Meaning of life.

[Acriku]

Then wouldn't that aid the argument for any being that doesn't want to be known to exist? Not specifically God.

[Wolf]

Right, not exclusively him, but nor is he excluded.

[alchemi2]

On what are you basing you re probability figures?

On the curve of infinity all things are possible no matter how improbable. you state that the existence of god(gods) is miniscule but what data have you to work with to establish that opinion, or are you basing your aguement on belief/faith in the fact of your disbelief in which case why is your faith in the non exsistance of a higher power more valid that the faith of those who belive in the higher powers exsistence.

[Anathema]

A huge difference though between government and God lies in punishment. If you violate the code of law, you could get sentenced to prison or whatever. The culprit now knows the consequense of his actions and hopefully won't do it again, and it works dettering towards other potential criminals. If you violate the code of the bible though, you could get sentenced to hell after death. But there's no direct deterrence effect- God does not manifest Himself visibly to anyone and nobody knows for sure that culprits get punished after death. (wich was different of course during the middle ages, when nobody made a strict distinction between divine law and human law. it was for example illegal (and punishable) to loan out money at interest, as prohibited in Luc.6:35)

And another, probably more profound difference is this: the government is there to serve the people, but the people are there to serve God.

[Acriku]

On what are you basing you re probability figures?

On the curve of infinity all things are possible no matter how improbable. you state that the existence of god(gods) is miniscule but what data have you to work with to establish that opinion, or are you basing your aguement on belief/faith in the fact of your disbelief in which case why is your faith in the non exsistance of a higher power more valid that the faith of those who belive in the higher powers exsistence.

What probability would you give a being to exist that has no evidence to support its existence and is one of thousands of creations of man's imagination? I told you my reasons for concluding that it is very improbable that a god exists, and referred to fairies at the bottom of a garden as another example of improbably existing. I am also saying this in light of how science is practiced. If there is no evidence to support it, it isn't accepted.

I didn't think of that Anathema, very thought-provoking.

[Wolf]

True (about servitude), that's what we say about government, but invariably, people often accuse it of being the exact opposite.

I am not quite sure how to articulate this thought, so perhaps you can help me work it out, Acriku. I want to say that the nature of God is supposed to be different from the nature of a fairy. I refer again to Stepehn Hawking's quote. The definition of our God, and the definition of our universe seem to be compatibly, whereas the definition of a fairy seems to be ambivalent with regard to the universe. But, alas, I am not quite sure how to phrase this. There seems to me to be a definate distinction between your imaginary beings -- there have always been imaginary beings throughout human culture, but they have changed, or fallen out of favor -- and God -- since there has always been a God or gods in human culture.

[Edric O]

When we talk of possibilities, anything is possible that is not inherently contradictory. Thousands of gods have the possibility to exist, but it's more relevant to talk about probabilities when discussing the existence of a god. A god with very little evidence to support its existence that does not actively interact with the world (due to the fact of no evidence of it) is very improbable to exist.

Very well then. But in order to be consistent, you must apply that philosophy to ALL things that have no physical evidence to support them and do not actively interact with the world. And this leads you to the following list of interesting conclusions:

Extra-terrestrial life does not exist.

Black holes do not exist.

In fact, all space phenomena that do not emit EM (electromagnetic) radiation do not exist (since the only way we can detect something in space is by observing its EM emissions, such as light, so any phenomenon that does not emit EM radiation cannot be detected by us - and therefore, according to your logic, does not exist).

Quarks (and various other sub-atomic particles which have never been physically detected, but whose existence is postulated by theory) do not exist.

In fact, ALL things that are postulated by a scientific theory but have never been physically detected do not exist.

You're not even agnostic. You're not saying "black holes may or may not exist". You're saying "black holes do NOT exist", and elevating that to the status of absolute truth. I suggest you communicate your extraordinary findings to the scientific community.

I wouldn't say that government and religion are interdependent, even though it seems that way since there has never been a successful government not in the presence of religion.

