They really should teach Moral Philosophy 101 early on in schooling, rather than leaving it as an optional course to take in college or university. Everybody needs to be taught the basics of moral THINKING, as opposed to just following “rules”.

We teach kids some of this, early on: Don’t steal another kid’s toy, but the WHY we teach them is really important to raising a truly moral person (or at least a person AWARE of what can make one truly moral). Like in this example, you must teach the child WHY they shouldn’t steal the other kid’s toy. We teach basic logic to the kid “You would not like it if someone stole a toy from you.”

But what scares me is those people teaching that kid that the reason they shouldn’t steal is because it breaks a commandment from God, and they will be punished by going to hell. You get the same results, but what a mind-f### to that kid, raising them to be moral-from-fear, rather than moral-from-respect. In my opinion, the God-fearing person is not virtuous at all. They are just avoiding breaking laws out of fear. A truly virtuous person avoids them because they truly believe them to be wrong in the philosophical sense.

Moral philosophy provides for much deeper moral values than just following the 10 commandments.

I understand where you’re coming from. Everybody has a right to their faith.

Since I am an atheist I had to form my own moral system. I was brought up a Christian and had no reason to change my moral values. In fact after I became an atheist, many years ago, I also decided to become a vegetarian because I don’t even like the idea that animals have to die so that I can live.

I’m also pro-religion or any version of morality that has the golden rule as one its mottos. I also don’t talk about my faith unless I’m asked and then it’s usually a diplomatic answer unless I think that I know who I’m talking to. If they sincerely want to know, it’s usually a simple answer, that I am an atheist or if I think that they might be shocked I might say that I don’t know, but that I believe in the “good teachings” of Christianity.

The reason that we were discussing science matters is because the topic above is an interview where there was a discussion of “fine-tuning the Universe for life to the idea (theories) that there are multiple Universes, and how we can look for evidence of them”. Nobody was talking specifically about their belief systems other than brief comments; the crux of both discussions was scientific theory.

respectfully forrest

Without you interpretation it means nothing.

Your interpretation…is your individual or collective Faith that it is one way or the other.

Prove love. So many ideas of what it is or not…is it a feeling or a behavior? Maybe both?

Everything you argue about is on one level of abstraction…a level you think you know…but don’t have a clue.

7 +/- 2 bits of information for the conscious mind at one time…2-4 million can be taken in by the unconscious ( ? )…that leaves close to infinity.

And you in your arrogance claim that in you 5- 9 bits of information that God does not exist? Now this is funny!

Kinda like ants in the Brazilian Jungle proving the non existence of Man, cars…maybe snow.

You look for God where he doesn’t exist… within your doubt. Yeah i said “He”

To me here is the bottom line: You are lucky some people believe in God and don’t convert to your secular Religion of non-belief ( Faith- Against)

Lets say you can prove to me there is no God. At that moment i slit your throat. Why? because i can…no consequences…and because you pissed me off and took away the one belief system that keeps me from my base instinct…to kill people who piss me off.
I have known some people who have taken many a life who stopped because of a New belief in a God.
I have known people who stopped believing and who took lives.

Now this is not to say this is the norm…but i think there are enough people who would seek to rule the world with their rules if they knew there was no God.
I think there have been some people in recent history who sought out to do just that. Then they kill all the intellectuals.

Ya know who stopped them? God fearing people! People who were willing to give their lives for your freedom because they believed in a God who would give them another.
Now my guess is that without those people having those beliefs…there would be a lot of people just like you who would not do a thing because they value their 1 life too much.
And those bad guys ( but are they really bad in your world…because there really isn’t good bad…right wrong…at least to the victor ) those bad guys would have been running things their way right now.

As much as you may not like the Christian Faith or God fearing people…they are the reason you are here and can say what you say in a public place. All the Bad things they can be accused of throughout history pales in comparison to all the good they have brought upon you.

You cannot prove there is no God anymore than i can prove there is objectively …..but if you add the element of the subjective then i think that there is no doubt that you are living in a much safer and kinder world that if there wasn’t the subjective Faith in God.

Sure there are wars that come out of religion…but you are discounting all the God – Fearing people and what they would or might be like without Faith.

Guys i am telling you that you should be very happy about people of Faith and encourage it be taught in any University….Because i can tell you the wars would be much more severe and vicious.

In a world without God there doesn’t have to be any rules except those imposed by the meanest baddest winner.

