I read your question again and I'm not sure how it's any better. Like, are you asking us to predict how everyone in the world would react to such a huge event, when we don't even know how our next door neighbors would react to insurance salesmen?
Jesus, is this going to turn into one of those SciFi nerd-wonks? Let's keep this about philosophy, thanks.
Fine then! 1) The human race will never be able to run a detailed simulation of the past, either because we have gone extinct or because we no longer care about technology. 2) If we are able to or want to in the future, then most likely we are already in the simulation right now. 3) If we do advance to the point where we could, we won't ever run very many simulations.
All three are depressing imo.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
This entire time I thought the topic was asking what we'd do if it was proved that God DID exist... which is a prospect I find infinitely more interesting. I had no idea why everyone was answering the other way.
Damn.
But I already feel like anyone who believes in God (as it is portrayed in the majority of major religions) is a bit nutty, so if it was somehow proved that he didn't exist, my thoughts on these people wouldn't change. I don't think they're thoughts on the issue would change either. Religious people already have fallback that God is capable of acting in ways that we cannot comprehend. There is no amount of "proof" that could ever shake everyone's faith enough to abandon religion. Now I understand why everyone was saying this is a dumb topic. The fact that there are people who believe in the literal word of The Bible kind of proves that there will always be a portion of humanity (a large one) unwilling to listen to reason.
If the topic were say... What if everyone on Earth was an Atheist? It would be much easier to answer. I generally think the world would just be a better place. It's one less thing that divides us.
Only way I could see this happen is if something forced everyone's mind to change.
Anyway, if it happens in an instant, life goes on, I guess, with one less reason for people to hate each other (not saying the world will be in complete peace, because lol it happening at all). Though some people who work in religions with God fields would have to find new jobs... and others continue on as if nothing happened and continue to do "religion", ie corrupt ones who weren't religious in the first place.
There would be an existential crisis for those who fervently believed in God, resulting in mass suicides and depression. Some religious institutions would cease to exist, but others would reinvent themselves. (For example, the Biblical stories could be treated as allegories through which to define a secular system of beliefs.) Some would keep traditions alive for the sake of them.
Gradually the old religious institutions would die or morph into unrecognizable forms. People would still find higher purposes to argue about and go to war over.
I'm not one of those atheists who thinks that the end of religion will make the world into a shiny happy place. However, do I think the end of religion would be a net positive? Yes. It is my hope that the new things we would find to argue about would be more substantial and would therefore progress the intellectual evolution of mankind.
Yes, that's how hypotheticals tend to go. You guess what you think would happen or what you would do, etc.
Oh whoops I read the topic wrong idiot.jpg you should all call me names now imo
Anyway, I honestly don't know. There's little reason to believe that belief that religion is a cause rather than a symptom of biases and human stupidities, and I don't even know what an undeniable proof that god doesn't exist would even mean if the current world doesn't count.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
He invites religious people too you know you should repost it imo
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Life goes on, one less reason to hate (but they'll still hate, because lol piling all the problems of the world on religion), god-fearing folk will either go nuts or accept it and move on... and people who say there believe in god but don't will continue on as usual, including corrupt members of that religion.
I think the proof already exists. Theists claim existence of the supernatural. Either our world is natural (i.e. perfectly consistent) or it is not. If I stick my hand over a fire 1,000 times, I will get burned each and every time. The theists who claim that god has control over the "laws" of physics would inherently believe that the possibility exists that I could eventually stick my hand in the fire and not get burned. Either the world is what it is, or it is an inconsistent blob that is under the perpetual control of a supernatural force. Again - our world cannot be natural and supernatural at the same time.
You can't part a river with a stick. It is chemically impossible to turn water into wine. Rotting corpses cannot (within the limits of biology) come back from the dead. These notions are common sense ... outside of the context of theistic belief.
But I already feel like anyone who believes in God (as it is portrayed in the majority of major religions) is a bit nutty, so if it was somehow proved that he didn't exist, my thoughts on these people wouldn't change.
