Conquer Club

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Sure. And that one insect who procreates by sticking some weird needle into another insect's brain and then mindcontrols them to seek out more food while it lays it's eggs inside the creature so the babies can slowly eat the other insect from the inside while assuring there's some extra food available pauses me to consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

I do however think that guiding hand belongs to some sadistic bastard.

I wouldn't say sadistic so much as...interesting. <grin>

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Sure. And that one insect who procreates by sticking some weird needle into another insect's brain and then mindcontrols them to seek out more food while it lays it's eggs inside the creature so the babies can slowly eat the other insect from the inside while assuring there's some extra food available pauses me to consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

I do however think that guiding hand belongs to some sadistic bastard.

I wouldn't say sadistic so much as...interesting. <grin>

There's tons of other weird fucking creatures with weird fucking habits. I actually agree that it isn't so much sadistic as interesting. Creative actually. However, I do think that the notion of a benevolent God is rather silly.


Assuming "God", we're either something of a side-effect to his setting in motion of the universe or the forgotten petri-dish with hilarious experiments. If he exist, I'm pretty sure his love of us isn't really there.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Sure. And that one insect who procreates by sticking some weird needle into another insect's brain and then mindcontrols them to seek out more food while it lays it's eggs inside the creature so the babies can slowly eat the other insect from the inside while assuring there's some extra food available pauses me to consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

I do however think that guiding hand belongs to some sadistic bastard.

I wouldn't say sadistic so much as...interesting. <grin>

There's tons of other weird fucking creatures with weird fucking habits. I actually agree that it isn't so much sadistic as interesting. Creative actually. However, I do think that the notion of a benevolent God is rather silly.

There isn't really much evidence for it, no.

Snorri1234 wrote:Assuming "God", we're either something of a side-effect to his setting in motion of the universe or the forgotten petri-dish with hilarious experiments. If he exist, I'm pretty sure his love of us isn't really there.

Dude's busy...gotta lot of worlds to look over, don't you know.

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: And Woodruff, it isn't obvious to me.

Did my explanation help? Or hurt? Or neither?

I was referring to this and am not sure what explanation you are referring to.

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?

Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

Honest question: Why?

Because God is unprovable, thus faith is a REQUIREMENT. Unavoidable. It seems sort of obvious to me, to be honest.

Woodruff wrote:

Koesen wrote: Eyes don't need a guiding hand to be explained. Essentially, what you start with is a simple light sensitive cell that may have a completely different function than vision. There are, for example, very simple deep sea organisms that use them to feed. Since it's a useful mechanism for survival, evolution wil make it stronger, increasing the photosensitivity a little bit each generation. Eventually, you get an eye.

A computer model described in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, volume 256, shows you can go from a single photosensitive cell to something as complex as an eye in about 100,000 generations, and every new generation will be better than the one before.

100,000 generations may sound like a lot, but humans can reach that in two to three million years and organisms that reproduce faster don't even need that. Given the age of the earth, there has been time to redevelop the eye many times over, and there is no need for any guiding hand other than the principle of survival of the fittest.

I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Why disagree? Most people who use the complexity of the eye as proof or at least an indication of a guiding hand, tend to think along the lines of "take an eye, remove the retina and you've got nothing." (I am aware that you did not say this with so many words, so if you're thinking along different lines, let me know)

But that's not how it went. What you have, is a light sensitive organ that gets more light sensitive as it evolves, and all of the interim steps to improve its light sensitivity are improvements.

I will concede that it's quite possible that the eye has stopped evolving at some point, because with today's easy ways to correct most eyesight problems, it probably isn't anything like the survival factor it used to be anymore. In that case, new generations no longer improve it. Note that each individual improvement is likely to be very subtle.

But I do maintain that all evolutionary changes to the eye as it developped were improvements at the time (though it's true that what worked really well a million years ago may be useless today. But in their own environment, they were improvements.

The key conclusion to be drawn from models like the one I described, is that they show that even if you start with something as simple as a cell and you add no more than the possibility of very gradual change over time, in the long run huge complexity can occur. The guiding hand simply is not necessary. Granted, you can't prove it was never there, but it adds nothing to the explanation.