All your theories and logic go out the window when the next Hitler gets Power and no one dares face him because they value their one life evolved from sludge too much.

There is safety in numbers …well at least certain numbers of people.

Law comes from something bigger and badder than the individual. It will either come down from God with Balance…or with violence from the next Stalin.

The less God-Fearing people around increases exponentially the odds of one nasty MF ruling this world sometime in the near future.

Now i may not have argued this point the best i could have….but i think you get my point.

And if all are intellectually honest….we may never know….but if it makes one persons existence on this big ball easier to believe and have Faith in God…and they are nicer for it …then let them be.

Why are your values more important than theirs? And if some Christian pisses you off with their proselytizing…just let it go….because you know better anyways…and if you prove to them there is no God and piss them off…it may be the one guy or gal that slits your throat.

They do use the saying about “Killing the Messenger” for nothing

G’Day

Joshua

Concerning radio active half-lives: as I said above, I don’t believe that all larger nuclei assemble in exactly the same manner. These subtle differences may determine how long the nucleus will stay together. In physics they would say that this factor–i.e. the decay rate– is determined be the Weak atomic force. In plain language when a nucleus contain equal numbers of both neutrons and protons it is almost always stable and will not decay or radiate neutrons. An example would be carbon 12, six neutrons and six protons. All non-standard forms are called isotopes, such as C13 & C14 both of these will eventually radiate one or two neutrons respectively eventually most all will be carbon 12.

Standard theory would hold that this is just a matter of probability which one will decay first and when. I think it’s a matter of how those extra neutrons are compacted into the nucleus, some being more vulnerable to disconnect than others. An additional influence could be the external field bombardments by outside forces such as neutron radiated from another decaying atom within the same specimen of material. Other seemingly more remote causes would be cosmic rays such as alpha particles (helium nuclei) gamma rays, x-rays, neutrinos, etc. Each of these would have a very unlikely probability, but given enough time the odds go up. Which atom they would hit and cause a loss of one or two neutrons would seem to be just the luck-of-the draw.

The quantum Mechanics approach to particle reactions is a statistical one of probabilities. I don’t believe nature works that way– as their BS interpretations claim.

It’s just that in the quantum world there are many events that we can not or do not observe. To determine the likelihood of a particular event statistics are used, I believe, in the guise of Quantum Mechanics.
Some of these interactions can very closely be predicted, some determined by equations that were based upon a long history of plotting/ graphing a sequence of events. Once a reliable graph is developed, an equation can be developed to match it. Granted all of their statistics are not in the form of the standard probability curve i.e. the Bell Curve, although they do represent other curves and graphable plottings, it still is a matter of developing statistical methods to determine probabilities for particular events/ particle interactions. Some of QM is based upon rules and “understandings” based upon a long history of observed events. I think at some future time they will have the tools to concentrate more on possible contributing factors to variability and based upon this new data/ information, they will be able to refine there predictive abilities. And I think the only spooky part of quantum mechanics is that most of the people working in the field accept the Quantum Theory BS interpretations of “what’s happening”.

all for now, your friend forrest

Yes, of course. This is where the “from nothing” and “from itself” issues come in. An object that appears from nothing has no precedent causes, and neither does an object which appears from itself, although the former (from nothing) at least avoids the problem of reciprocating causality (in order for it to come into existence, it must exist, which requires it to come into existence, for which it must exist, OMGWTFBBQ TURTLES!!1!one).

I understand it, but before making the connection between things popping out of nothing and other events which appear to be, in detail, entirely a matter of statistics, it seemed like a Wrong Answer about on par with theism in science. As far as we know about radioactive elements, we know that in so many years half of the atoms in a given element will decay (its half-life), but we have no means to predict which atoms will decay, or when they will decay. You can’t have an atom decay and have it still be the same element by definition, and I have seen Zeno’s Paradox of the Tortoise and the Hare applied with a straight face to atomic radiation: because all we have are half-lives, if we have a sample of a radioactive element then it will half-life, and half-life, and half-life, and so on and so on, until there’s only one atom left, which will have survived many, many half-lives and, because decay is a statistical function based on ‘random rolls,’ if it gets a really lucky streak it could last forever. This seems patently absurd. While I agree that our lack of predictive capability perhaps stems from incompleteness in the scientific model, the fact that the half-life law is extremely effective in modeling the macroscopic action of radioactive materials and in smaller sample sizes there is no statistically notable trends give me pause. That’s part of the reason the original Schroedinger’s Cat thought experiment had a vial containing an atom of a short half-life radioactive substance in it; because the moment atoms decay seem to be a function of random statistics, one cannot predict with certainty when or even if it decayed.