Ummm... haven't you been paying attention for the past 200 years? Secular governments are a massive success - in fact, they dominate the world.

But that's just how things happened. Nothing inherent in government requires something from religion, although it can be argued that religion requires the protection and aid of government in order to flourish.

Many religions have flourished despite active persecution by the government.

In all honesty I figure the probability of any god's existence to be so minimal that it is meaningless to consider it, as well as the probability that invisible pink unicorns exist.

Actually, we can know for certain that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, because they are a self-contradictory concept:

First of all, if they are invisible, they cannot be pink.

Second of all, if they are unicorns (that is, horse-like grazing animals), then they should leave detectable traces. For example, they would need to graze, and we could notice grass dissapearing for no apparent reason. They would also make sounds, and presumably they would live in herds - and it's quite hard not to notice a herd, even an invisible one. Also, the planet would be full of them unless they had predators to keep their population in check - and we don't know of any predators hunting invisible prey.

The nature of invisible unicorns is such that they would leave detectable traces if they did exist. The nature of God is NOT such that He would leave detectable traces if He existed. Therefore, your comparison is a strawman.

It would be more appropriate to compare the possibility of there being a God with the possibility of there being aliens.

The Judeo-Christian god is no more probable than Zeus or Jupiter.

Actually, He is, because Zeus and Jupiter were supposed to get angry and interfere in the lives of mortals on a daily basis.

There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?

That depends on your definition of "fairies". See my argument above, about the invisible unicorns.

[alchemi2]

What probability would you give a being to exist that has no evidence to support its existence and is one of thousands of creations of man's imagination? I told you my reasons for concluding that it is very improbable that a god exists, and referred to fairies at the bottom of a garden as another example of improbably existing. I am also saying this in light of how science is practiced. If there is no evidence to support it, it isn't accepted.

To me you appear to be missing the basic tenat of God(s) which is faith, You are required to have faith in God(s) if their was evidence, especially conclusive evidence that a supreme being exisited then there would be no neeed for faith. surely therefore that being would remove that evidence (being all powerful). Religions therefore try to create belief and faith but without solid evidence being available to them.

As to the existence of faries based on current thinking and knowledge it is unlikely they exist but th3e science chages as knowledge progresses so who knows perhaps they are an extinct or we have not reach a stae of development to beable to detect them, i think i'll keep an open mind on the subject.

Beware of facts as they can and often do change over aperiod of time.  ;)

 

[HasimirFenring]

Very well then. But in order to be consistent, you must apply that philosophy to ALL things that have no physical evidence to support them and do not actively interact with the world. And this leads you to the following list of interesting conclusions:

Extra-terrestrial life does not exist.

Black holes do not exist.

In fact, all space phenomena that do not emit EM (electromagnetic) radiation do not exist (since the only way we can detect something in space is by observing its EM emissions, such as light, so any phenomenon that does not emit EM radiation cannot be detected by us - and therefore, according to your logic, does not exist).

Quarks (and various other sub-atomic particles which have never been physically detected, but whose existence is postulated by theory) do not exist.

In fact, ALL things that are postulated by a scientific theory but have never been physically detected do not exist.

You're not even agnostic. You're not saying "black holes may or may not exist". You're saying "black holes do NOT exist", and elevating that to the status of absolute truth. I suggest you communicate your extraordinary findings to the scientific community.

Actually, the probability of extra-terrestrial life is quite high (consider approximate percentage of earth-like planets per sun-like star likely to have planets, etc).

There is a good deal of physical evidence for black holes (I havn't had astronomy for a little while, but as I recall there are some binary systems with only one visible high mass star rotating SOMETHING at such a high rate that the other body must be super-massive or something like that).

As far as any god(s) go(es), there is no evidence to support its/his/her/their existence, but there is no proof against it, so why worry/argue about it?

[nemafakei]

"The nature of invisible unicorns is such that they would leave detectable traces if they did exist. The nature of God is NOT such that He would leave detectable traces if He existed"

The nature of God may or may NOT be such that He would leave detectable traces if He existed.