But God is a personal entity with traits and the like. He is someone, not just something.

Says who?

natty_dread wrote:

But God is a personal entity with traits and the like. He is someone, not just something.

Says who?

Says every believer.


And honestly, it's the only usefull definition of God. You can call some abstract universal force "God" but that's pointless because you're stuck with a useless thing that is unneccesary.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Assuming "God", we're either something of a side-effect to his setting in motion of the universe or the forgotten petri-dish with hilarious experiments. If he exist, I'm pretty sure his love of us isn't really there.

Dude's busy...gotta lot of worlds to look over, don't you know.

If he's too busy to get around to fixing all details all the time, he's not almighty (and possibly not omniscient either). And if he has a lot of worlds to look over, it's hard to believe we are the crown on his creation.

I know, or at least assume, that your reply was a joke, but I wanted to make the point anyway, because I've seen similar arguments popping up in serious contexts.

Snorri1234 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

But God is a personal entity with traits and the like. He is someone, not just something.

Says who?

Says every believer.


And honestly, it's the only usefull definition of God. You can call some abstract universal force "God" but that's pointless because you're stuck with a useless thing that is unneccesary.

Your logic is flawed.

There are many religious believers who believe in a non-personal god. I personally have no opinion about the existence or non-existence of "god" or a similar phenomenon. I just know that if there is one it is hardly likely to have a "personality" in human terms. It's even less likely to be some white-bearded guy in a robe sitting on a cloud with a guy who died 2000 years ago sitting next to him or giving him a back massage.

The concept of personality arises from the concept of ego. The ego is a construct of personality, which is built to define personality. It's main function is to provide a view of "self" as opposed to the view of "everyone else". It is a limiting concept, one which is necessary to humans, since one cannot function without an ego or a personality.

However, if there is a being / entity which is omnipotent & omniscient, controls and created the universe, it is reasonable to assume that for such an entity an abstract construct like an "ego" or "personality" would be meaningless. Why would a being that was infinitely greater and more intelligent than all other beings, literally the being that knows everything about everything, need to define it's own personality? Why would it need to set boundaries between itself and others, since there are no such boundaries for an entity which knows everything about the universe?

If there indeed is such a thing as "god", I don't believe it would need such concepts as "personality" or "self" or maybe even "awareness" in the traditional sense, which are purely subjective. The whole concept of subjectivity becomes meaningless when you are omniscient.

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: And Woodruff, it isn't obvious to me.

Did my explanation help? Or hurt? Or neither?

I was referring to this and am not sure what explanation you are referring to.

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote: Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.

Because you quite simply cannot get to God without faith. Any discussion of God that doesn't include faith is useless.

Honest question: Why?

Because God is unprovable, thus faith is a REQUIREMENT. Unavoidable. It seems sort of obvious to me, to be honest.

Hmm...that's what I was referring to...this was my explanation. Ok...let's start from the beginning. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of God is unprovable?

Koesen wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Koesen wrote: Eyes don't need a guiding hand to be explained. Essentially, what you start with is a simple light sensitive cell that may have a completely different function than vision. There are, for example, very simple deep sea organisms that use them to feed. Since it's a useful mechanism for survival, evolution wil make it stronger, increasing the photosensitivity a little bit each generation. Eventually, you get an eye.

A computer model described in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, volume 256, shows you can go from a single photosensitive cell to something as complex as an eye in about 100,000 generations, and every new generation will be better than the one before.

100,000 generations may sound like a lot, but humans can reach that in two to three million years and organisms that reproduce faster don't even need that. Given the age of the earth, there has been time to redevelop the eye many times over, and there is no need for any guiding hand other than the principle of survival of the fittest.

I understand all of that, though I would heartily disagree with the presumption that "every new generation will be better than the one before", because that's simply not going to hold true. My basic point is that the eye is complex enough that it does cause me to pause on the subject and consider the possibility of a guiding hand.

Why disagree?