Then there’s the problem with quantum foam, in which allows particles and energy to pop into existence and annihilate. This hasn’t been observed (just like Hawking radiation) but the math allows it, and in this day and age, that seems to be the important thing. No particular particle-antiparticle duality has any ’cause,’ and it again comes up as driven purely by statistical probability.

Of course, the statistical uncertainties concerning quantum mechanics generally don’t have to deal with where they are (i.e. the superposition fallacy of the observer effect) but rather in how they can be measured… now, the question is, does that measurement uncertainty apply to how particles react or not (is the randomness intrinsic or is it just a matter of the limitations of our capability to observe)? If it’s intrinsic, then a lot of things can hide in statistical fuzziness, identical causes do not necessarily lead to identical effects all the time and the statistical error generated gives ‘what gives rise to emergent systems’ a good place to hide. If it’s not intrinsic, then we still live in the clockwork orange universe of Laplace, only we can’t ever measure the clockwork well enough even as an ideal to ever have full predictive capability for all time.

I don’t know about you, but the idea of being a marionette being unable to see my own strings really grinds my gears (and no, that’s not me in the link, but he’s got a point).

Oh yeah, I’ve got questions. And NOW I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE (on the interblags). MUAH HA HA HAH HAH. That’s a way of saying “expect an e-mail from the-dot-centipede at omg teh GMAAAIIILLLLL!

The most important point I believe you’re missing to some extent: if the universe is finite the first entity could not possibly have a cause. This would violate the logical meaning of the word finite. The first entity has “always” existed for all time, but time has existed only for a finite interval. This may seem like semantics but it’s not. The word “always” in this case also defines only that same finite interval, always meaning “for the entire existence of time”. Nothing could possibly have existed before it if we are using the same definition of the word finite. From Google I get— FINITE:: “existing or enduring for a limited time only”. This is the meaning that I am using.

This would mean again that it would be—– logically impossible—— for something to have existed before the “beginning”, if we are using this same definition—there would have been nothing “existing or enduring” before that specified time limit. I whole heartedly agree with the proposition that something can/ does not come from nothing.

To me the idea of the beginning entity not having potential energy would be counter-intuitive, since all matter today has potential energy within it that causes it to spin relative to its field—you could say that all matter has four conventional dimensions to it. The three Cartesian measurements and the one dimension of time, time meaning nothing more than an interval of change which is collectively perpetuated by its own self-contained potential energy—as well as its energy of relative motion. I agree that a spinning entity would have no meaning if it were the only entity. But like the big bang premise, the entity would have had internal forces that would perpetuate its change and therefore time.

Since I don’t believe in the BB theory or its premise, a particle could have had many types of internal potential energy/ force(s) that would perpetuate change—and therefore the beginning of time. The simplest that I can think of is a uniplasm wound up like a watch spring—tick tock time has started. In this example its windings would need the pendulum effect. After it unwound, its momentum would drive its rewinding. This only a brief example, if you want the whole story, ask me. This would not just apply to the beginning entity, it would be exactly the same potential that all matter has today and for all times since the beginning, no difference whatsoever.

As far as the two “identical atoms” not decaying at the same rate, I would propose that they are only identical as far as we can tell. I also enjoy philosophy which I consider only different perspectives (no truths involved)– so for me it could be only pleasant conversation rather than debate– but of course that’s just my philosophy.

respectfully, forrest

questions? forrest_forrest@net zero.net

All for now, forrest

Okay, things are becoming a bit clearer now. I was wondering if you were meaning a sort of potential energy, but various potentials (electrical, gravitational, so on and so forth) only exist in relation to other objects. An object sitting at the floor has zero potential energy relative to the floor but quite a bit of potential energy relative to the center of the earth. Let’s say it’s more of a philosophical potential, which will cause us to understand it similarly. What you’re essentially saying is the finite start point was indeed its own cause, which is counterintuitive (even if it is factually true; likewise, everything could have perhaps come from nothing but we find that counterintuitive and don’t generally like that idea because of it).