Several billion people in the world today, and the vast majority of people throughout human history, have been religious. Some of the smartest individuals ever to have graced this earth, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, have been deeply religious. Issues of religion are among the most complex in philosophy, and have been eloquently and exhaustively argued by both sides for centuries.
Given all this, what gives you the right to hand-waive religion as "nutty"? That's sounds as undeservedly arrogant as it does childishly misinformed.
I think the proof already exists.
Oh, this should be good.
Theists claim existence of the supernatural. Either our world is natural (i.e. perfectly consistent) or it is not. If I stick my hand over a fire 1,000 times, I will get burned each and every time. The theists who claim that god has control over the "laws" of physics would inherently believe that the possibility exists that I could eventually stick my hand in the fire and not get burned.
Of course; this is true of empiricists as well. See: Hume's inductive skepticism.
Either the world is what it is, or it is an inconsistent blob that is under the perpetual control of a supernatural force. Again - our world cannot be natural and supernatural at the same time.
Question: if there is no God, then what compels the entirety of existence to abide by uniform, rigid natural laws? Because some guy in a wheelchair said so? Please.
Scientists talk all the time about how "arrogant" and "anthropomorphic" it is to conceive of man as the center of the universe and made in the image of divinity, yet they immediately proceed to talk as though the crude handiwork of laughably fallible human minds constitutes the essence of existence. It's a disgusting double standard.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
Question: if there is no God, then what compels the entirety of existence to abide by uniform, rigid natural laws?
Because it doesn't. Nature does whatever the hell it wants. Natural laws AREN'T laws. Natural laws our attempt to EXPLAIN the universe using mathematics and they are rigid and uniform because the mathematics that are involved are rigid and uniform and it does a good enough job of modeling the universe.
immediately proceed to talk as though the crude handiwork of laughably fallible human minds constitutes the essence of existence
what does it even mean to be the essence of existence. can I eat it?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Question: if there is no God, then what compels the entirety of existence to abide by uniform, rigid natural laws? Because some guy in a wheelchair said so? Please.
Scientists talk all the time about how "arrogant" and "anthropomorphic" it is to conceive of man as the center of the universe and made in the image of divinity, yet they immediately proceed to talk as though the crude handiwork of laughably fallible human minds constitutes the essence of existence. It's a disgusting double standard.
Science deals with tangible concepts. It doesn't claim an intimate relationship with a being that is universally considered to be unknowable and incomprehensible.
And calling the work of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking "crude" is foolish, at best.
Given all this, what gives you the right to hand-waive religion as "nutty"? That's sounds as undeservedly arrogant as it does childishly misinformed.
Believing in some religious texts in the literal sense is nutty. Believing that "Eve" was created from a piece of Adam is nutty. Believing the story of the Tower of Babel is nutty, believing in Noah's Ark is nutty. Believing in "Heaven and Hell" and basically believing in many of the ideas found in Abrahamic religions is a little bit nutty. It doesn't matter how smart a person is, if they're willing to believe in the existence of Angels, Satan and the idea of a "man in the sky" who used to cause natural disasters when he got mad, but now he's pretty chill... You have to be able to suspend a large amount of disbelief. A large enough amount that I think is reasonable to say anyone who puts "faith" in such ideas is a little off.
I understand it's comforting to think that we're here for a purpose and that everything happens for a reason, but it doesn't make much logical sense that God used to directly speak to people and influence the events on Earth... and then he just decided to stop.
I have no problem with people believing in higher intelligence, I just have a problem with any religion that claims to know all the answers.
And calling the work of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking "crude" is foolish, at best.
I would say that putting Hawking with Newton and Einstein is foolish! dohohohohoho.
Well apparently Jaffar doesn't believe that math exists beyond Algebra 2 (or calculus, I doubt he's even heard of abstract algebra, set theory or, if I want to put myself on a limb here, differential equations) so it's pretty clear that the math involved would be crude!