Because in evolution, every generation DOESN'T improve over the one before. That's simply not how it works.

As well, everything you've described regarding evolution can be 100% true and STILL just be the tool that God used to guide creation.

Koesen wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Assuming "God", we're either something of a side-effect to his setting in motion of the universe or the forgotten petri-dish with hilarious experiments. If he exist, I'm pretty sure his love of us isn't really there.

Dude's busy...gotta lot of worlds to look over, don't you know.

If he's too busy to get around to fixing all details all the time, he's not almighty (and possibly not omniscient either). And if he has a lot of worlds to look over, it's hard to believe we are the crown on his creation.

I know, or at least assume, that your reply was a joke, but I wanted to make the point anyway, because I've seen similar arguments popping up in serious contexts.

<slapping my forehead and sighing>

I guess the reason why I find God important is because I feel humans have an obligation to honor their creator. We almost invariably honor our parents and our government to some extent. Whomever or whatever created us is undoubtedly worthy of recognition or praise... even if it's just a scientist in a lab coat in some higher dimension... in fact I would guess this notion is the historical basis behind religion altogether. And yeah it can be abused by leaders here on Earth but that's totally missing the point.

natty_dread wrote: There are many religious believers who believe in a non-personal god.
I personally have no opinion about the existence or non-existence of "god" or a similar phenomenon. I just know that if there is one it is hardly likely to have a "personality" in human terms. It's even less likely to be some white-bearded guy in a robe sitting on a cloud with a guy who died 2000 years ago sitting next to him or giving him a back massage.

The concept of personality arises from the concept of ego. The ego is a construct of personality, which is built to define personality. It's main function is to provide a view of "self" as opposed to the view of "everyone else". It is a limiting concept, one which is necessary to humans, since one cannot function without an ego or a personality.

However, if there is a being / entity which is omnipotent & omniscient, controls and created the universe, it is reasonable to assume that for such an entity an abstract construct like an "ego" or "personality" would be meaningless. Why would a being that was infinitely greater and more intelligent than all other beings, literally the being that knows everything about everything, need to define it's own personality? Why would it need to set boundaries between itself and others, since there are no such boundaries for an entity which knows everything about the universe?

If there indeed is such a thing as "god", I don't believe it would need such concepts as "personality" or "self" or maybe even "awareness" in the traditional sense, which are purely subjective. The whole concept of subjectivity becomes meaningless when you are omniscient.

Then what point is there in calling it "god"? We don't call the forces of nature God, even though they control the universe, are omnipresent and virtually omnipotent. If this God is purely a force and not a being, then why call it God?

Why would a being that was infinitely greater and more intelligent than all other beings, literally the being that knows everything about everything, need to define it's own personality?

If it has intelligence and knows, it has a personality. Not a personality in the sense that it has a favourite type of pudding, but a personality in the sense that it is seperate from others. Being more intelligent than anything else can only be the case if you're seperate from others. If you're not seperate from the universe and people, you're simply a force of nature in the broadest sense.

john9blue wrote:I guess the reason why I find God important is because I feel humans have an obligation to honor their creator. We almost invariably honor our parents and our government to some extent. Whomever or whatever created us is undoubtedly worthy of recognition or praise... even if it's just a scientist in a lab coat in some higher dimension..

That's.....nonsensical. Even if we assume the creator is a being and not simply a force, it's silly to worship and honor it if it does not care for us.

Woodruff wrote:

Woodruff and MeDeFe wrote:Lots of stuff.

Hmm...that's what I was referring to...this was my explanation. Ok...let's start from the beginning. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of God is unprovable?

I assume you mean "the existence of God".

In either case that entirely depends on your definition of god.

john9blue wrote:I guess the reason why I find God important is because I feel humans have an obligation to honor their creator. We almost invariably honor our parents and our government to some extent. Whomever or whatever created us is undoubtedly worthy of recognition or praise... even if it's just a scientist in a lab coat in some higher dimension... in fact I would guess this notion is the historical basis behind religion altogether. And yeah it can be abused by leaders here on Earth but that's totally missing the point.

