there an 'afterlife' where our digital selves get to have a physical body in the real world? Is it a utopia? Is it just like our world? Do we cease to exist? What of their world? Do they believe in a God and an afterlife? What do they know of it, if anything beyond us?

It may change everything, or it may functionally change nothing. In the here and now, I lean toward the latter.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

How would simulism affect your "God as Being" theology?

I'm with Northcott. The jury's out until we get some proof that this is a simulation and, if so, which sort

It's like space aliens. The bloody Jesuit's will have analyzed all the different scenarios and their theological implications, but I can't be bothered to do the research. It would probably mean going to a (wince) ... library

[Brynja]

This debate reminds me of John Courtney Murray's A Problem of God where it basically covers the issues of "isness" and the sense of ah ha one gets when they try to ponder God (in Murray's case) but it applies just as well to the discussion here. It is noetic, the very nature of what humans try to do on a daily basis.

I think God is as Northcott and Darkfire said is an issness. If that makes sense. It some something you can at once grasp but not. (Aquinas was daft with that whole how to prove god thing)

[Brynja]

Or maybe God is an alien computer geek?

From here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,1526,Our-Lives-Controlled-From-Some-Guys-Couch,John-Tierney).



See Nick Bostrom's Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom) entry for more info.

I find this idea both emotionally disturbing and intellectually credible. What starts as "this is a funny joke" turns into, "hold on a sec, this might actually be true" the more I read. And I don't like it.



This is taking the idea of the divine clockmaker a step further. Not a new idea but I think the article is a little self serving in that it is OK to consider the possibly a fatbeard covered in cheetos might me running things. It is not ok to entertain the possiblity of some sort of spiritual or mystical being.

[Northcott]

This is taking the idea of the divine clockmaker a step further. Not a new idea but I think the article is a little self serving in that it is OK to consider the possibly a fatbeard covered in cheetos might me running things. It is not ok to entertain the possiblity of some sort of spiritual or mystical being.

It also opens the interesting and amusing idea of -- if we are simulations so advanced that we're self-aware, does this sentience grant us 'souls'? And if so, how does that make our Holy Fatbeard accountable? And what if there is a God of some sort above all this, who's then looking down on the Holy Fatbeard? Does the Holy Fatbeard then become accountable to God for his playing God?

I need to get back to work now.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

This is taking the idea of the divine clockmaker a step further. Not a new idea but I think the article is a little self serving in that it is OK to consider the possibly a fatbeard covered in cheetos might me running things. It is not ok to entertain the possiblity of some sort of spiritual or mystical being.

It's not that one is OK and the other isn't, it's that the arguments and evidence for one are so much better than the other. Now, don't get me wrong, the evidence for either is pretty bad. But whereas the evidence for "souls" and "spirit" seems to me to be so bad as to be ridiculous (indeed the idea of the soul, though I wish it were true, seems to me to be logically incoherent), the evidence for simulism seems, by comparison, disturbingly cogent.

As I said, there are a physicists who have already proposed the idea of the universe as being like an uber-computer as an explanation for some of the weirdness at the quantum level ("Bit before It"). These guys hypothesise that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is not waves or particles, but data. I've read that this explanation actually "works", in the sense that it explains existing observations very well; and there are people working on ways to spin predictions out of the "universe as computer" idea that could be tested experimentally.

Simulism simply asks, maybe the universe isn't "like" an uber-computer, maybe it *is* a uber-computer, running a program in the "real" universe? Or maybe running a program inside another simulation? (And yes, that creates the ridiculous thought of "simulations all the way up" much like "turtles all the way down"). When you think about it, if advanced civilizations capable of creating self-conscious AI exist (the only big "if" here), then there are likely to be many, many more simulated universes than real ones (and if the multiverse theory is correct, that number might get exponentially even higher). On that basis, the probability is that we are more likely to be in simulated universe than a real one.

And all of this then raises the question, what would you do if one day you came in to watch your current game of SimEarth and all the Sims were holding up signs saying "we know we're in a simulation and that you made us and we have a few questions"?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm with Northcott. The jury's out until we get some proof that this is a simulation and, if so, which sort

It's like space aliens. The bloody Jesuit's will have analyzed all the different scenarios and their theological implications, but I can't be bothered to do the research. It would probably mean going to a (wince) ... library

The jury's still out on simulism and extraterrestrial intelligent life, for which there is at least a little cogent evidence and/or argument, ... but it's not still out on God? ;)

[Brynja]

It's not that one is OK and the other isn't, it's that the arguments and evidence for one are so much better than the other. Now, don't get me wrong, the evidence for either is pretty bad. But whereas the evidence for "souls" and "spirit" seems to me to be so bad as to be ridiculous (indeed the idea of the soul, though I wish it were true, seems to me to be logically incoherent), the evidence for simulism seems, by comparison, disturbingly cogent.