As for universe(s), whether one wants to call this-current-reality the “universe” or however many chains of previous realities the “universe” is semantics. Given that I’m not a cosmologist and as far as I know the scientific consensus is in favor of Big Bang theory, and until very recently the Big Bang was considered in essence an information barrier (to wit we wouldn’t know what anything would be like, say, at any point t less than 0), I was saying “universe” as in “all that is in the current, observable reality.” That we disagree on the Big Bang will make things slightly more difficult, but hey, that just means it’ll also be more fun.

Let’s call the generation of any given “observable reality” an Event, to separate it from Big Bang thory. If the universe is cyclic, going from Event to Event, then one goes back to realities to realities to realities until one reaches reality #1, a universe (in your phraseology) of finite age (that our observable reality/my use of “universe” is of finite age is generally evident). Now, that initial universal particle has nothing that predates it, coming from nothing, and if it is its own prime mover, then it comes from itself. As I’ve said, both of these are possibly absolutely true, but they aren’t exactly something the human mind likes to comprehend because it ignores everything we know about causality.

I suppose that, in such a way, this train of thought is almost as unsatisfying as “where does God come from” in Christian theology. In both cases, one is left with three possibilities: it is infinite (turtles all the way down), it had no cause (ex nihilo), and it caused itself (the recursiveness of which boggles the mind). Of course, one could argue that both ex nihilo and recursive causality already have precedent in science–why one radioactive atom decays while another otherwise identical radioactive atom does not and quantum ‘foam’ for two examples–but if this is so, then nihil ex nihilo fit loses its teeth as a counterproof against much of anything, philosophically.

Centipede, you’re really on top of this stuff for a theist. Like I said above, I’ll try to avoid the jihadists and concentrate on the 72 virgin’s part. KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE PRIZE! —as long as they’re all at least almost 18. Under 18 isn’t legal in this country I’ve heard. I tend to travel a lot but that’s another story.

The definition for capacity that I’m using is the capacity, or potential energy to change”, the ability to perform or produce” it also indicates volume, such as the capacity of a milk container; another meaning of capacity is “the amount of substance contained” like filled to capacity. In those three meanings we have substance (which is matter), extension (which is space or “potential space”), and the last that I don’t think you fully grasped, i.e. It had/ has the characteristic of potential energy. Within and by itself it must change, its potential energy must become kinetic energy or it could not and would not exist (this would be the cause and beginnings of time). No outside forces are needed (or would exist) exist in this scenario, both time and space would have no meaning before the beginning of a finite universe. What would be the meaning of change or cause be?– if it came before the first change or cause– a complete contradiction in logic concerning the meaning of the word finite.

The word “before” itself is a contradiction if you use it in the context of “before” the beginning of a finite universe. If there was a before, or there was a cause, it would not be a finite universe, as in the definition of the universe that was discussed above with Mark. This is the same definition of the universe that I’m using—if he existed, this definition would also include god. If you ascribe to another meaning of the word universe, or if you believe in god or multiple universes then you’re maybe talking about an infinity of specific reality(s), when all facets are combined as one, which would not be a finite universe according to the above definition.

Consider, accordingly, that the particle itself was the prime mover!! This is exactly the same way that matter has always been. It always has had the intrinsic internal potential energy the causes it to spin within any field without a “mover” or external cause or force other than its internal character of potential energy which I have proposed is a required “dimension” concerning the nature of reality and matter.

Also the BB theory, I think, is just another one of a multitude of ill-conceived ideas in science today– that will eventually be dismissed within the next 10 years or less I hope, for a much simpler theory, like the one that I wrote myself — about 150 pages long.

all for now, respectfully, forrest

Then it would make a great christmas present for them!

Anyway.

It is indeed quite possible, in that twilight zone of t-equal-to-or-less-than-0 pre-universe where science can’t quite get to yet, that the singularity , outside of time and space (as it encompassed no space and time hadn’t happened yet) as it was, actually ended up being its own cause. If this is so, it’s not entirely a novel concept; it’s been posited before, by theologians, talking about their (Christian) God.

So perhaps I oversimplified. Turtles all the way down, something from nothing, or something from itself, all of which make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Even if an object has the capacity for having an effect, that effect does not necessarily come about unless the right cause comes about. Now, admittedly, we’re talking pre-spacetime here so causality as a matter of events through time causing effects could be problematic. Still, let’s agree that the time=0 singularity had the capacity to Big Bang (as clearly it did, as far as our current state of scientific understanding can illuminate). Now, with this capacity, either it Big Bangs or it doesn’t Big Bang. What event or property differentiates these two distinct and indeed mutually exclusive outcomes, essentially acting as a cause to the effect?