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
Scientists talk all the time about how "arrogant" and "anthropomorphic" it is to conceive of man as the center of the universe and made in the image of divinity, yet they immediately proceed to talk as though the crude handiwork of laughably fallible human minds constitutes the essence of existence. It's a disgusting double standard.
to be fair to science here, most systems of spirituality would also consider the abrahamic human conceitedness to be arrogant, that isn't just a science thing
Because it doesn't. Nature does whatever the hell it wants. Natural laws AREN'T laws. Natural laws our attempt to EXPLAIN the universe using mathematics and they are rigid and uniform because the mathematics that are involved are rigid and uniform and it does a good enough job of modeling the universe.
"Good enough job" sounds an awful lot like giving up. How do you define "good enough"? What makes religion not "good enough"? To me, it sounds like you're making the same mistakes as most scientists, except replacing faith in infallible natural laws with faith in infallible mathematical laws.
Hats off to seeing through scientism, though! You're on the right track.
what does it even mean to be the essence of existence. can I eat it?
Look up "essence" in any online dictionary. You could reject the existence of any essence to the universe (I personally do, rejecting, in Nietzschean terms, the idea of a "true world"), but it requires a good deal of philosophical argument. I'd also suspect that you don't really believe that there is no essence to existence, no true order to things; otherwise, you'd have to reject Truth entirely.
Science deals with tangible concepts. It doesn't claim an intimate relationship with a being that is universally considered to be unknowable and incomprehensible.
Actually, the metaphysical basis of the scientific method is entirely intangible and theoretical.
And calling the work of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking "crude" is foolish, at best.
I wouldn't hesitate to call their metaphysics rubbish, no. Descartes is a step above them, as is Hume. Now, Bacon? He's the guy. So good.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
Believing in some religious texts in the literal sense is nutty. Believing that "Eve" was created from a piece of Adam is nutty. Believing the story of the Tower of Babel is nutty, believing in Noah's Ark is nutty.
Empirically/historically, sure. Which is why most intelligent Christians view these sorts of stories as powerful allegories, not literal accounts.
It doesn't matter how smart a person is, if they're willing to believe in the existence of Angels, Satan and the idea of a "man in the sky" who used to cause natural disasters when he got mad, but now he's pretty chill... You have to be able to suspend a large amount of disbelief. A large enough amount that I think is reasonable to say anyone who puts "faith" in such ideas is a little off.
You're focusing too much on the content of one specific religion and not enough on the concept of God as a whole. I'm an atheist, and I'll grant you that much of the Bible, if taken literally, is rather foolish. But this is step two; step one is assessing whether or not a God exists in the first place, whether we can know him, and what we have to sacrifice if God is dead (and let me tell you, it's a great deal).
I have no problem with people believing in higher intelligence, I just have a problem with any religion that claims to know all the answers.
So what are your thoughts on those who worship science as the pathway to universal truth? Naive? Religious? Spot-on?
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
"Good enough job" sounds an awful lot like giving up
A lot of scientists don't like to talk about things they don't understand. "Good enough job" is anything which matches the experimental data and the stated assumptions of the theory, which for something like QED is more precise than measuring the length of America from coast to coast and getting it wrong by less than a hair's breadth.
To me, it sounds like you're making the same mistakes as most scientists, except replacing faith in infallible natural laws with faith in infallible mathematical laws.
What does it even mean to have faith in infallible natural laws or mathematical laws? So could it also be said that you have faith in your "infallible photon receptor" aka your eyes when it comes to reading my posts?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
You're focusing too much on the content of one specific religion and not enough on the concept of God as a whole. I'm an atheist, and I'll grant you that much of the Bible, if taken literally, is rather foolish. But this is step two; step one is assessing whether or not a God exists in the first place, whether we can know him, and what we have to sacrifice if God is dead (and let me tell you, it's a great deal).
If we're just using the word God to symbolize and entity with knowledge and power far greater than we can comprehend, the existence of God seems pretty logical. I would go as far as saying probable. My issue is with humans who claim to know who or what it is, how it acts on our world, and the exact things it wants us to do.
So what are your thoughts on those who worship science as the pathway to universal truth? Naive? Religious? Spot-on?