Invisible unicorns leaving no tracks, eating or beathing nothing and so on by nature(/magic...) leave no traces. So should we give this possibilty credence?

"any phenomenon that does not emit EM radiation cannot be detected by us"

!!!

I am not being cudgelled to death in this alleyway, I am not falling down this staircase in the dark, my hair is not being raised by static electricity if I can't see it, and my paperclips are not being attracted by a black magnet that neither reflects nor creates light.

And to be honest, any phaenomenon is, by its very definition, in some way manifest.

[desert_storm]

Maby it is just that we are areound to reproduce and populate the world.  All there is too it.

(I didn't read the whole thing, tooo much so if this was already said, whatever)

[Edric O]

The nature of God may or may NOT be such that He would leave detectable traces if He existed.

I suppose that depends on the God you're talking about. I was talking about the Judeo-Christian God.

Invisible unicorns leaving no tracks, eating or beathing nothing and so on by nature(/magic...) leave no traces. So should we give this possibilty credence?

You're talking about invisible unicorns which do not interact with the world in any way. I presume they must also be intangible, else we would see things bumping into their invisible bodies, correct?

Well, in that case, I'm perfectly willing to admit the possibility of their existence. However, since they do not interact with our world in any way, they cannot affect us in any way. So as far as we're concerned, it doesn't really matter whether they exist or not. By making their existence possible, you've also made their existence irrelevant.

I am not being cudgelled to death in this alleyway, I am not falling down this staircase in the dark, my hair is not being raised by static electricity if I can't see it, and my paperclips are not being attracted by a black magnet that neither reflects nor creates light.

Nema, I was talking about SPACE phenomena. We cannot detect any space phenomenon which does not emit EM radiation, because EM radiation itself is the only thing we can detect (at the moment, at least) from light-years away.

And to be honest, any phaenomenon is, by its very definition, in some way manifest.

That doesn't mean we can detect it. In many cases, we just postulate its existence in order to "fill in a blank". But according to Acriku, such practice is unacceptable.

[Acriku]

True (about servitude), that's what we say about government, but invariably, people often accuse it of being the exact opposite.

I am not quite sure how to articulate this thought, so perhaps you can help me work it out, Acriku. I want to say that the nature of God is supposed to be different from the nature of a fairy. I refer again to Stepehn Hawking's quote. The definition of our God, and the definition of our universe seem to be compatibly, whereas the definition of a fairy seems to be ambivalent with regard to the universe. But, alas, I am not quite sure how to phrase this. There seems to me to be a definate distinction between your imaginary beings -- there have always been imaginary beings throughout human culture, but they have changed, or fallen out of favor -- and God -- since there has always been a God or gods in human culture.

Are you perhaps talking about how fairies and other such imaginary beings are created by the universe, and God is not - in fact he created the universe? Or is the universe? That's a possible distinction. I could also define fairies or unicorns as being outside the universe, which could go on and on with defining it in such a way as to stray from proving its nonexistence to the point God is at.

[Acriku]

Very well then. But in order to be consistent, you must apply that philosophy to ALL things that have no physical evidence to support them and do not actively interact with the world. And this leads you to the following list of interesting conclusions:

Extra-terrestrial life does not exist.

Black holes do not exist.

In fact, all space phenomena that do not emit EM (electromagnetic) radiation do not exist (since the only way we can detect something in space is by observing its EM emissions, such as light, so any phenomenon that does not emit EM radiation cannot be detected by us - and therefore, according to your logic, does not exist).

Quarks (and various other sub-atomic particles which have never been physically detected, but whose existence is postulated by theory) do not exist.

In fact, ALL things that are postulated by a scientific theory but have never been physically detected do not exist.

The difference between things like extra-terrestial life and things like God is that life on other planets seems probable, and a being infinitely complex with omnipotence and omniscience does not seem probable. At all. Now don't get me wrong, when something doesn't have evidence for it I couldn't very well say that it doesn't exist, just as you couldn't say it does exist, but if it is as improbable as the god I just described then I can say that it does not exist.