As I said, there are a physicists who have already proposed the idea of the universe as being like an uber-computer as an explanation for some of the weirdness at the quantum level ("Bit before It"). These guys hypothesise that the fundamental "stuff" of the universe is not waves or particles, but data. I've read that this explanation actually "works", in the sense that it explains existing observations very well; and there are people working on ways to spin predictions out of the "universe as computer" idea that could be tested experimentally.

Simulism simply asks, maybe the universe isn't "like" an uber-computer, maybe it *is* a uber-computer, running a program in the "real" universe? Or maybe running a program inside another simulation? (And yes, that creates the ridiculous thought of "simulations all the way up" much like "turtles all the way down"). When you think about it, if advanced civilizations capable of creating self-conscious AI exist (the only big "if" here), then there are likely to be many, many more simulated universes than real ones (and if the multiverse theory is correct, that number might get exponentially even higher). On that basis, the probability is that we are more likely to be in simulated universe than a real one.

And all of this then raises the question, what would you do if one day you came in to watch your current game of SimEarth and all the Sims were holding up signs saying "we know we're in a simulation and that you made us and we have a few questions"?



I don't see there being any evidence beyond a hypothesis which is fancy words for a big what if. In the end religion is about what isnt quantifiable, and I dont think that makes anyone somehow mentally damaged for buying into it. Humanity for better or worse wants a sense of order in the universe. So if the High Holy Fatbeard does it for some folks- great.

However, extending the metaphor - what if the universe is a computer- lets for a moment operate on that as a granted.

Who built the computer? See what I mean? high holy fatbeard, god, allah, YHWH, whatever.

I think it does raise the question of self awareness but I think there are other more pressing questions- this is a great navelgazey type question but I feel others need deeper consideration before we can cover this.

I really do recommend reading the Problem of God- you can take alot of it and superimpose it here.

[Northcott]

It's not that one is OK and the other isn't, it's that the arguments and evidence for one are so much better than the other. Now, don't get me wrong, the evidence for either is pretty bad. But whereas the evidence for "souls" and "spirit" seems to me to be so bad as to be ridiculous (indeed the idea of the soul, though I wish it were true, seems to me to be logically incoherent), the evidence for simulism seems, by comparison, disturbingly cogent.

1) As I once heard it put: Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only transformed -- so why should the energy that comprises the thoughts and being of a human be the sole exception to that rule?

2) There are arguments for both, but evidence for neither. One of my peeves with the way you communicate your beliefs on this matter is the habit of referring to opinions, theories, or beliefs as evidence when you approve of a point or are intrigued by it, but attempt to dismiss it when you disagree with it. Your basis for critical examination changes... which is one of your critiques of religion.

3) While a person may choose not to believe them, there are anecdotal accounts that deal with the spirit, souls, etc. We have nothing of the sort relating to the giant computer theory, as of yet.

[Brynja]

I still like the idea of the High Holy Fatbeard.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I don't see there being any evidence beyond a hypothesis which is fancy words for a big what if.

Well, the hypothesis of the universe as a giant computer is actually, I'm told, pretty effective at explaining some of the hitherto crazy, inexplicable observations at the quantum level. That seems to me to be better evidence than exists for any theory that posits an intelligent thing existing outside of natural laws of the universe, who created the universe and us and has a plan for us. As I said, the evidence for both is incredibly weak, but simulism is currently doing a lot better than theism. And if the universe-as-computer physicists spin out some predictions from the hypothesis, and those predictions are confirmed by experiment, simulism gets a pretty big boost (though still its evidence isn't great).

In the end religion is about what isnt quantifiable, and I dont think that makes anyone somehow mentally damaged for buying into it.

I've never intended to imply that anyone was "mentally damaged" for believing in religion, just probably wrong. Newton wasn't "mentally damaged" for believing time was a constant, Einstein wasn't "mentally damaged" for believing quantum mechanics had to be wrong, our ancestors weren't "mentally damaged" for believing that the sun orbited the earth.

Humanity for better or worse wants a sense of order in the universe. So if the High Holy Fatbeard does it for some folks- great.

But that confuses the distinctions between what is true and what is comforting. There are numerous ideas that would be comforting to believe in, but, based on the current evidence, they probably aren't true.

However, extending the metaphor - what if the universe is a computer- lets for a moment operate on that as a granted.

Who built the computer? See what I mean? high holy fatbeard, god, allah, YHWH, whatever.

Would be a fascinating question. And there would be an answer. And given enough time and the application of a ruthlessly scientific method, we would probably work it out.

I think it does raise the question of self awareness but I think there are other more pressing questions- this is a great navelgazey type question but I feel others need deeper consideration before we can cover this.

I really do recommend reading the Problem of God- you can take alot of it and superimpose it here.

I'll try to check it out.

1) As I once heard it put: Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only transformed -- so why should the energy that comprises the thoughts and being of a human be the sole exception to that rule?

But thoughts aren't energy, they're data. And we all know that data can be lost - all too easily.