Let’s say the t=0 singularity Big Banged because its properties determined it to. Okay, what properties were those? How were those properties developed? Either those properties came from something prior, like some sort of Crunch, at which point we’re well on our way to turtles-all-the-way-down in terms of universes, or that the singularity simply was the way it was, and it has no cause, at which point we get something out of nothing, an effect (the singularity) without a cause.

Now, admittedly, this becomes an issue because we as humans have a very difficult time conceptualizing the concept of an effect having no cause, or something truly simply “being.” It is indeed quite possible, in that twilight zone of t=

Concerning your statement ——”it appears the universe had a definite beginning (and perhaps something before, but that remains to be seen). Either way, one gets turtles-all-the-way-down if it’s infinite or something-from-nothing if it’s not.”

This would be logically true if your next assertion were true –”due to the lack of a prime-moving force”– i.e. “something doesn’t come from nothing” is also my belief, therefore there would necessarily have been a “prime mover”, but not necessarily a god. All that would have been needed is that —if the universe is finite in time, space, and matter (which I believe it is) then the beginning entity (big or small would have no meaning) had to have the “dimension of potential” besides also having substance and extension— only these three characteristics are needed and nothing more to bring us to the present point in time. All three characteristics can be summed up into one word/ meaning: CAPACITY. No “f–qv0 39b b5i” Big Bang BS is needed either. See my second to the last comment/ reply above.

I also agree with you, about the interest in politics, religion, and sex– additionally as you have implied, I’ve seen for many others, psychological benefits to having faith– I feel certain that at least some of them would be worse off if they believed like I do.

Keep throwing me good pitches and I’ll try to hit em,

respectfully, forrest

Heh. Just because I speak seriously about the potential utility of rationally controlled irrational faith, doesn’t mean I can’t joke about it. Don’t mistake “serious” philosophical discussion for humorlessness. I know they say that in polite conversation one should avoid politics, religion, and sex, but the first two are things I really like talking about.

Of course, nihil ex nihilo fit is also used for an argument against atheism due to the lack of a prime-moving force, when it appears the universe had a definite beginning (and perhaps something before, but that remains to be seen). Either way, one gets turtles-all-the-way-down if it’s infinite or something-from-nothing if not. Also, either way, it doesn’t change how the universe is right now… which is what makes it fun to debate about. Other people talk sports, I like talking philosophy, and neither one is really extremely important.

As I’ve said before and will say again, the individual choice for a/theism is a personal one and, no matter what choice is made, for the person involved it will be the “right” one (or else they’d be something else!). It’s not so much which is better–feeling good or being true–because the potential truth of the matter is not interrogable without making assumptions. If one makes materialism the universal assumption, then of course atheism is “true.” If not, then it’s up for debate whether it’s Shiva or Jehova or invisible pink unicorns. In any case, those assumptions and their conclusions serve the purpose of making the person involved feel or, as you said, believe “true.”

Concerning Pascal’s Wager… it’s the last grasping attempt of a theist to convince atheists that they’re wrong and it’s almost patently silly. If a God as usually envisioned by Christians (like Pascal) exists, I’m pretty sure He wouldn’t take too kindly to rules lawyers and the difference between true belief and pragmatic belief would become really, really important. In my own theistic philosophy (you can’t call it a religion, because in my mind that would require some sort of ritual and pomp and circumstance) I figure that the Prime Mover doesn’t give a damn what people think concerning Its own existence and are more concerned that they treat each other well. Seems fairer to me, I think, and it makes me happy and doesn’t demand that everyone else believe the same things I do. I’m pragmatic enough to figure that, in lack of the potentiality of there ever being evidence for or against it, its truth value is unimportant compared to its psychological benefits.

I have respect for all beliefs/ faiths, also believe in the debatability of the famous question, “what is better, a religion that serves one and provides comfort and happiness, or one that is true (without any promises). As for me, I “believe” that I have chosen the latter.

The Romans had a great old Latin saying: : “nihil ex nihilo fit” literally meaning “out of nothing, nothing comes”. In this case meaning there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god or his handy work any more than there is verifiable evidence for The Centipede’s laughable pink unicorns, therefore both probably don’t exist. If you make a bet on the existence of god and win, you are going to heaven, if you make a bet against his existence and lose, you’re going to hell, if god exists and the stories of heaven and hell are real. I’m betting not, if I’m wrong I’m willing to pay with my immortal soul? —————
I think.