The way I see it, every day we know more about the world than we did the day before (speaking figuratively here) with unlimited time and resources we will continue to add to the knowledge gained from the people that came before us. Honestly speaking, I see no reason that there should not come a time when we can understand literally everything there is to know about the very nature of the universe. There are definitely things that could stop that progress such as catastrophic events capable of eradicating all or most of the life on this planet, but lets just assume things keep going the way they are going... Why not?
If we're just using the word God to symbolize and entity with knowledge and power far greater than we can comprehend, the existence of God seems pretty logical. I would go as far as saying probable. My issue is with humans who claim to know who or what it is, how it acts on our world, and the exact things it wants us to do.
especially in the case of christianity and judaism when we know that the bible is inaccurate, even if it was true at some point what we have now is a very bastardized version that has been crafted to fit various rulers agendas and has also been retranslated many times. I believe there is much about the nature of the universe that we don't understand and am open to possibilities including a god, gods, some kind of collective consciousness etc, but it's very obvious that "God" as we recognize in a modern sense is pure fantasy. it's insane that billions of people still believe that, and then advocate it as a religion of peace when history tells us that christianity became dominant through conquest, violence, and threats.
There are definitely things that could stop that progress such as catastrophic events capable of eradicating all or most of the life on this planet, but lets just assume things keep going the way they are going... Why not?
when you look at the history of the earth it's reasonable to assume that we won't be allowed to go on forever uninterrupted. it might be tens or hundreds of thousands of years from now, maybe millions, but the apocalypse is going to happen, it's just a matter of when
There are definitely things that could stop that progress such as catastrophic events capable of eradicating all or most of the life on this planet, but lets just assume things keep going the way they are going... Why not?
Can I just point out that it's rather unreasonable to ask that question? Because if a catastrophic event actually did happen in the past, none of us would be around to ask said question.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
A lot of scientists don't like to talk about things they don't understand. "Good enough job" is anything which matches the experimental data and the stated assumptions of the theory, which for something like QED is more precise than measuring the length of America from coast to coast and getting it wrong by less than a hair's breadth.
This is a competent summary of how the scientific method works. Even here, however, science rests on unfounded claims. If it doesn't, you're going to have to take Feyerabend's position of epistemological nihilism: there is no method, as science questions everything, so anything goes.
What does it even mean to have faith in infallible natural laws or mathematical laws? So could it also be said that you have faith in your "infallible photon receptor" aka your eyes when it comes to reading my posts?
Obviously. This idea is as old as Western thought itself, hence why Plato refers to physical things as "pistis," which means confidence or faith.
If we're just using the word God to symbolize and entity with knowledge and power far greater than we can comprehend, the existence of God seems pretty logical. I would go as far as saying probable. My issue is with humans who claim to know who or what it is, how it acts on our world, and the exact things it wants us to do.
So you're a deist (or at least saying that deism is a possibility)? I appreciate your honesty, but this runs into its own set of problems: namely, how it impacts human action from day-to-day. What should we do in the face of moral problems? How do we reconcile our inextricably limited mental faculties with our claims to certainty?
The way I see it, every day we know more about the world than we did the day before (speaking figuratively here) with unlimited time and resources we will continue to add to the knowledge gained from the people that came before us. Honestly speaking, I see no reason that there should not come a time when we can understand literally everything there is to know about the very nature of the universe.
This is the position known as logical positivism, and it assumes that there is a definite structure to the universe that the human mind can understand. You're making the same mistakes I laid out before: you suppose that the fallible mind of man has potential access to universal truth, and you suppose that the universe follows rigid natural laws for seemingly no reason.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
From: ToukaOone | #071 There are definitely things that could stop that progress such as catastrophic events capable of eradicating all or most of the life on this planet, but lets just assume things keep going the way they are going... Why not?
Can I just point out that it's rather unreasonable to ask that question? Because if a catastrophic event actually did happen in the past, none of us would be around to ask said question.
Are you saying you don't believe that any mass extinction events have ever taken place? A catastrophic event doesn't mean that all life on the planet was killed. If even 90% of humans were eradicated by an extinction event, we might as well be starting over from scratch.
. Even here, however, science rests on unfounded claims.