Our thoughts are software running on a custom built piece of hardware. The hardware grows and adapts to changes in the software, and the software changes to adapts to changes in the hardware. Unfortunately, it seems the program won't run on any other pieces of hardware than the one its running on right now - and maybe it cant ever be made to do so because of the way the software and hardware grow and adapt together. And that piece of hardware is degrading and is subject to catastrophic injury and we don't know of ways to repair a lot of this damage and we know of no way to move the program to other hardware. When the hardware shuts down, the software is, it seems, lost. Just like that essay you wrote on your computer and didn't back up or email off before the hard drive was put next to a super magnet.

Unless there's some back up drive somewhere. But if there is, which version lives on? The last one - the dull, whimpering, dementia-suffering man-child who can't remember who he is and who these people standing around him radiating love and sorrow are? An earlier version? Which one? All of them? Infinite "souls" from each individual? Or the best of each? That seems like wishful thinking to me. I certainly don't see much evidence of such backups.

2) There are arguments for both, but evidence for neither. One of my peeves with the way you communicate your beliefs on this matter is the habit of referring to opinions, theories, or beliefs as evidence when you approve of a point or are intrigued by it, but attempt to dismiss it when you disagree with it. Your basis for critical examination changes... which is one of your critiques of religion.

The fact that a large number of physicist have said that the universe as computer explains previously unexplained observations of quantum effects is evidence that the idea may be closer to the truth than any other model we currently have. If that hypothesis yields testable predictions - and a few physicists are working with computer scientists to think up such predictions - and those predictions are experimentally confirmed, then that's very hard evidence that its a better model than any other we yet have.

By contrast, theism posits totally new categories of things, spirit, and a massive super intelligence and loopholes in numerous natural laws and ....

It's that that gives simulism its slight edge over theism in the "likely to be true" stakes. But I never said simulims had any more than a slight edge.

There are good and bad arguments and good and bad evidence. And reason can pick between them.

3) While a person may choose not to believe them, there are anecdotal accounts that deal with the spirit, souls, etc. We have nothing of the sort relating to the giant computer theory, as of yet.

Anecdotal evidence that has failed double-blind trials again and again and again. Anecdotal evidence of phenomena, most of which we know how to reproduce or simulate using standard magic tricks or psychological suggestion or drugs.

OTOH, simulism is an extension of a very very promising hypothesis in physics.

I'm not buying either of them, but I think its pretty obvious supernaturalism is the least implausible, on the current evidence.

I still like the idea of the High Holy Fatbeard.

I don't like it. I hate it. But that's irrelevant. The question isn't what idea I like, it's waht ideas is most likely to be true.

[Northcott]

But thoughts aren't energy, they're data.

I'm not sure whether this is an avoidance, or simply not recognizing the fact that, at some level everything is energy. Skin, bones, rocks, memories... energy. We're pretty much clueless as to what happens with this energy.

Unless there's some back up drive somewhere. But if there is, which version lives on? The last one - the dull, whimpering, dementia-suffering man-child who can't remember who he is and who these people standing around him radiating love and sorrow are? An earlier version? Which one? All of them? Infinite "souls" from each individual? Or the best of each? That seems like wishful thinking to me. I certainly don't see much evidence of such backups.

You have a very binary view of the world. Have you considered that all of the above may hold equally true? Is the man you are now not an amalgam of all things you have learned and experienced in your life? Why then should the concept of a soul beyond the body be perceived as necessarily being seperated into degrees?

The fact that a large number of physicist have said that the universe as computer explains previously unexplained observations of quantum effects is evidence that the idea may be closer to the truth than any other model we currently have.

1) A large number of physicists? Granted, I'm a far cry from one myself, and I don't often sit down with the family member who is, but I was unaware that this theory was so prevalent in being taken seriously among the physics community.

2) Once again... this is not evidence. Theories are just that; theories. Evidence is what is used to build theories toward conclusions.

By contrast, theism posits totally new categories of things, spirit, and a massive super intelligence and loopholes in numerous natural laws and ....

You have a penchant for dramatic terminology. "Totally new categories of things" is a colourful way to describe ideas that have been around for at least as long as mankind has been recording its thoughts as words, and very likely longer.

Anecdotal evidence that has failed double-blind trials again and again and again. Anecdotal evidence of phenomena, most of which we know how to reproduce or simulate using standard magic tricks or psychological suggestion or drugs.

Many have failed. Some have not. The notion that the ability to reproduce a sensation or experience invalidates that sensation or experience is laughable. Sometimes smelling the toast burning means that the toast really is burning. Sometimes it just means that a nosey neurologist is poking you in the brain.

I don't like it. I hate it. But that's irrelevant. The question isn't what idea I like, it's waht ideas is most likely to be true.

I still don't see why this freaks you out so much.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I'm not sure whether this is an avoidance, or simply not recognizing the fact that, at some level everything is energy. Skin, bones, rocks, memories... energy. We're pretty much clueless as to what happens with this energy.

This post is energy? Yes. The electrons that make it up now, no longer make it up now, or now, or now. This post is data. It's a wave on constantly changing bits of energy/matter. But if its erased from every computer in the world, it's gone. Even though the energy and matter that made it up at various times still exists, the data is gone. That's what I mean when I say our thoughts are data.