Jesus thought the same thing. When he was asked which commandment was the most important he replied:

“The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

It’s not a bad observation — this pretty well sums up most of the law in the Hebrew Scriptures. Everything else seems to somehow fall into either of these categories, and anything that doesn’t is (to me) pretty offensive anyway.

> The term “god” doesn’t really have any meaning without the personal baggage people bring to it.

> Dealing in intentionally non-falsifiables is a meaningless effort and does not lend itself to any method of being intelligible, so no real claims can be made about the supernatural, period.

I think we’re converging upon the same point from two different directions. I say it’s a matter of personal preference with, ideally, no importance beyond the individual; you say it’s not a universal–same thing. In terms of what it means to the individual making the statement, the decision to say “there is” or “there is not” is still an investment of emotion and credence to establish oneself in a position of knowledge, rather than a position of ignorance (“there may or may not be, I don’t and can’t know”). I thus consider those statements, in terms of their utility of defining a personal philosophy and self-perspective, equivalent.

> Wishful thinking is a poor reason to hold a belief.

I’d say wishful thinking, or at least the desire to put oneself into perspective with the entire universe and thus take comfort in it, is the only reason to hold a potentially irrational belief. It is a poor reason to think (as in “I think that…”) much less know beyond a doubt any rational statement interrogable by science and materialist logic, such as “global warming is/isn’t happening,” “humans are/aren’t responsible for X,” or “evolution is/isn’t the process that leads to speciesation.”

I can believe in a god, you can believe in no god. We both know that the supernatural appears to have no discernable effect on the natural and thus natural phenomena have natural causes and explanations. As long as our beliefs, no matter how they are rationally, bring us ourselves comfort and do not lead us to harm others either by word or deed, they are completely irrelevant outside of the personal context of our own skulls.

The term “god” doesn’t really have any meaning without the personal baggage people bring to it. Without defining a specific instance of “god” when discussing the subject, it’s more or less automatic equivocation. No one can make any claims on an undefined concept, so no particular position on gods can deal with a “maybe exists” entity. I identify as atheist because there exists nothing in practical existence to call a god (except Einstein’s god, which is merely the working of physics, and calling that “god” is merely a matter of preference and poetry). Dealing in intentionally non-falsifiables is a meaningless effort and does not lend itself to any method of being intelligible, so no real claims can be made about the supernatural, period. Wishful thinking is a poor reason to hold a belief.

I’ll deal with the morality stuff, later.

If the universe were infinite in matter it would have no beginning to explain. If it were created from zero point fluctuations/ field (zpf) then where did that come from? If it was created by a God, where did it come from? If there was no “primary cause” for these creation entities then the universe (which by my definition includes everything) would still be infinite and it would have no cause as there would always have been “something”.

If, however, the universe were finite, it would have had a limited number of changes, a limited number of cause and effect incidents. Its initial change/ cause, whether analog or digital, would have had not predecessor(s).

If I were to ask some people why the universe in Centipede’s words above, does not contain “pink unicorns”, flying purple people eaters (dating myself a bit) or other imaginary fantasies, I might be told “hey man you must be crazy, what kind of z005ierg have you been smoking, do you have any more. The answer man is simply —that s just not the way it is!!

Which also is the the “correct answer” to the above question, in that: “just nothing”, like the above fantacies, is not a possible state of reality…….. period.

As far as multiple universes are concerned—there’s a lot better things to waist your time thinking about, unless you believe in “wormholes”. And faith, I think for most people, is relatively harmless unless you believe in blowing yourself and others up as a convincing statement of your sincerity. But the “72 virgins” part is pretty cool, but it’d need a lot more than that; more than 72 for me please!!

After all, Santa knows where all the nauty girls live— and I’ve heard that he’s been making a list —and selling copies of it.

Not really. “Theism” is just any philosophical ideology with the positive statement of a supernatural organizer’s existence in it. It is an intentionally vague term (if I wished to be more specific, I would be).

> However, the term god is so vague and applies to so many differing entities that one cannot derive a generic concept to which “god” applies.

No argument. Abrahamic monoGods are distinctly different from Hindu aspectgods are distinctly different from Shinto kami animist ‘gods.’

> At best, you can determine whether certain definitions for god exist, if they make some empirically testable claims (which tends to be most of them).