What claims and how are they unfounded?
Obviously.
Then I don't see what use that word is if it makes no distinctions or no distinctions which matter. Sure using my eyes would be "blind faith" but everyone goes ahead and does it anyway.
Are you saying you don't believe that any mass extinction events have ever taken place? A catastrophic event doesn't mean that all life on the planet was killed. If even 90% of humans were eradicated by an extinction event, we might as well be starting over from scratch.
I'm saying that using the past to justify the future on those grounds is insufficient.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
a 90% initial death toll would be 99%+ in practical terms, considering the lack of survival skills in civilization dwelling humans and the effects that such an event would have on the atmosphere. many people even consider the end of the last ice age to be such an event, and in the grand scheme of things we're about halfway to the next ice age, in 15,000 years or so the spot I'm sitting in now will be underneath a mile tall sheet of ice.
Anything not within the realm of the empirical cannot by definition affect my life. To be metaphysical precludes interaction with physical processes, as any such interaction would in effect, have to be physical itself. Concepts, ideas, philosophies, those are all just manifestations of chemical processes within our brains. As anything metaphysical cannot under any circumstances effect me, belief in them is meaningless at best. Therefore, if you want to understand that which can effect you, science is the only method that could be used.
I have absolutely no way of proving anything around me exists, as everything around me is at best a representation created by the most powerful simulation device known to man, also known as the brain. However, I see no reason why acting as though reality as is perceived through the brain is false would be beneficial in the slightest, and as such I don't dwell on it.
Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them, and as such any particular belief system on the subject is equal to any other, and this once again renders it all meaningless in my mind.
Anyways, I have to go. I might respond when I return, but probably not.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
From: JeffreyRaze | #077 I'll not be here long, but here's my philosophy.
Anything not within the realm of the empirical cannot by definition affect my life. To be metaphysical precludes interaction with physical processes, as any such interaction would in effect, have to be physical itself. Concepts, ideas, philosophies, those are all just manifestations of chemical processes within our brains. As anything metaphysical cannot under any circumstances effect me, belief in them is meaningless at best. Therefore, if you want to understand that which can effect you, science is the only method that could be used.
I have absolutely no way of proving anything around me exists, as everything around me is at best a representation created by the most powerful simulation device known to man, also known as the brain. However, I see no reason why acting as though reality as is perceived through the brain is false would be beneficial in the slightest, and as such I don't dwell on it.
Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them, and as such any particular belief system on the subject is equal to any other, and this once again renders it all meaningless in my mind.
Anyways, I have to go. I might respond when I return, but probably not.
Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them
people have died and come back, it's not as if no one has ever experienced death before. the only problem is that their reports are conflicting, some report not having any memory of that time, some people have out of body experiences, others have hallucinations that may make them think of heaven or hell or outer space...
jews: the heavily religious some effect but the transition is the easiest. the hard part will be losing all the holidays and the traditions more than the actual faith, but that will stay culturally instead, which is already the case for many. god won't have anything to do there, just pride.
christianity: most varied of all in both faith and results. protestants generally ought to end similar as the jews, catholics have the biggest trouble. mormons also get it bad but prob not as bad as the hardcore catholic base. you can expect many to kill themselves to try to prove there is a god even despite the proof.
scientologists: pissed that they now can't get away with some tax cuts.
muslims: middle east destroyed. biggest effect to the jews as well will be israel's destruction in the process.
buddhists: don't care.
hinduists: probably don't care, more cultural than religious anyway probably.
an overslimplication. and every piece of media would make it worse with a lot more doomsayers going 'well now without god that means people will turn into ANIMALS AGAIN OH GOD THIS WORLD IS HORRIBLE' until a generation or two pass and despite an immediate spike in crime (and suicides) in the US probably not a lot of overall impact ends up being had since we're mostly secular anyway. secular countries probably don't get impacted much because the rules are distanced from religion. we'll just replace any issues there and say it's part of culture instead.
religious heavy countries though are entirely ****ed and you do not want to be anywhere near them anytime soon.
--
The future must protect the clone's past. "Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.