You have a very binary view of the world. Have you considered that all of the above may hold equally true? Is the man you are now not an amalgam of all things you have learned and experienced in your life? Why then should the concept of a soul beyond the body be perceived as necessarily being seperated into degrees?

Huh? I'm a different man now that I was five or ten years ago. If I met the me of ten years ago, I probably wouldn't like him (if I met the me of five years ago, I suspect I'd like him better than I like myself now, but tha's because I think I'm actually a better person when dealing with other people's crises - long story). We are different people at different times and those people are incommensurable. There is no amalgam. So which one survives? The last? The first? All of the infinite variations? Some ideal cyborg of the best of them all? How is the best chosen? How does that work? And where is the giant backup drive and how is it imaging my brain? And does it do it every day? If so, does that mean the versions of myself that are laid down every hour die and only today's lucky backup survives? WTF?

Wishful thinking. All of it. Lovely. Comforting. Wish some version of it were true. But almost certainly bullshit.

1) A large number of physicists? Granted, I'm a far cry from one myself, and I don't often sit down with the family member who is, but I was unaware that this theory was so prevalent in being taken seriously among the physics community.

Yep. It's freaking the hell out of a lot of physicists that "Bit before it" actually works on paper.

2) Once again... this is not evidence. Theories are just that; theories. Evidence is what is used to build theories toward conclusions.

I think you have a unrealistically narrow view of what constitutes evidence.

You have a penchant for dramatic terminology. "Totally new categories of things" is a colourful way to describe ideas that have been around for at least as long as mankind has been recording its thoughts as words, and very likely longer.

The idea of unicorns have been around for centuries. But if I ride one into the British Zoo and prove it's not just a horse with a horn glued to its forehead, then I've just demonstrated the existence of "totally new categor[y] of thing". Can you really not tell the difference?

Many have failed. Some have not.

Which ones have passed double blind test? I'm not aware of any.

Indeed, if a supernatural phenomenon passed such a test, it would cease to be supernatural. Science would have confirmed its existence and, in all likelihood, a whole industry would spring up trying to study and adapt technologies from the phenomenon.

The notion that the ability to reproduce a sensation or experience invalidates that sensation or experience is laughable. Sometimes smelling the toast burning means that the toast really is burning. Sometimes it just means that a nosey neurologist is poking you in the brain.

Indeed. But if no-one has ever been able to confirm that there is such a thing as burning toast, and we know how to make someone smell burning toast through trickery, then testimony of smelling burning toast is not good evidence of the actual existence of burning toast.

I still don't see why this freaks you out so much.

Whether it freaks me out or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true.

[JavaElemental]

Atticus -- I'm finding a lot of philosophy arguments for the computer simulation idea, but nothing for quantum physics. Do you have any links you could share?

As for me, I was raised nominally Christian with definite agnostic leanings, and becoming an atheist was a gradual process. I see gods as crutches, carrots-and-sticks, comfortable lies that people like to tell themselves. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is no way to "define god", not concretely, because we're basically just making the stuff up as we go along.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus -- I'm finding a lot of philosophy arguments for the computer simulation idea, but nothing for quantum physics. Do you have any links you could share?

I was about to write something snarky (I'm in that sort of mood) and then realised I might not have been clear. Sorry.

There's nothing in quantum physics for the simulism idea.

What there is in quantum physics is some support for the idea that the universe is a kind of data processor, that the fundamental stuff of the universe is information, not matter or energy. This is the "bit before it" idea.

There are no cosmological points being made there by the physicists who propose this; just the observation that if you model the universe as a giant information processing device, a few otherwise inexplicable things start to make sense.

It's the philosophers who take these ideas of "quantum information" and tease out possible implications like simulism.

Moreover, you have to understand that I'm not proposing simulism. I think it's probably wrong. I'm just pointing out that the evidence for it, while bad, is better than the evidence for theism.

As for me, I was raised nominally Christian with definite agnostic leanings, and becoming an atheist was a gradual process. I see gods as crutches, carrots-and-sticks, comfortable lies that people like to tell themselves. So, as far as I'm concerned, there is no way to "define god", not concretely, because we're basically just making the stuff up as we go along.

D you mean that, because it's a idea that fills a slightly different psychological need in each believer, the idea of god differs significantly between believers?

[Brynja]

Well, the hypothesis of the universe as a giant computer is actually, I'm told, pretty effective at explaining some of the hitherto crazy, inexplicable observations at the quantum level. That seems to me to be better evidence than exists for any theory that posits an intelligent thing existing outside of natural laws of the universe, who created the universe and us and has a plan for us. As I said, the evidence for both is incredibly weak, but simulism is currently doing a lot better than theism. And if the universe-as-computer physicists spin out some predictions from the hypothesis, and those predictions are confirmed by experiment, simulism gets a pretty big boost (though still its evidence isn't great).