Unless they are limited to supernatural objects with little to no detectable active influence on the universe right now. Besides deism and it’s derivatives, I’m not aware of anything that does so. I don’t deny in the least that ‘naturalistic’ godheads are doomed to be gods of the gaps; that’s why I don’t believe in any of those.

> As it stands, you can dismiss them all in a simple fashion. To make any claims about a phenomenon, you need to first demonstrate it exists.

That’s just it, to make claims about a phenomenon, as in a natural event. If these theoretical gods are solely supernatural entities with no natural influence (they don’t make clouds, they don’t make the tides go in and out, they don’t hold atoms together, etc.) then no materialistic claims about phenomena are being made and that entity is not interrogable by science.

> Someone’s gonna have to prove some kind of entities they call god(s) exist and show their work of how they’re deriving claims about the nature of such before there’s any reason to consider the currently existing theisms posited. Until that, the mere claim that god(s) may exist is so vague as to be unintelligible.

Unintelligible scientifically, yes. Science is a methodology that, by definition, allows only materialistically interrogable causes for materialistically interrogable effects. This is a wonderful methodology for pragmatically describing how things work without making assumptions of one godhead over another.

We’re arguing two different things entirely. Scientifically, the doctrine of parsimony rightfully claims that there’s no place for a supernatural god in a natural materialistic universe. No one except Galactus and his chosen cronies can manipulate the Power Cosmic ( ), so this is of course a perfectly reasonable standard to use in the pragmatic applications of science. Philosophically, however, is a different matter entirely. Because science is driven by pragmatism and as a methodology cannot interrogate supernatural things, it cannot actually comment on supernatural things that act in natural ways. Photons could be carried tiny elves with angel-wings popping out of their ears, but as long as they act in a naturalistic manner as photons do, it doesn’t matter in terms of methodology whether the elves are there or not. This is perhaps the absolute extreme of the ‘gods of the gaps’ doctrine in that all these posited supernatural things do not cause natural effects so much as they are natural effects. This is a purely philosophical statement with no real bearing on how things work scientifically, because again they can’t be empirically observed nor tested: using the photons-carrying elves for example, if photons are pretty much the most fundamental method of information transfer in the naturalistic universe, then they’re not going to be very useful in detecting the teeny little elves that carry them… and given that the teeny little elves always seem to carry them in predictable patterns, the elves, as far as science could care, could be dragons or toadstools or slinky fantasy art pinup girls or nothing at all and thus, as far as science really is concerned as a methodology, don’t exist. They’re unnecessary to explain what’s going on completely independently of their existence or lack of existence as philosophical objects.

Now, I go on and on about this, but why? Why should anyone believe in things which, pragmatically and materialistically, aren’t there?

Because it makes them feel better about where they are in the universe, for one. Western thought since the Enlightenment has shown remarkable flexibility when it comes to establishing magisteria for science and religion; a person can be more pious than a vicar and still be an extremely successful and good scientist with no conflict between his belief and his scientific work. These people usually view gods as philosophical entities more than anything else, and so they do not conflict with the purely physical realm. The average pious Jesuit scientist, for example, may pray to God for mental fortitude but he probably won’t pray to God for rain.

> The idea that the Ten Commandments or any such mere authoritarian assertions have any real utility for morality, especially in the modern age, is laughable. You’re selling humanity short by miles.

Oh, they have utility, by definition. They, to some degree, work. That they also, to a great degree, fail is because they do not in and of themselves provide a comprehensive and mature philosophical understanding of morality. In Aristotlean terms, assertions of what is right and what is wrong lead people to act good out of fear of pain and expectation of benefit, rather than acting good out of that simply being their nature, which is true virtue. However, that virtue needs to be taught and that teaching needs to start somewhere.

Not that I’m saying you are, but those systems that assume people are naturally morally good beyond the capability of mere animals are selling humanity much farther and better than it really is. We evolved from mammals, we [i]are[/i] mammals still; we are simply animals with an evolved capability to think and communicate in abstraction.

> Anyone whose good behavior is dependent on promised otherworldly rewards/punishments is a dangerously fickle individual and isn’t actually a morally good person. To encourage that kind of superficial moral reasoning is a very dangerous effort, indeed.

Define “morally good” and provide scientific evidence. Naw, just kidding.

I’m willing to encourage anything to make people better people than they really are. In the moral growth of children, first comes fear of punishment and then comes deeper understanding of the morality impressed upon them. If people need their sticks of Hell and their carrots of Heaven to start them on the path of morality, all well and good; they may not be acting out of any sort of philosophical maturity but at least they’re not acting like the base animals humans really are.

So, first of course one starts with basic reward-punishment to establish the mode of action, and then one uses the amazing human capability of abstract thought to teach the “why” behind the system. Unfortunately, many people will never take the effort, nor will the effort be made on them, to teach this deeper philosophical understanding of right action and wrong action. For these people, societies require some form of safety net to define in no uncertain terms right and wrong action and the rewards and punishments for each in order to maintain social order–hence laws–and while laws are imperfect, their generally autocratic mode of social ordering is necessary due to the inefficiencies in naturally imperfect human social systems. Thus, to encourage that sort of superficiality is, I think, absolutely necessary until it can be taken to the next level.

Furthermore, what few commandments that aren’t outdated are such basic ideas that crediting them to the Ten Commandments is ridiculous. It’s not like people ran around killing and stealing with impunity prior to the Ten Commandments. Such basic ideas have no doubt been in force in some measure before humans even had a language by which they could conceptualize “commandments.” The idea that the Ten Commandments or any such mere authoritarian assertions have any real utility for morality, especially in the modern age, is laughable. You’re selling humanity short by miles.

Anyone whose good behavior is dependent on promised otherworldly rewards/punishments is a dangerously fickle individual and isn’t actually a morally good person. To encourage that kind of superficial moral reasoning is a very dangerous effort, indeed.

While I don’t believe in god in any sense of the word I do believe that at this point in our evolutionary ladder, some people need something bigger then themselves to believe in. They need something to provide some sense of morality. They need an eternal punishment or an eternal reward in the next life to keep them walking the right path in this one.

The primary human instinct is geared towards self preservation. Thats why one of the first thing children learn is “I want” and “give me”. Even a child knows that when its hungry it needs to eat to no longer feel hungry so it will tell you in whatever way it can “give me more strained pees” and when you refuse or take to long the child will cry. This is why parents have to teach most children to share thier toys. This is why we have to teach our children right from wrong. A child doesn’t know not to steal until someone teaches them. If they learn early enough it never becomes a problem but it is not unheard of for a child to see a pack of gum in the store, pick it up and walk out with it just because they want it. If they haven’t been taught not to steal or how money works they just don’t see the problem. I think that humans are inherantly selfish, valuing only themselves or things that are important to them until they are taught the values which are acceptable in a “civilized society”.

This is where I think religion is important. Do you believe that it is ok to kill someone who looks at you wrong? Of course not. Why? I believe its the 6th commandmant. Thou shall not commit murder. Why can we not just take anything we want whenever we want it? that would be the 8th commandment. Thou shall not steal. Remember when you ate that candy bar and blamed it on your little brother? Well you broke the 9th commandment there. Thou shall not bare false witness.

In fact, none of the ten commandments is outdated even today because those are the things that have guided the moral development of societys all over the world for thousands of years. Regardless if god is real or not I still think society needs him.

Holding fast to faith to the point where it blinds us to the truth of cold hard scientific fact is of course a bad thing and while we are making progress by leaps and bounds I just don’t think the world is ready to lose the sense of moral guidance that religion provides. We cannot force people to forget god. Every year more and more people begin to realize what religion is and less and less people identify themselves as “religious” people. Given enough time I think that belief in the supernatural will fade away and disappear but for now I think we are stuck with it. All we can really do is fight the good fight, teach science and critical thinking and hope we make an impact on the children of today so they can teach the children of tomorrow.

I asked a Christian friend of mine just a few days ago “If god appeared to you personally and told you that no matter what you do in this life you would never be admitted to heaven or hell and there is nothing you could do about it. You can do anything you want with no reprecussions caused by the divine and you had to answer only to mankind for your actions. Would you continue to live your life as the bible states you should?” I told him to be completely honest with himself and not to answer out loud because honestly, the answer is only important to the person answering the question. He said without even hesitating: “Living a good christian lifestyle is hard. Without the reward of eternity in heaven with god it wouldn’t be worth it. So no I probably wouldn’t.”

I think that about says it all.

Better hide it from the other family members, though. I might just earn myself the dubious title of being the “black sheep” of the family. Needless to say, several of them own “The Purpose Driven Life”.

As for myself, I do try to use reason and logic whenever I can.
When that fails, I go with gut instinct.

I used to incorperate faith in my life very much. When I look back, I see it hasn’t done me a whole lot of good.