You're not even agnostic. You're not saying "black holes may or may not exist". You're saying "black holes do NOT exist", and elevating that to the status of absolute truth. I suggest you communicate your extraordinary findings to the scientific community.

That does not follow at all. Black holes are certainly more probable to exist than a god that I described as. And as I recall there is evidence for the existence for black holes, however indirect, but I'm not an astronomer so I can't say for sure.

Ummm... haven't you been paying attention for the past 200 years? Secular governments are a massive success - in fact, they dominate the world.

I wasn't referring to secular governments, I was referring to governments in the presence of religion. That is, the body of government and body of the people holding various religions.

Actually, we can know for certain that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, because they are a self-contradictory concept:

First of all, if they are invisible, they cannot be pink.

Second of all, if they are unicorns (that is, horse-like grazing animals), then they should leave detectable traces. For example, they would need to graze, and we could notice grass dissapearing for no apparent reason. They would also make sounds, and presumably they would live in herds - and it's quite hard not to notice a herd, even an invisible one. Also, the planet would be full of them unless they had predators to keep their population in check - and we don't know of any predators hunting invisible prey.

If you could see the unicorns, they would be pink. But you can't because they are invisible. So, it is not a contradiction. Also, they leave no traces because they are not horses as you describe. I can't believe you would make that relation.

The nature of invisible unicorns is such that they would leave detectable traces if they did exist. The nature of God is NOT such that He would leave detectable traces if He existed. Therefore, your comparison is a strawman.

Who said that the nature of IPU's is such that they would leave traces? Certainly not I. IPU's do not leave any traces. You're entire IPU discussion is wrong.

It would be more appropriate to compare the possibility of there being a God with the possibility of there being aliens.

That's outrageous. A being that is omnipotent and omniscient is nowhere near comparable to life existing on other planets.

Actually, He is, because Zeus and Jupiter were supposed to get angry and interfere in the lives of mortals on a daily basis.

Hmm, Zeus messed with human kind in an obvious way and then stopped. God messed with human kind in an obvious way and then stopped. My point stands.

[Wolf]

I think the critical difference between the IPU and the GOD is that God is supposed to have a certain relationship with humankind, through which humans have faith in God, despite all challenges to that faith. Because of this, there not being any evidence for the God's existence is actually required in order for God's relationship with humankind to be preserved. If there were evidence of God's existence, the faith that would supposedly make up the backbone for the Man-God relationship would lose its meaning, because one has faith in that which he has no assurances. So, I think the definition of God is such that the probability of his existence is actually increased by there not being physical evidence of his existence.

I still want to make that distinction between God and the IPU, however. I had a talk with a friend of mine earlier, and he and I were debating about human sentience. He brought up the interesting point that, when I asked him how we came to have such self-awareness, he said "Why not?" He asked me what made me think that the universal standard is "nonsentience." And I have to admit, I did not have a very good answer for him. He went on to say that there are probably degrees of sentience, and that other creatures probably possess them.

What struck me, however, is that this universe has created beings with some level of self-awarness. Namely us, I don't think this can be disputed. A universe with infinite volume (albeit definite mass) and infinite time (because all things are a matter of time) that has created self-awareness, with a high degree of probability, is also susceptible to some form of self-awarness. Consider the complexity of the universe, and consider the patterns within it. Quarks have organized themselves into subatomic particles, these particles into atoms, these atoms into molecules, these molecules into organisms, these organisms into societies. We are even slowly becoming aware that there is such a thing as a "national awareness," or a societal personality. We are at one level in this chain, and we are self-aware. By virtue of our own existence, it is therefore possible, and even a little probable, that other levels in the chain possess self-awareness. We are slowly becoming aware of the possibilities of nanotechnology, to replicate bodily chemicals, possibly to even replicate DNA. Let us assume, for a moment, that we have the ability to recreate the structure of the human brain using nanotechnology, would that brain not possess some probability of being self-aware? What if this technology grew to the point where it could be minimized, utilizing smaller levels of universal particles. The self-aware entity would then become physically smaller, but no less self aware. I talk of minimization, when the idea of God is one of maximization. Not levels below, but levels above. After societies come... what? After planets, and systems, and clusters, and galaxies, and parallels... come what? In an infinitely expanding universe, I must be allowed to suppose that there are infinite levels. And at the highest of these levels, is it not possible that there could be self-awareness? A universe aware of itself? And I am sure we are all familiar with the multiverse theory, could there not be a universe of universes, aware of itself?