Why is simulism better than theism in terms of research? There is certainly the aspect of the fact the writers are here now to comment, define and answer to their critics. Can you explain your strong desire for the scientific method? I agree it is an excellent basis for solving most problems but in the case of the divine I am unsure. Though your comment on the fatbeard and the method do indicate on some level you believe science and the divine can mesh.



I've never intended to imply that anyone was "mentally damaged" for believing in religion, just probably wrong. Newton wasn't "mentally damaged" for believing time was a constant, Einstein wasn't "mentally damaged" for believing quantum mechanics had to be wrong, our ancestors weren't "mentally damaged" for believing that the sun orbited the earth.

Here I believe we have to agree to disagree. I view science as a tool to understanding the divine not dismantling it.



But that confuses the distinctions between what is true and what is comforting. There are numerous ideas that would be comforting to believe in, but, based on the current evidence, they probably aren't true.

Based on current evidence there really is not much behind this sim idea. From what I have read it seems like a boutique idea that is being researched. The idea itself skirts dangerously close to deism. Then we have in question the evidence of which there is none for the sim theory only hypothesis. Further, there is anecdotal evidence (which is not scientific I grant you but a basis for further consideration certainly) of the divine.



But thoughts aren't energy, they're data. And we all know that data can be lost - all too easily.

Actually thoughts are converted energy- data is also energy. We cant think unless we consume, and therefore burn the calories needed to have our body function and therefore fire the neurons for throughts. Energy.



There are good and bad arguments and good and bad evidence. And reason can pick between them.

Have you read Candide, if not you should.



Anecdotal evidence that has failed double-blind trials again and again and again. Anecdotal evidence of phenomena, most of which we know how to reproduce or simulate using standard magic tricks or psychological suggestion or drugs.

Here I vehemently disagree with you. In some ways I feel scientific trials are no better than the religious kangaroo courts of yesteryear. They set the rules, the end result and what have you. They too hide behind the aegis of science. Dont get me wrong I am not suggesting we sit in the field and all pile mud on our heads but science is suffering the same hubris the church did about 600 years ago.

I am growing increasingly upset here with your choice of words, it denotes you really arent willing to consider the topic but are rather making efforts not to appear that you are dismissing it. As to the phenomena, it does happen. I had spent 10 years in volunteer EMS in both my town and in the county seat (Hackensack)- when someone dies or is about to die a very strange hush and chill comes over the rig or wherever we are. I cant imagine what is making me have a hallucination. The patient- perhaps. There is too much ancedotal evidence for me to dismiss these ideas directly out of hand.

[Northcott]

This post is energy? Yes. The electrons that make it up now, no longer make it up now, or now, or now. This post is data. It's a wave on constantly changing bits of energy/matter. But if its erased from every computer in the world, it's gone. Even though the energy and matter that made it up at various times still exists, the data is gone. That's what I mean when I say our thoughts are data.

It's gone only insofar as we are capable of dealing with it, with our current level of technology. It's conceivable that, at some point, this may no longer be so. That sort of thinking goes right along with inter-stellar travel, and other sci-fi concepts... but the possibility remains.

We're already working on small-scale, simple teleportation devices. How long beyond that until we can re-arrange matter? How far from that point until we can trace and/or recover scattered constructs and concepts?


Huh? I'm a different man now that I was five or ten years ago.

Bollox. You walk into a family gathering, they'll recognize you. If a DNA test is done, you'll likely be confirmed to be the same person now that you were when you were an infant. Had you murdered somebody five years ago, and the cops just caught you now, I guarantee they wouldn't accept the excuse: "But I'm a different man now!" Who you are is the sum of who you have been. These self of the past is not a seperate concept from the self of the present.

Now you can deny that if you wish, but you'll be the only person who buys into that line of thought. This is not some harebrained, hand-holding, wishful thought of the deism you hold in obvious contempt -- this is a widely recognized belief among society, informing the root of our laws and our everyday actions.

You may have a different perspective, but you are not a different man. Trying to discredit the idea of an afterlife with a spurious argument that doesn't even hold among the living will not work.

But almost certainly bullshit.

Because you seem utterly oblivious to how offensive the language you regularly choose is, and thus seem utterly confounded when people slap you upside the head for it, here's one more example: bullshit generally denotes a purposeful deception. And another...

I've never intended to imply that anyone was "mentally damaged" for believing in religion...

You consistently do. Very few people regard "delusion" as a synonym for "I think you're wrong". You solidly and consistently use terms of derision and belittlement in what you call 'debate'.

I think you have a unrealistically narrow view of what constitutes evidence.

I base my criteria for evidence on facts, rather than opinions and theories, which are not themselves facts, but are sometimes supported by them. That fits with both the legal and scientific perceptions of the term. What standard are you using?


The idea of unicorns have been around for centuries. But if I ride one into the British Zoo and prove it's not just a horse with a horn glued to its forehead, then I've just demonstrated the existence of "totally new categor[y] of thing". Can you really not tell the difference?