Jeffrey is right and he's something like 100 times more intelligent than I am and I agree with exactly everything he says except for his second to last paragraph, where I'll say that if souls or after life does actually exist "as advertised" they should have some way to be empirically observable. I will also disagree that any non empirically provable system is "exactly" equal to any other, because you can have more unlikely belief systems (anything that adds detail onto something else is less likely to happen) but I do agree with the spirit of his statement, where it is defacto equally useless.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!? You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
From: BoshStrikesBack | #072 If we're just using the word God to symbolize and entity with knowledge and power far greater than we can comprehend, the existence of God seems pretty logical. I would go as far as saying probable. My issue is with humans who claim to know who or what it is, how it acts on our world, and the exact things it wants us to do.
So you're a deist (or at least saying that deism is a possibility)? I appreciate your honesty, but this runs into its own set of problems: namely, how it impacts human action from day-to-day. What should we do in the face of moral problems? How do we reconcile our inextricably limited mental faculties with our claims to certainty?
I understand I'm far more apathetic to these issues than most people, but I just do not see why it should have any impact on our day-to-day. If "God" has not bothered to show himself in any way I can perceive, I see no reason for me to think about him. As far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist.
Morality based on religion is also something I have a huge problem with. I think morals are your own, and that the best you can do is surround yourself by people who share the same morals. I can see that insulting someone makes them feel bad, so I never do it. I understand that things like violence and rape can have lasting negative effects on someone's mental and physical health, so I abstain from both. I don't think I need a set of rules to govern what I believe is right and wrong. I look at the effects that my actions have on the people or things I act upon, and decide what is right for myself.
If everyone on the planet thought like me, I don't think religion would even exist. I have no interest in knowing how or why we came to be. Sure it might be interesting to find out, but I'm not the least bit concerned with it. If I'm living my life wrong, so be it. I'm having a pretty good time doing what I'm doing. I just try to make my time here as enjoyable as I can for myself and everyone I meet. Basically taking the phrase "Don't worry, be happy" as far as it can go.
The way I see it, every day we know more about the world than we did the day before (speaking figuratively here) with unlimited time and resources we will continue to add to the knowledge gained from the people that came before us. Honestly speaking, I see no reason that there should not come a time when we can understand literally everything there is to know about the very nature of the universe.
This is the position known as logical positivism, and it assumes that there is a definite structure to the universe that the human mind can understand. You're making the same mistakes I laid out before: you suppose that the fallible mind of man has potential access to universal truth, and you suppose that the universe follows rigid natural laws for seemingly no reason.
I'm just speculating on the way things have went so far. I guess it's possible that there is no universal truth or order to universe. Maybe the "truths" to our universe don't apply to other universes... I'll be the first one to tell you that I know nothing. Like any religious person, I'm just choosing to "believe" (in the sense that I believe it is possible) in the future that I prefer.
From: Liquid Wind | #079 Even if souls and the afterlife do exist, we cannot have any knowledge about them
people have died and come back, it's not as if no one has ever experienced death before. the only problem is that their reports are conflicting, some report not having any memory of that time, some people have out of body experiences, others have hallucinations that may make them think of heaven or hell or outer space...
People haven't died and come back. Brain death is death. No one comes out of brain death. Anything short of that (cardiac arrest) is merely a deep comatose state.
From: bryans7 | #010 I don't know, it's a weird question. It's like, if you met a flock of ducks dressed up as the cast of Step By Step except one of them really is Patrick Duffy, would you take them to Arby's or to IHOP for lunch? It's the sort of thing that will never happen so it's difficult to know.
That the world is entirely quantifiable, that the universe follows rigid natural laws, that man can understand these laws, that there such concepts as energy, matter, motion, time, and space. There are more, but this is a good start.
Then I don't see what use that word is if it makes no distinctions or no distinctions which matter. Sure using my eyes would be "blind faith" but everyone goes ahead and does it anyway.
Because we know from experience that our senses are imperfect; even if we didn't, there's a conflict between what our senses tell us and what our minds tell us (the classic Cartesian dualism); and even if this wasn't the case, there would still be serious grounds for doubt, for what is it about fallible human senses that privileges me to universal truth?