My guess that scientist in a lab coat is named Slartybartfast and he also made the fjords.

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Woodruff and MeDeFe wrote:Lots of stuff.

Hmm...that's what I was referring to...this was my explanation. Ok...let's start from the beginning. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of God is unprovable?

I assume you mean "the existence of God".

Hmm...I guess in my use of the term, they mean the same thing. But sure...existence.

MeDeFe wrote:In either case that entirely depends on your definition of god.

Great...prove that God exists.

notyou2 wrote:

john9blue wrote:I guess the reason why I find God important is because I feel humans have an obligation to honor their creator. We almost invariably honor our parents and our government to some extent. Whomever or whatever created us is undoubtedly worthy of recognition or praise... even if it's just a scientist in a lab coat in some higher dimension... in fact I would guess this notion is the historical basis behind religion altogether. And yeah it can be abused by leaders here on Earth but that's totally missing the point.

My guess that scientist in a lab coat is named Slartybartfast and he also made the fjords.

Meep!

Woodruff wrote: Great...prove that God exists.

Which particular God are you refering to?

Zeus? Yahweh? Odin?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Great...prove that God exists.

Which particular God are you refering to?

Zeus? Yahweh? Odin?

Irrelevant question, as I don't need to specify, because the requirement applies to any and all of them.

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Great...prove that God exists.

Which particular God are you refering to?

Zeus? Yahweh? Odin?

Irrelevant question, as I don't need to specify, because the requirement applies to any and all of them.

Allright, but does disproving specific parts of one god's legends disprove the whole god?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Woodruff wrote: Great...prove that God exists.

Which particular God are you refering to?

Zeus? Yahweh? Odin?

Irrelevant question, as I don't need to specify, because the requirement applies to any and all of them.

Allright, but does disproving specific parts of one god's legends disprove the whole god?

Not logically, no. It merely disproves that particular legend.

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Woodruff and MeDeFe wrote:Lots of stuff.

Hmm...that's what I was referring to...this was my explanation. Ok...let's start from the beginning. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of God is unprovable?

I assume you mean "the existence of God".

Hmm...I guess in my use of the term, they mean the same thing. But sure...existence.

MeDeFe wrote:In either case that entirely depends on your definition of god.

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

I think it is safe to assume that with such a basic definition, god does indeed exist since god could be virtually anything that existed at the beginning of the universe.



Defining god as some principle or force rather than as somehing sentient is quite similar. For example: God = Existence
This is quite unproblematic, though it does make praying to god and asking for favours seem rather silly.



Now, if you go and add a lot of other attributes it may be a bit harder to prove god's existence, or the attributes may even render god logically impossible if they contradict each other. If you don't want a creator-god, a god that is an individual is actually rather likely since god then is merely "a very powerful being" which would apply to, for example, some extraterrestrials that have a highly advanced technology. Proving that sort of deity would merely be a matter of encountering them.

Long story short: I need to know what I'm working with. If you define god in such a way that god cannot be reached by rational thought and that faith is necessary, well, then that god can only be reached through faith. If you define god otherwise, that god may indeed be reachable through rational thought or empirical evidence.

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Woodruff and MeDeFe wrote:Lots of stuff.

Hmm...that's what I was referring to...this was my explanation. Ok...let's start from the beginning. Do you agree or disagree that the presence of God is unprovable?

I assume you mean "the existence of God".

Hmm...I guess in my use of the term, they mean the same thing. But sure...existence.

MeDeFe wrote:In either case that entirely depends on your definition of god.

Great...prove that God exists.

Definition: God = Some thing that was at the beginning of the universe

I think it is safe to assume that with such a basic definition, god does indeed exist since god could be virtually anything that existed at the beginning of the universe.



Defining god as some principle or force rather than as somehing sentient is quite similar. For example: God = Existence
This is quite unproblematic, though it does make praying to god and asking for favours seem rather silly.

It makes calling him "God" problematic. If "He" is nothing more than a force in nature then why even bother calling him God?

That's why I need to know what I'm working with.