Your use of language is imprecise. There's no need to get snarky when the error is pointed out. It would not be a new category of thing, but rather an old thing believed false, then proven true. Even in terms of scientific classification, we would merely have an addition to the equine family.

Again, you've a binary view on things that prevents you from seeing broader potential. Would there be something new in that science would acknowledge an animal previously believed to be myth? Yes. Would that animal be an "entirely new category of thing"? No.

Indeed, if a supernatural phenomenon passed such a test, it would cease to be supernatural.

The supernatural is a term which, imho, is used for that which is not understood. It's a categorization that is based on what I perceive to be a false dichotomy; the idea that there is a break between the natural world and 'other'.

Indeed. But if no-one has ever been able to confirm that there is such a thing as burning toast, and we know how to make someone smell burning toast through trickery, then testimony of smelling burning toast is not good evidence of the actual existence of burning toast.

Not necessarily true. If that sensation only comes up at specific times and places, then we may presume a link that goes outside the individual. Your conclusion only holds true if we limit circumstances.

Whether it freaks me out or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true.

Which, again, does not explain why it freaks you out so much. I can't wrap my head around it. I mean... so what?!?

You don't believe in a diety, you don't believe in an afterlife, when you're gone you're gone -- and you're going to freak out about possibly just being a computer simulation? What does it matter? Dead is dead, and sentience lays in self-awareness. If you're self-aware, you're alive (probably); if you're not, it doesn't matter.

It just seems like a non-equation to me.

[there_is_no_bob]

1) As I once heard it put: Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only transformed -- so why should the energy that comprises the thoughts and being of a human be the sole exception to that rule?What makes you think it is?

The energy that makes up my thoughts is contained in my brain, in the form of moving electrons and electrical potential; once I die, that energy will just change into whatever is easiest. Probably some electrical potential will remain, other bits will be transformed into heat energy, other bits will be used up drive chemical reactions that result in my brain decomposing. Other stuff will happen. Or so I understand it. Not an expert, but I don't see how you find energy disappearing in there.

[Limper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk41Gbjljfo

[JavaElemental]

What there is in quantum physics is some support for the idea that the universe is a kind of data processor, that the fundamental stuff of the universe is information, not matter or energy. This is the "bit before it" idea. . .

Ah, okay, I must have misread your post. Do you have any linkage for the data processing ideas? It's an interesting idea, and I'd like to read more about it. (I must not have enough headaches today, wanting to read up on quantum physics . . . )

As far as the evidence for simulism goes -- eh, I wasn't that impressed with what I read last night. Granted, I'm reasonably new to the idea -- first time I've heard it in an academic sense, although it's been floating around in fiction for awhile now -- but as I was reading last night, the idea, explanations, and arguments for it repeatedly tripped my BS Detector. ;) It reminded me very much of the style of arguments I encounter from people who are defending "Intelligent Design", with a hefty dash of Pascal's Wager thrown in for flavor. I was reading a scholarly paper -- wish I'd saved the link, I could probably find it again if you wanted it -- and the writer of the paper went through some impressive gymnastics trying to make sure that, at the very least, you couldn't disprove the idea of simulism, but didn't seem to accomplish a whole hell of a lot by way of proving it.


Do you mean that, because it's a idea that fills a slightly different psychological need in each believer, the idea of god differs significantly between believers?

Yes! Thank-you -- much better put than I had it. I think there are probably a wide (but finite) variety of reasons why people in general, and a given person in particular, might need the idea of a god. Depending on the reasons a person needs or wants a god in their lives, the role that god fills will make it, if not unique, then probably possessing enough points of difference that any given group of believers will have a hard time agreeing on what exactly their god is. By way of example: this thread. There appear to be several believers in here, and they're all being polite and friendly about the discussion, but they're still having no luck at coming to a consensus.

An organized religion will hand down the basic framework of their particular version of god. For example, because I'm most familiar with it, the father-figure framework behind the Christian god. The basic framework hands a given believer the "wise, old, white-bearded god", and the tenets for believing in that god, which will probably run roughly similar in all the believers in that church or sect. After that, each individual believer will dress up the framework to suit themselves, and from that arises the kind of arguments where you hear, "yes, but my God doesn't work that way", or "the god I believe in isn't the same god that Fred Phelps believes in". When, well, yes, it is the same god that Fred Phelps believes in. There's as much in the Bible that backs up what Fred Phelps believes as there is that backs up the more peaceful, loving version of Christianity.

Here I vehemently disagree with you. In some ways I feel scientific trials are no better than the religious kangaroo courts of yesteryear. They set the rules, the end result and what have you. They too hide behind the aegis of science. Dont get me wrong I am not suggesting we sit in the field and all pile mud on our heads but science is suffering the same hubris the church did about 600 years ago.