Anything not within the realm of the empirical cannot by definition affect my life. To be metaphysical precludes interaction with physical processes, as any such interaction would in effect, have to be physical itself.
This is a metaphysical claim. Congratulations on contradicting yourself in the first two sentences. I don't expect you to respond, no, because you don't seem overly concerned with truth; just with upholding the scientific dogma you've been religiously indoctrinated with.
Morality based on religion is also something I have a huge problem with. I think morals are your own,
So you have no problem saying that things like Nazism are bad? Yeah, Godwin's law etc., but it's relevant in a conversation specifically about morality. Most people would have a problem with this, but I personally don't. You just have to accept that the world is comprised not of rights and wrongs, but of power struggles. It's a radically new way to live, and it requires practice to be upheld consistency. You don't really have the luxury of being "apathetic," tempting though it may be.
Like any religious person, I'm just choosing to "believe" (in the sense that I believe it is possible) in the future that I prefer.
I appreciate the candidness. Thanks.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
This is a metaphysical claim. Congratulations on contradicting yourself in the first two sentences. I don't expect you to respond, no, because you don't seem overly concerned with truth; just with upholding the scientific dogma you've been religiously indoctrinated with.
If anything creates a physical effect, that effect itself is therefore physical and observable, which means we can attempt to apply the scientific method to it. It the effects are not observable, they then have not effected that which I would call reality. If you can think of a scenario in which this is not true, I would like to hear it.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
If anything creates a physical effect, that effect itself is therefore physical and observable, which means we can attempt to apply the scientific method to it.
This is a tautology: the method deems the entire relevant world to be "physical and observable," so of course the scientific method can be applied to the world if it does indeed deal with "physical effects." The question is a more fundamental one: namely, whether or not this conception of the world is the correct one.
It the effects are not observable, they then have not effected that which I would call reality. If you can think of a scenario in which this is not true, I would like to hear it.
Another tautology: you define "reality" to be "the reality of human science," and then ask me to present a case outside of this. What you need to do is question whether your narrow understanding of existence is legitimate, or just brash anthropomorphism.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
Out of curiosity, how do you define truth and how do you go about attempting to attain it?
Reality is entirely subjective; the world of appearances, where we connect "facts" (i.e. human impressions of the world, be they inductive, deductive, poetic, or religious) into a potentially infinite number of interpretations. Science is one of these interpretations, and only one of these interpretations.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
The reason my arguments only operate within empirical reality is that things outside of said empirical reality are not physical and observable, and therefor do not apply to my situation at any given time. Whether or not I am a brain in a jar is meaningless as either scenario is equal in every single way within the only thing I can truly prove exists, namely myself. As such, when you leave the bounds of that which is observable, every possibility becomes equally valid (though not probable), which makes discussion of it fruitless.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
From: BoshStrikesBack | #089 Out of curiosity, how do you define truth and how do you go about attempting to attain it?
Reality is entirely subjective; the world of appearances, where we connect "facts" (i.e. human impressions of the world, be they inductive, deductive, poetic, or religious) into a potentially infinite number of interpretations. Science is one of these interpretations, and only one of these interpretations.
So you believe humans cannot determine the truth. Gotcha. I believe the same myself more or less, I just believe science to be the most viable way of determining truth within the scenario that makes up my existence as it is presented to me. We rely on science within our world as science can best explain our world, and explaining anything outside is impossible to do with any accuracy.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
The reason my arguments only operate within empirical reality is that things outside of said empirical reality are not physical and observable, and therefor do not apply to my situation at any given time.
They don't apply to your physical situation, no- but again, this is a tautology. A religious person (of which I am not, to be clear) could easily chip in here with the assertion that in addition to your physical self, there is an eternal spiritual self to be concerned with, and he might advise you to turn to your super-rational faculties to consult morality and meaning in your life.
Whether or not I am a brain in a jar is meaningless as either scenario is equal in every single way within the only thing I can truly prove exists, namely myself.