Anyway, as I see it, scientifically, our very existence, our very self-awareness, and our very organization lend themselves to increasing the probability of a universal awareness, a God, if you will. And just as we cannot consciously enact change within our bodies -- despite being aware of them -- a God, being aware of Himself, would be unable to enact changes within His body. Nonetheless, his awareness would exist, and even though it exists, there would be no inward evidence of that existence. From the view of the blood vessel, there is no mankind, there is no society, there is no "human sentience." What physical evidence is there of our self-awareness, then?

EDIT: To pre-empt the objection that a universal awareness is still not probable, consider the mass in a human being. We, as a collective species, do not even make up a percent of the mass of our home world. Consider the universe as a whole, with it's totality of matter. The probability of some accidental arrangement of matter in the order that creates self-awareness is even more likely than the arrangement of the matter in a single man that creates self-awareness, when one considers what resources were required to make us, and what resources are at His disposal.

[Edric O]

I think you're missing the point. Acriku talks about the "probability" of the existence of God as opposed to the "probability" of the existence of aliens... but how the hell can you ever calculate such "probabilities"? Based on what data?

We have no data on gods. We have no data on alien species. Given this, how can you say that one has a higher probability than the other?

Or perhaps you mean that you're putting more FAITH in the existence of aliens than in the existence of gods, Acriku?

[Wolf]

Oh man, and I put so much work into that post, too.

[Acriku]

Wolfwiz, I'll try and respond to you later, I'll need a fresh perspective on your argument as I've looked at it for a while.

Edric, I base my "calculations" on Occam's Razor. Do you disagree with me using it?

[Wolf]

Cool, man. Feel free to PM me with rough ideas about it if you don't want to make a post right now. Personally, I find this stuff very fascinating, and I won't be too quick to jump on you if we're just sketching out rough arguments and the like.

[Dunenewt]

Nema, I was talking about SPACE phenomena. We cannot detect any space phenomenon which does not emit EM radiation, because EM radiation itself is the only thing we can detect (at the moment, at least) from light-years away.

Yes we can by detecting their gravitational pull on other objects.

[Caid Ivik]

Wolfwiz, I'll try and respond to you later, I'll need a fresh perspective on your argument as I've looked at it for a while.

Edric, I base my "calculations" on Occam's Razor. Do you disagree with me using it?

I DO. When talking about metaphysical, theological or ontological things, Razor might lead to a blind point of agnosticism or some model of a self-propelled self-made material universe. Nature of universe seem to contain various metaphysical forces, like you can't start a computer without electricity, you can't start a vibrous big bang etc. To understand a link between abstract physic (as well as mathematic) and what we call "objective reality" (dh universe), we simply can't erase those accepting more variables and say "this is easiest to understand, so it's true". Puny alibism.

[HasimirFenring]

We have no data on gods. We have no data on alien species. Given this, how can you say that one has a higher probability than the other?

Actually, as I said before, we DO have data on alien species.

[Caid Ivik]

Polytheistic gods (dh not omnipotent) have much reference to what we call aliens. Extraterrestrial intelligent beings with superior spiritual, technological and corporal development. All those flaming birds (Phoenix), horses (Sleipnir) and chariots (Helios) would have some meaning then. As well as origin of corn  ;D

[Wolf]

Corn?

That, and in response to Edric, I think I made a very well-thought out post on why there is evidence that increases the probability of their being a God...

[Caid Ivik]

You know there wasn't yet discovered a wild version of corn?