Scientific trials, though, have to "set the rules". That's the point of them. In order to prove out a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt, the testing standards have to be exacting and rigorous, otherwise, it's pointless. Anecdotal evidence is discounted in and of itself, but enough of it might lead to the testing of a particular idea or hypothesis. It's not a kangaroo court, it's how the scientific method works. And it does work -- it's how we proved gravity, flight, medicines, treatments, etc. If we're going to discount the scientific method, then we kind of are being driven back to the huts with the mud on our heads. (And because text is tricky like this, and I'm new here, so you all don't know me, I just want to say, I'm not trying to sound mean or snippy, I'm just trying to make my point.)

[Northcott]

What makes you think it is?

The energy that makes up my thoughts is contained in my brain, in the form of moving electrons and electrical potential; once I die, that energy will just change into whatever is easiest. Probably some electrical potential will remain, other bits will be transformed into heat energy, other bits will be used up drive chemical reactions that result in my brain decomposing. Other stuff will happen. Or so I understand it. Not an expert, but I don't see how you find energy disappearing in there.

That's okay -- I'm not sure where you found the notion that energy's disappearing. :confused: My statement is that it doesn't -- it just transforms.

[Limper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0CXBENourE

[Northcott]

By way of example: this thread. There appear to be several believers in here, and they're all being polite and friendly about the discussion, but they're still having no luck at coming to a consensus.

:confused: The responses here have come chiefly in two flavours: 1) people giving a framework that is remarkably similar in construction, or 2) providing a "me too" answer. Considering those come from a firm Christian, a practitioner of Islam, an animist, and others of various beliefs, I'm surprised by the amount of consensus acheived.

After that, each individual believer will dress up the framework to suit themselves, and from that arises the kind of arguments where you hear, "yes, but my God doesn't work that way", or "the god I believe in isn't the same god that Fred Phelps believes in". When, well, yes, it is the same god that Fred Phelps believes in.

I very rarely hear people put forth that kind of reasoning. Most say instead that Phelps is off his rocker and preaching a message of hate that has little to do with Christianity, save co-opting a name for thinly-veiled hypocritical justification.

There's as much in the Bible that backs up what Fred Phelps believes as there is that backs up the more peaceful, loving version of Christianity.

There's an entirely seperate thread to run with right there, if you want to pursue that as a topic of conversation. Suffice it to say, I think you're quite wrong in this.

Scientific trials, though, have to "set the rules". That's the point of them. In order to prove out a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt, the testing standards have to be exacting and rigorous, otherwise, it's pointless. Anecdotal evidence is discounted in and of itself, but enough of it might lead to the testing of a particular idea or hypothesis. It's not a kangaroo court, it's how the scientific method works. And it does work -- it's how we proved gravity, flight, medicines, treatments, etc. If we're going to discount the scientific method, then we kind of are being driven back to the huts with the mud on our heads. (And because text is tricky like this, and I'm new here, so you all don't know me, I just want to say, I'm not trying to sound mean or snippy, I'm just trying to make my point.)

You're discussing the ideal, while Bryna's discussing the reality.

People have agendas for a variety of reasons, and science is far from immune to this. Some physicists get in a snotty little fit if quantum physics is brought up.

Or on a topic I've been reading up on recently (TiQuinn will love this) -- hormonal issues. For almost three decades, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the official stance of the scientific community was that anabolic steroids did not aid individuals in building lean muscle mass. It wasn't until the 80's that the AMA finally acknowledged this fact. To this day they still cite anecdotes of the negative affects of steroid abuse as proof that they're dangerous, but refuse to acknowledge the anecdotes of the benefits outside of muscle-building... as those are just anecdotes, and so not proven. It's quite the double-standard.

Last year a woman performed a study to prove her thesis: that testosterone damages brain tissues. Her conclusion was that it was quite clearly so, and the media (of course) picked up on it with the expected buzz. Nobody in the media pointed out that she was using brain tissue samples kept in a petrie dish, and that the testosterone she was using was suspended in alcohol. Very few outside the media cottoned on to that error.

Humans are, by nature, prejudicial, and there will almost always be an agenda of one sort or another present. The scientific community is at its most dangerous when people treat science as an infallible religion.

[there_is_no_bob]

That's okay -- I'm not sure where you found the notion that energy's disappearing. :confused: My statement is that it doesn't -- it just transforms.

Energy can neither be destroyed nor created, only transformed You said this, it's true. And then you said...

-- so why should the energy that comprises the thoughts and being of a human be the sole exception to that rule?Now you've lost me. What rule are human thoughts an exception to?

'Cause the only way I can read that sentence is that they are an exception to the rule of energy only being transformed, never destroyed. If you'd care to explain what you meant, why I'd be just happy as a worm in an apple!

[Northcott]

Now you've lost me. What rule are human thoughts an exception to?

'Cause the only way I can read that sentence is that they are an exception to the rule of energy only being transformed, never destroyed. If you'd care to explain what you meant, why I'd be just happy as a worm in an apple!


Not merely human thoughts, but the very being of what we are. Have you ever held something as it dies? It's odd. You can feel the moment of passing. I can't frame the sensation in words. Even before you check the life signs, the feeling of it is there.

Anyway, I thought the question was clear: I stated my position, and then questioned why a single element should be held as the sole exception to that. It was neither a justification nor claim that it is the sole exception. :) But I've been posting in a rush lately, so my intents are probably more garbled than I had thought.

[Harry]

Awesome, Limper. It always blows my mind when I see an older music video like that. The world of music videos completely passed me by, since I haven't had cable since about the time the Challenger blew up.

And, in that spirit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNik-eKyhYQ

[Harry]

And then, a true classic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7zqDjfuloA

[JavaElemental]

:confused: The responses here have come chiefly in two flavours: 1) people giving a framework that is remarkably similar in construction, or 2) providing a "me too" answer. Considering those come from a firm Christian, a practitioner of Islam, an animist, and others of various beliefs, I'm surprised by the amount of consensus acheived.
Okay, my bad. I'm probably just misinterpreting what I'm reading, then.
I very rarely hear people put forth that kind of reasoning. Most say instead that Phelps is off his rocker and preaching a message of hate that has little to do with Christianity, save co-opting a name for thinly-veiled hypocritical justification.
There's an entirely seperate thread to run with right there, if you want to pursue that as a topic of conversation. Suffice it to say, I think you're quite wrong in this.
Oh, don't get me wrong -- I don't think Fred Phelps is religious, I think he's bug-fuck crazy. However, the fact that he's stone cold nuts doesn't erase the fact that the Old Testament was full of stuff that I'd certainly consider hateful, vindictive, horrible, murderous, petty, and just generally all around rotten. Drawing from the Old Testament, you could pull out all sorts of quotes to support Freddie. Of course, I think the religion got a big cosmic do-over when Jesus died, so maybe the Old Testament doesn't count anymore. Although, I think a sufficient argument could be mounted towards the fact that Christianity as a whole has two faces -- the hateful side that we see entirely too much of on TV, and the decent side from decent folks that almost never makes it on TV because it's not sensationalistic enough.
You're discussing the ideal, while Bryna's discussing the reality.
People have agendas for a variety of reasons, and science is far from immune to this.
Point made. There was a recent issue -- well, "recent", about a year ago, I think -- over that con artist doctor who pushes the chelation therapy for Autism sufferers. He had a study that "proved" his chelation therapy worked, and it turned out that not only did he, himself, set on the board that judged his own study, but so did his son and a couple of other dreadfully biased people. That was just plain awful.

[Northcott]

Okay, my bad. I'm probably just misinterpreting what I'm reading, then.

Can't blame you. This kind of consensus has come up a couple of times now, and it surprises the Hell out of me every time. :)

Oh, don't get me wrong -- I don't think Fred Phelps is religious, I think he's bug-fuck crazy. However, the fact that he's stone cold nuts doesn't erase the fact that the Old Testament was full of stuff that I'd certainly consider hateful, vindictive, horrible, murderous, petty, and just generally all around rotten. Drawing from the Old Testament, you could pull out all sorts of quotes to support Freddie. Of course, I think the religion got a big cosmic do-over when Jesus died, so maybe the Old Testament doesn't count anymore. Although, I think a sufficient argument could be mounted towards the fact that Christianity as a whole has two faces -- the hateful side that we see entirely too much of on TV, and the decent side from decent folks that almost never makes it on TV because it's not sensationalistic enough.

1) Christ's word was considered the "new covenant" with God, and his teachings are supposed to supercede the rules of the Old Testament. I've a theory that human nature is predisposed toward the "us vs. them" mentality, however, along with a prevalence of intellectual laziness and moral cowardice. This ugly combination results in wankers of all stripes using the philosophy of the day as an excuse or justification for wretched behaviour; whether that philosophy be religious, political, etc.

Some people just get so caught up in being 'right' that they can't see an accurate reflection of their own behaviour anymore. They often become what they hate most. I think I'll make a Nietzsche macro. :D (Damn, but that name's a pain in the ass to spell!)

2) I'm fascinated by the variances that exist within religious structures; different sects and theologies that grow out of differing interpretations of the same information. If you've never read up on the Red Letter Christians, take a peek. It's a fairly recent movement, and I like the push they're trying to give to their faith as a whole.

Point made. There was a recent issue -- well, "recent", about a year ago, I think -- over that con artist doctor who pushes the chelation therapy for Autism sufferers. He had a study that "proved" his chelation therapy worked, and it turned out that not only did he, himself, set on the board that judged his own study, but so did his son and a couple of other dreadfully biased people. That was just plain awful.

Oh, man. :( That kind of thing just makes me heartsick. It's horrible to see something that can benefit so many be twisted in that kind of way, and it's almost always the innocent and helpless who suffer the most for it.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

There's as much in the Bible that backs up what Fred Phelps believes as there is that backs up the more peaceful, loving version of Christianity.

Actually, if the testimony of one of Phelp's children who escaped the cult (Nat I think), can be relied upon, a fifteen year-old girl with no formal theological training (Nat's future wife, but that's another story), could run rings around Fred in terms of Bible knowledge :D

[Northcott]

I'd pay to watch that. :D