So naive. I would love to see this proof, if you get a chance.
As such, when you leave the bounds of that which is observable, every possibility becomes equally valid (though not probable), which makes discussion of it fruitless.
If you look at the world outside empiricism empirically, then sure, it won't make sense. It'd be like looking at the world outside of computers in terms of coding; nonsense, but only because you're confining yourself unnecessarily.
This is another tautology, by the way- though in your case, calling your posts "tautologies" may be a tautology in itself at this point.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
So you believe humans cannot determine the truth. Gotcha. I believe the same myself more or less, I just believe science to be the most viable way of determining truth within the scenario that makes up my existence as it is presented to me. We rely on science within our world as science can best explain our world, and explaining anything outside is impossible to do with any accuracy.
I appreciate the honesty here, but it's not quite enough. The fact that you consider science to be "the most viable way of determining truth" is a metaphysical claim, one that rests on a number of philosophical issues: namely, what is truth? What is science, and what are its limitations? What is "relevant existence"?
If you're down for some reading, look at Popper. Not his works themselves, but critical commentaries. He's an antimetaphysical-metaphysician, and I think the responses to his views (which are in many ways in line with your own) would help open your eyes. It's not that your views are dumb; plenty of competent thinkers have adopted them. They're just untenable.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3 also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis
Disregarding the rest of the topic, as I still haven't read it.
From: Dark Young Link | #001 So let's say something happened somehow that made it undeniable that God doesn't exist, and that everyone accepted it. What do you think would happen? That is, how do you think the world would change?
I doubt it would make much of a difference. Those already on the fence or casual about their religion would either shrug their shoulders or still keep to it because it's what they're used to, while radicals will just claim that mere humans can't make that determination or that the proof is somehow faulty, but they still know the real answer.
And I'm aware that I more or less dodge your "everyone accepted it" condition, but I consider that expectation entirely unrealistic.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo [NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]
They don't apply to your physical situation, no- but again, this is a tautology. A religious person (of which I am not, to be clear) could easily chip in here with the assertion that in addition to your physical self, there is an eternal spiritual self to be concerned with, and he might advise you to turn to your super-rational faculties to consult morality and meaning in your life.
Yes, but once again I have no way of knowing about any spiritual self that might exist. To assume anything about it is to risk the fallacy of Pascal's wager. What if a god exists who condemns everyone except atheists to hell? As we cannot acquire knowledge about out souls if they exist and are not empirical, we can do nothing to prepare for that phase of our existence, and thus ignoring it is a perfectly fine thing to do.
So naive. I would love to see this proof, if you get a chance.
What proof? Prove what? How does this make me naive in any single way? If you look at the world outside empiricism empirically, then sure, it won't make sense. It'd be like looking at the world outside of computers in terms of coding; nonsense, but only because you're confining yourself unnecessarily.
This is another tautology, by the way- though in your case, calling your posts "tautologies" may be a tautology in itself at this point.
I have no other method to apply. I would believe a computer program attempting to think about that exists outside of the computer in coded terms to be doing the best it conceivably could. I do not have access to anything beyond the empirical, which is precisely why I HAVE to utilize it. I'm constraining myself necessarily, as any other method would be nonsense.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn
I appreciate the honesty here, but it's not quite enough. The fact that you consider science to be "the most viable way of determining truth" is a metaphysical claim, one that rests on a number of philosophical issues: namely, what is truth? What is science, and what are its limitations? What is "relevant existence"?
I had a larger response to this and the next bit, but my computer ate them so I'll just give you my definitions for those.
Truth: The objective nature of that which exists within any given possible subset of reality. This is a very difficult term to define however. Science: A method for acquiring knowledge about that which it is possible to apply science to, namely the observable universe. Science is limited to that which is observable obviously, as we have no tools to acquire knowledge on anything not observable. Relevant existence: the subset of objective reality containing that which can be observed by myself and beings like myself and is thus capable of effecting my perception of reality. As I cannot know about that which is not observable, and it cannot effect me without therefore becoming observable, I cannot call it relevant.
--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below! http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn