News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

Started by Gerry Rzeppa, December 17, 2014, 11:01:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSo you think that belief overrides reality.

Reality is not a fixed commodity. It is always changing. A reality without our kid Chuckles is a different reality than one with him; ask my wife! Beliefs don't override reality, they change reality, they create new realities. Edison's belief that he could find an appropriate material for a filament took us all from the candle and oil and gas lamp reality of times past to the electrically illuminated reality we know today.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMUtter fucking tosh Gerry. No amount of faith/belief/wishful-thinking is going to make gravity go away.

I never said that beliefs could "make gravity go away". I said that in the case of the Wright brothers, their belief in their theory of three-axis control allowed them to eventually overcome the negative effects of gravity on powered flight. Read their biographies: when they first started out, and whenever they got stuck and discouraged, it was their belief in their own future success that enabled them to press on toward the mark. Without that belief, they would not have done what they did.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMGo find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die.

Who do you think invented bungee jumping? hang gliding? the parachute? Somebody who believed he could jump off a building without harming himself, or a suicidal maniac?

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMAnd again your disingenuous word play, the only weapon in your delusional armoury, raises it's ugly head. Opinions don't change facts.

I never said that "opinions change facts." I said, opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMIdeas may lead to the discovery of new facts.

Yes. But not just the discovery of existing facts, but the creation of new an unanticipated facts as well. Our Chuckles, for example; a living, breathing fact that nobody -- not ever we -- could have predicted.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSimply substituting opinion for idea doesn't change the fact that a difference of opinion about that fact will change that fact.

Again, I'm not talking about changing existing facts. I'm talking about the creation of new facts, new realities.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMThe Wright brothers didn't 'wish' the Flyer into the air. Hard work, experimentation and development got that first flight into the air not religious bullshit, wishful thinking or superstition.

I disagree. In a very real way, they did "wish" their flyer into the air. It was their belief in their ideas and in their future success that fueled all that hard work, experimentation, and development.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMTo quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry.

Again, I have to disagree. It is belief in one's theories and ideas that motivates every investigative and creative effort. Watson and Crick, Edison, the Wright brothers, and Sharon and I all believed in what we were doing, and it was that belief that enabled us to persevere until the desired end was reached.

Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMI am getting seriously fucking pissed off with your unmitigated stupidity and delusional world view. This place isn't a platform for obfuscationist creationist preachers like you... If you carry on like this I will kick you out.

Curious response. I would have thought the rational response to be something more like, "If you carry on like this I will prove you wrong. I will demonstrate the folly of your thinking."

xSilverPhinx

You're using a whole lot of words and not saying very much, Gerry.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Tank

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSo you think that belief overrides reality.

Reality is not a fixed commodity. It is always changing. A reality without our kid Chuckles is a different reality than one with him; ask my wife! Beliefs don't override reality, they change reality, they create new realities. Edison's belief that he could find an appropriate material for a filament took us all from the candle and oil and gas lamp reality of times past to the electrically illuminated reality we know today.
Bullshit. We're not discussing change over time. We're discussing fact such as the effect of gravity. No amount of opinion will change gravity.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMUtter fucking tosh Gerry. No amount of faith/belief/wishful-thinking is going to make gravity go away.

I never said that beliefs could "make gravity go away". I said that in the case of the Wright brothers, their belief in their theory of three-axis control allowed them to eventually overcome the negative effects of gravity on powered flight. Read their biographies: when they first started out, and whenever they got stuck and discouraged, it was their belief in their own future success that enabled them to press on toward the mark. Without that belief, they would not have done what they did.
Bullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this ""Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMGo find a tall building and jump off it Gerry and just believe you won't die.

Who do you think invented bungee jumping? hang gliding? the parachute? Somebody who believed he could jump off a building without harming himself, or a suicidal maniac?
Bullshit Gerry, stop squirming like a worm and admit that opinions have no effect on the laws of nature.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMAnd again your disingenuous word play, the only weapon in your delusional armoury, raises it's ugly head. Opinions don't change facts.

I never said that "opinions change facts." I said, opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts.
I repeat. Bullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this ""Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMIdeas may lead to the discovery of new facts.

Yes. But not just the discovery of existing facts, but the creation of new an unanticipated facts as well. Our Chuckles, for example; a living, breathing fact that nobody -- not ever we -- could have predicted.
That's just life Gerry and nothing to do with opinions. You're just playing word games now. Loads of people have kids. To date 7 billion+.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMSimply substituting opinion for idea doesn't change the fact that a difference of opinion about that fact will change that fact.

Again, I'm not talking about changing existing facts. I'm talking about the creation of new facts, new realities.
Oh good you've realised you were wrong quoting, and thereby supporting, this ""Belief creates the actual fact."

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMThe Wright brothers didn't 'wish' the Flyer into the air. Hard work, experimentation and development got that first flight into the air not religious bullshit, wishful thinking or superstition.

I disagree. In a very real way, they did "wish" their flyer into the air. It was their belief in their ideas and in their future success that fueled all that hard work, experimentation, and development.
Bullshit. You're side stepping the point. Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMTo quote OG "No amount of belief makes something a fact." remember that Gerry.

Again, I have to disagree. It is belief in one's theories and ideas that motivates every investigative and creative effort. Watson and Crick, Edison, the Wright brothers, and Sharon and I all believed in what we were doing, and it was that belief that enabled us to persevere until the desired end was reached.
I agree that personal drive is vital in the progress of knowledge. Thank goodness for the scientists that continually discover what is really going on and and not mythologists who just guess.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 20, 2014, 10:31:08 AMI am getting seriously fucking pissed off with your unmitigated stupidity and delusional world view. This place isn't a platform for obfuscationist creationist preachers like you... If you carry on like this I will kick you out.

Curious response. I would have thought the rational response to be something more like, "If you carry on like this I will prove you wrong. I will demonstrate the folly of your thinking."
Nobody can prove you wrong because at the end of the day you have your 'Get out of jail free' card; God did it. Also I don't have the option of ignoring your tripe. I read, not always in great detail, every post here. Now I've seen your despicable debating techniques and frankly they are not welcome here. It's not what you say it's the way you say it and the way you squirm around direct questions from Davin and Recusant. If you continue do debate and obfuscate in the way you do you will no longer be welcome. If you want to behave the way you do go to http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ they love that sort of thing over there. We don't appreciate it here. Agreed?
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. We're not discussing change over time. We're discussing fact such as the effect of gravity. No amount of opinion will change gravity.

You're discussing facts such as the effect of gravity. I'm discussing facts such as Obama's presidency and the Wright brothers airplane and Edison's lightbulb and Sharon's little boy. I think I've been quite clear about that.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. You quoted, and thereby supported, this "Belief creates the actual fact." Do you still support that position? If not retract the statement and admit your error.

Yes, I still support that statement in the way William James intended it. It is obvious from his writings that he didn't mean (nor do I) that "belief creates actual facts magically out of nothing." He meant (as do I) that "belief creates actual facts (like presidents and airplanes and light bulbs and kids) by motivating people to do things they wouldn't do without that belief."

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit Gerry, stop squirming like a worm and admit that opinions have no effect on the laws of nature.

It depends on what you mean by "no effect". The laws of nature tell us how inanimate things behave when they're not interfered with; the laws of nature say nothing about when, where, why, and how we conscious beings might intentionally interfere. The laws of motion, for example, tell us how a billiard ball will roll on a perfectly flat table if pushed in a certain direction with a particular amount of force; they tell us nothing about a guy coming in midstream and shoving the ball a little to the left. Once the guy is done shoving, of course, the laws of motion can tell us what to expect from the ball from that point forward; but again, they can't tell us anything about what to expect from the guy. So it turns out that the guy's opinion (about whether the ball ought to be shoved or not) can have an effect on the laws of nature: not by changing the laws, but by to giving them new input to work with.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMThat's just life Gerry and nothing to do with opinions. You're just playing word games now. Loads of people have kids. To date 7 billion+.

I disagree. The opinions of people have a lot to do with their procreative realities: a couple who holds the opinion that contraception is a good idea, for example, will generally have fewer kids than others who hold the opposite opinion.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMBullshit. You're side stepping the point. Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature.

Agreed: Opinions/wishes/ideas/desires do not create/change the laws of nature. I never said they could. But I did say that opinions play a major role in the creation of new facts, facts like presidents and airplanes and light bulbs and kids. And I said just above that opinions can affect the laws of nature -- not by changing them -- but by giving them new input to deal with.

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMI agree that personal drive is vital in the progress of knowledge. Thank goodness for the scientists that continually discover what is really going on and and not mythologists who just guess.

Ah, but do you agree that "personal drive" is typically (if not always) motivated by belief in an idea or concept or theory or plan or design or an anticipated reward?

Quote from: Tank on December 21, 2014, 09:34:20 AMNobody can prove you wrong because at the end of the day you have your 'Get out of jail free' card; God did it.

"God did it" is obviously one philosophical alternative. "Nobody did it, it just always was" is another. "Everything popped out of nothing" is a third. There's no definitive answer at that level, for anyone. We all place our bets and take our chances.


Biggus Dickus

#49
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 21, 2014, 11:36:18 AM

"God did it" is obviously one philosophical alternative. "Nobody did it, it just always was" is another. "Everything popped out of nothing" is a third. There's no definitive answer at that level, for anyone. We all place our bets and take our chances.

Gerry what exactly do you mean by "We all place our bets and take our chances"? Place our bets on what, and take our chances with whom"?
I remember in another thread you mentioned that if life after death exists it would be a game changer, and this is the point or leap of faith I can't comprehend.

I've had this discussion before on different levels with other believers, and the starting point is always the same, with this notion that we can find some common ground between us that will allow our exploration of god or faith to similar conclusions.

For example you may convince me that it is highly likely that "Live After Death" is real or that a 'God 'or a "Creator' exists.

Good job, your argument was so convincing I am now a believer in both (Although I'm still curious if life after death applies to all life or only us humans), but my big question now and always has been so what.
Life after death? How nice, but doesn't change things here on earth at the moment does it, and I'm certainly not going to change how I live because of it.

Same with the belief in a god or a creator.


So fucking what.

A god created everything, how nice, but it doesn't change anything at all. In fact tomorrow if every living on person proclaimed that,  "Yes there is a creator of the universe" it wouldn't change a damn thing.
Same if tomorrow every person proclaimed (I have to admit this would be nice) "Yes, we all agree there is no god, no creator to the universe".
(However, we would have to agree that the world would be a far better place if the latter were to take place. Seriously. I mean these fucks here in Michigan would finally come to their senses and allow my sister and her partner to get married. Folks in the middle east would stop murdering and abusing people, and folks like Benny-fucking-Hinn would have to get a real job and stop stealing money from those who can least afford it)

We would all still have to wake up in the morning, and prepare ourselves for the day. For some this means a hot shower, and breakfast, maybe a quick glance at the news, check a few emails and then head off to work.
For others, such as my sister-in-law it means waking up and heading out for another grueling radiation treatment to combat the cancer she is fighting.
Or for others it means walking miles everyday just to have access to clean water, or to find food. Others are dealing with wars, death, destruction, and all the other putridness and horrors their fellow humans can lay upon them (We could really go into detail at this point couldn't we Gerry, examining the worst of our kind, and our ability to inflict unimaginable horrors onto each other)

The existence of a god, or life after death changes none of that does it. Not. One. Bit.

Life after death? Okay, tell you what I'll worry about that later. Same with the belief in a god.

It's at this point though that I'm expected to take the huge, unbelievable leap of fucking faith as someone like you says to me, "So Bruno, you have accepted the fact that a god exists, or at least accepted the notion that such a god is possible, so now it's time for you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior".

Really? Why Jesus? If I get to pick a god, or belief I'm not sure I want to go in this direction.
I mean let's face it the christians as a whole are simply way too wishy-washy with regards to their faith. I was raised catholic, I know.
Pope say's birth control is wrong, but 90% percent of catholic women use it. And the evangelical types are even worse as far as hypocrisy, proclaiming with one hand on a bible the sins and evilness of homosexuality, while with the other hand they are performing a reach around. (If they would even be so kind).

No if I'm gong to take this huge fucking leap of faith and throw my skepticism to the wind and believe in a god and/or religion I'm throwing in my lot with the Muslims (1.6 billion believers must know something we don't right?).
Look at ISIS, or Boko Haram. These folks aren't playing around, and are actually behaving just as god has instructed his people to behave in the past according to the old testament. (I'm talking about the killings, beheadings, the abduction of girls and women as wives or sexual slaves to be sold or abused as they see fit)
In fact if what I like best is the part about the 72 virgins, I mean as long as I accept this notion and have belief it will become real correct? How does that go,"Belief creates actual facts".

It's that type of thinking that has the world so fucked up Gerry.
"Some people just need a high-five. In the face. With a chair."

Recusant

#50
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHumor is acknowledged to exist in Smullyan's piece; it's considered a disorder.

In the story, belief in the thing called "Humor" is considered a disorder (in the psychiatrists' view) because it is assumed (by them) that Humor, itself, does not exist. I think that's quite clear in this passage: "In the psychoanalytic portions of the treatment the psychiatrist carefully explained to the patient how he had been living in a fantasy world, and how when he started facing reality he would at first find it very painful. And amazingly enough, after about the third treatment, the patient actually agreed that the psychiatrist was right! He said: 'I see now that you were absolutely right. I was indeed living in a state in which I constantly confused fantasy with reality, and I moreover believed in the existence of an entity called Humor. Yes, I actually believed it to be something real rather than a mere figment of my imagination. But now I see the light. I realize how in error I have been!' "

That is one theory about humor in Smullyan's piece. In the second paragraph, it's clear that humor is generally recognized to exist, and considered a disorder, as I said.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...there are many who at one time believed in the supernatural and had experiences which they once attributed to the supernatural, but who no longer believe. How do you account for that?

I would say that they now interpret their past and present experiences differently than they did earlier. Which happens to all of us, a lot. Every time we find ourselves saying, for example, "Oh, now I see what you're saying!" It seems that when we're dealing with the purely physical we can often pin down the facts: water boils at such-and-such a temperature at such-and-such pressure, etc. But when we get to things that are more complex (and thus more interesting to us), we find the "facts" can often be ambiguously interpreted. Does she love me? Should I take this new job? Is my conscience really telling me about absolute rights and wrongs, or is it just another appetite clamoring for satisfaction? Etc.

One of the primary reasons that people change their minds about the supernatural is that they've gained insight through learning more about what they once believed. The ambiguity which once protected their belief has been decreased. So having an open mind can work against belief in the supernatural, at least as much as it can lead to accepting the supernatural. Your original statement ignored that; you implied that an open mind was necessary for belief in the supernatural, which isn't always the case. Many people believe in the supernatural because they've been indoctrinated into that belief, and it's only by opening their minds that they learn facts which lead them to reject their former belief. What some people believe to be experiences of the supernatural may not actually be that at all, ambiguous interpretation being what it is.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMI'm not "demanding rational proofs and explanations," I'm asking for verifiable evidence.

What "verifiable evidence" would you accept as proof that God exists?

Evidence is what I've mentioned, not proof, as can be seen in the very sentence to which you're replying. Why do you continue to conflate the two?

There are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee. How about one from the Bible? Stop the sun in the sky, as YHVH supposedly did to give Joshua and his army more time to slaughter their enemies.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMCould you explain how analogy would be used as evidence?

All of the integral Calculus is essentially an argument by analogy -- no one has ever really seen the width of those infamous rectangles under a curve go to zero. In fact, every mathematical interpolation is an argument by analogy: we think we know the "shape" of a curve (though no one has ever seen all the points on any curve) and we use that assumed knowledge to approximate intermediate values on that curve.

OK, I can see that, if we view the field of mathematics as an analogy for the real world. However, if we view real world applications of mathematics as a direct description rather than an analogy, then it's not relevant.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AMA non-numeric example would be when a guy says to his wife, "I bet if we did what our parents did to make us, we could make a baby too." He's arguing by analogy, saying, in effect, "Because we are like our parents in ways X and Y, I bet we're like them in way Z as well." Argument by analogy is not the same thing as proof, of course. But then very few things, relatively speaking, are susceptible of proof. Especially those things that are most interesting and important to us. So we have to make do with the tools available to us.

I'll note again that you seem to have a problem differentiating between evidence and proof, which is strange, given your repeated insistence that you're a scientist. As for the above, the fellow talking to his wife is presenting evidence in the form of previous events. The analogy isn't the evidence, the previous event is. I think that rather than being evidence itself, analogy is a way of approaching and considering evidence. One can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMWhat other "less-than-mathematically-certain" things do you have in mind to be used as evidence?

Historical evidences, for example. Nothing in history is mathematically certain; and none of history can be repeated under exactly the same conditions, by definition. So historical matters are clearly a different kind of thing than, say, the boiling point of water, and must therefore be approached using different tools and techniques. Yet historical persons and events often play a major role in both our collective culture and in our individual decision-making.

That's a good reply, at least the part that I've quoted. However, if you're trying to slip in the same sort of approach that Ken Ham used in the recent debate, you should be more explicit. I have no comment on you and your wife using the story of Sarah giving birth to Isaac at the age of 90 as evidence for your family planning.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMAgain, if I can't verify what's being presented as evidence, what use is it?
See above. We couldn't scientifically verify, with repeatable and peer-reviewed experiments, that the story of Abraham and Sarah was true. But we could gather enough evidences of other kinds -- analogical, historical, testimonial, anecdotal, etc -- to make us believe in the story and, more importantly, to act on that belief. So in this case at least, the reality (the kid you see above) was, in great part, the result of a belief in an historical event based on non-empirical evidences. As William James put it in the quote I posted above, "Belief creates the actual fact." Or in more traditional terms, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not [yet] seen."

That isn't an answer to my question, it's a description of your approach, which appears to me to be based on your Christian faith. You're well aware by now that I don't consider your approach credible.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMHow does it even qualify as evidence at all?
Most of our lives are lived on such non-empirical evidences. Almost every decision we make is based on incomplete (and often at least partially faulty) evidence. It is necessary; there simply aren't the time and resources to ferret out all the facts before we're required to act. And, in cases like the one above -- where we're dealing with the past (Abraham and Sarah and Isaac) and the future (Chuckles) -- we couldn't get the necessary "facts" even with unlimited time and resources.

You've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIt seems to me you're saying that we should ignore our critical faculties and just buy into whatever is told to us by purveyors of the supernatural.
Absolutely not. But we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the empirical, either. There's more to reality than can be reached that way. And we can't limit ourselves to the strictly logical and empirical anyway. May as well jump in with both feet and swim best we can.

I have done, and through the use of my critical faculties I've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers.

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 20, 2014, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AMIf not, how do you propose we should distinguish between bullshit and genuine evidence...

My preferred method is experiment, as above. Not knowing, for sure, that a really old couple can (or should) have a baby -- there were many who told us it was impossible, and many more who told us it was inadvisable -- we studied the available information (historical, analogical, testimonial, anecdotal, and empirical from various fertility clinics), we prayed, we investigated and attempted all sorts of alternative methods (the usual, foster children, the usual, local adoption, the usual, overseas adoption, the usual, artificial insemination, the usual, surrogate mothers, the usual, in vitro fertilization) and found out, by actual experiment, that sometimes a really old couple can and should have a baby.

Quote from: Recusant on December 20, 2014, 05:06:20 AM...for the supernatural?

Most people find the supernatural more difficult to experiment with. Personally, I don't. As I've said in another thread, I'm persuaded that I'm a creature that has one foot in this universe, and the other somewhere else: that when I write this post, for example, I'm imposing my will on this universe, inserting events, so to speak, and causing this universe to be something it wouldn't otherwise be -- something that can't be explained by the fundamental forces of gravity and electromagnetism, etc, alone. If you'd like to get a taste of a similar experience, stare at your computer as you prepare to reply to this post and ask yourself, "What on earth could ever make the words I want to say appear on that screen?" Then type a little and stop to ask yourself, "Who just did that? How did that actually happen?" Surely, even if I'm utterly wrong and nothing supernatural is going on here, it's still something very, very mysterious...

I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMGerry what exactly do you mean by "We all place our bets and take our chances"? Place our bets on what, and take our chances with whom"?

We all act on uncertain information all day, every day. Can I trust that website with my credit card number? Is it safe to leave my car in this parking lot? Is this food poisonous? Etc. So we make our best guesses, place our bets, and take our chances. We do the same with what happens after death; since no one knows what happens, for sure, we have to make our best guesses, place our bets, and take our chances.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI remember in another thread you mentioned that if life after death exists it would be a game changer, and this is the point or leap of faith I can't comprehend.

Game 1: What you make of yourself in life really doesn't matter because when you die you cease to exist.
Game 2: What you make of yourself in life really does matter because you're stuck with it for all eternity.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI've had this discussion before on different levels with other believers, and the starting point is always the same, with this notion that we can find some common ground between us that will allow our exploration of god or faith to similar conclusions. For example you may convince me that it is highly likely that "Live After Death" is real or that a 'God 'or a "Creator' exists.  Good job, your argument was so convincing I am now a believer in both (Although I'm still curious if life after death applies to all life or only us humans), but my big question now and always has been so what. Life after death? How nice, but doesn't change things here on earth at the moment does it, and I'm certainly not going to change how I live because of it.

Then either you don't really believe, or you don't understand the ramifications of that belief. Life is about becoming: becoming something better (or worse) each day. If the process ends at death, it really doesn't matter what you become. But if you're stuck with what you've made of yourself forever, it does matter -- forever.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSame with the belief in a god or a creator. So fucking what.

The argument is essentially the same. If there is no Creator, then our lives belong to ourselves and we can do as we please. On the other hand, if there is a Creator, our lives belong to Him and are only "on loan" to us, so to speak; and we'll have to answer to Him for what we've made of them.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMA god created everything, how nice, but it doesn't change anything at all. In fact tomorrow if every living on person proclaimed that,  "Yes there is a creator of the universe" it wouldn't change a damn thing.

It would change a lot if (a) they really believed it, and (b) they understood the ramifications of that belief.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSame if tomorrow every person proclaimed (I have to admit this would be nice) "Yes, we all agree there is no god, no creator to the universe".

Again, it would change a lot if (a) they really believed it, and (b) they understood the ramifications of that belief.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PM(However, we would have to agree that the world would be a far better place if the latter were to take place.

I don't agree with that at all.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMSeriously. I mean these fucks here in Michigan would finally come to their senses and allow my sister and her partner to get married.

But would that be a good thing? What, in a world without God, can we even mean by "good"? The believer defines good as "what God intended (since He's the Creator and must know how things work best)"; take God out of that definition and there's not much left.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMFolks in the middle east would stop murdering and abusing people,

You're assuming they're murdering and abusing people because of their belief in Allah. You're mistaken. People like that would quickly find a different excuse for the same actions.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMand folks like Benny-fucking-Hinn would have to get a real job and stop stealing money from those who can least afford it)

Again, people like him would find some other way to separate the suckers from their money. P. T. Barnum did it for decades without ever mentioning religion.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMWe would all still have to wake up in the morning, and prepare ourselves for the day. For some this means a hot shower, and breakfast, maybe a quick glance at the news, check a few emails and then head off to work. For others, such as my sister-in-law it means waking up and heading out for another grueling radiation treatment to combat the cancer she is fighting. Or for others it means walking miles everyday just to have access to clean water, or to find food. Others are dealing with wars, death, destruction, and all the other putridness and horrors their fellow humans can lay upon them (We could really go into detail at this point couldn't we Gerry, examining the worst of our kind, and our ability to inflict unimaginable horrors onto each other)

It should be noted that most of the work in the world that is done to relieve the suffering of the less fortunate is done by religious people. See, for a practical example, here: http://www.samaritanspurse.org/. It should also be noted that most of the problems of the human race could easily be solved by the human race: there's plenty of food and water and money to go around. It's not God that gets in the way, it's other people. Find something wrong with your own neighborhood and try to fix it: I guarantee you won't get any flak from God; but I strongly suspect you'll get resistance from your neighbors before you're through.

But that's not the point I want to make here. I want to go back to what each of us is becoming. Back in the day we used to make software for quadriplegics, so we got to know quite a few of them. Joni Eareckson Tada is one of them (http://www.joniandfriends.org/ ); she broke her neck when she was 17 and has been a quad ever since. She herself would tell you, if she wasn't so modest, that today she is a better, warmer, kinder, more patient, and a much wiser person that she ever would have been had she not broken her neck. And that she looks forward to Heaven where those virtues will one day be united with a fully operational body. In other words, she would say that God wasn't so much interested in her short-term happiness on earth, but in her long term growth into a person fit for Heaven and a heavenly body. The Bible clearly says that everything in this world will be burnt up in the end; it is only the people who will endure. So it's only what we're becoming that really matters; the rest is like grade-school homework -- a means to an end that will be discarded when it has served its purpose.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMThe existence of a god, or life after death changes none of that does it. Not. One. Bit.

Sure it does. See above. If God exists and there is life after death, then it matters what we make of ourselves. If God doesn't exist, then nothing really matters.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMLife after death? Okay, tell you what I'll worry about that later. Same with the belief in a god.

You can't worry about what you're making of yourself later, because you're already doing the making right now. Later is too late.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMIt's at this point though that I'm expected to take the huge, unbelievable leap of fucking faith as someone like you says to me, "So Bruno, you have accepted the fact that a god exists, or at least accepted the notion that such a god is possible, so now it's time for you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior".

I wouldn't expect that. How could you possibly believe in somebody you don't yet know?

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMReally? Why Jesus? If I get to pick a god, or belief I'm not sure I want to go in this direction.

The short answer is this, as C. S. Lewis put it: "You can save yourself time by confining your attention to two systems: Hinduism and Christianity. I believe these are the two serious options for an adult mind. Materialism is a philosophy for boys. The purely moral systems like Stoicism and Confucianism are philosophies for aristocrats. Islam is only a Christian heresy, and Buddhism a Hindu heresy: both are simplifications inferior to the things simplified. As for the old Pagan religions, I think we could say that whatever was of value in them survives either in Hinduism or in Christianity or in both, and there only: they are the two systems which have come down, still alive, into the present without leaving the past behind." And between those two, by a swift stroke of Occam's razor, I'm left with Christianity.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMI mean let's face it the christians as a whole are simply way too wishy-washy with regards to their faith. I was raised catholic, I know.

I was raised Catholic myself. See my song "Scrambled Eggs and Toast" for my exit story (http://4praise.com/new/artists/31171.htm). I think we've come much closer to what was intended with our home churches. But no real Christian would ever ask anyone to believe in other christians! That's not the proper object of Christian faith.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMPope say's birth control is wrong, but 90% percent of catholic women use it. And the evangelical types are even worse as far as hypocrisy, proclaiming with one hand on a bible the sins and evilness of homosexuality, while with the other hand they are performing a reach around. (If they would even be so kind).

Again, Christianity and christians are two very different things.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMNo if I'm gong to take this huge fucking leap of faith and throw my skepticism to the wind and believe in a god and/or religion I'm throwing in my lot with the Muslims (1.6 billion believers must know something we don't right?). Look at ISIS, or Boko Haram. These folks aren't playing around, and are actually behaving just as god has instructed his people to behave in the past according to the old testament. (I'm talking about the killings, beheadings, the abduction of girls and women as wives or sexual slaves to be sold or abused as they see fit)
In fact if what I like best is the part about the 72 virgins, I mean as long as I accept this notion and have belief it will become real correct? How does that go,"Belief creates actual facts".

There is, of course, something admirable in those who are willing to die for their beliefs, whatever they may be. And it's a shame that so many Christians are hypocrites and weak. But it would be wrong to accept bad arithmetic just because the proponents of it were unusually passionate, and equally bad to reject good arithmetic just because the proponents of it rarely used it properly. People are flawed and everything they touch gets tainted. You need to focus on the essence of the thing, not any particular implementation.

Quote from: Bruno on December 21, 2014, 06:02:52 PMIt's that type of thinking that has the world so fucked up Gerry.

If you're looking for something that will fix the world, don't look to Christianity; that's not what it's about. Christianity is about fixing individual people; then the world gets burnt up; then a new world is created. This world was written off long ago.

Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMOne of the primary reasons that people change their minds about the supernatural is that they've gained insight through learning more about what they once believed. The ambiguity which once protected their belief has been decreased. So having an open mind can work against belief in the supernatural, at least as much as it can lead to accepting the supernatural.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMMany people believe in the supernatural because they've been indoctrinated into that belief, and it's only by opening their minds that they learn facts which lead them to reject their former belief.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMWhat some people believe to be experiences of the supernatural may not actually be that at all, ambiguous interpretation being what it is.

Agreed.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMThere are many things that a deity could do that I would consider as evidence for its existence. Here's one rather famous one: Heal an amputee.

Curious you should bring that up. It reminds me of a story in a little book of "fables" I wrote many years ago, the main characters being a Master and his young Protege. Here's the relevant page:



I'm also reminded of a story where some people found the healing of someone like an amputee infuriating, rather than convincing: "[Jesus] said to the man [with the withered hand], Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him." Others, I'm sure, found the event inspiring; but I suspect they were leaning that way before the healing. The bottom line, I think, is found at the end of the parable in Luke 16:19-31: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Miracles have a very poor track record when it comes to convincing people.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMOne can produce hypotheses through the use of analogy, but then these hypotheses need to be tested to produce actual evidence.

Agreed. But sometimes such hypotheses cannot be directly tested, but are indirectly tested by accepting them as postulates, and seeing what kind of logical fruit they bear. And example of this kind of reasoning can be found in one of my posts from another thread which I've pasted here for convenience:

The beauty of the design paradigm is that it works the same through and through and has but a single difficulty. We dream up things and make them happen; God dreams up things and makes them happen. The only part that's difficult to imagine is that God isn't just a creator, He's a self-existent creator. So one difficulty (an adjective, "self-existent", that occurs just once in the paradigm); the rest is familiar territory.

The alternative paradigm is much more complicated. It postulates two altogether different kinds of creation: the kind we all know and do, and the kind that nature does. We dream up things (that are less than ourselves) and make them happen. Nature doesn't dream at all, and yet somehow makes things that are greater than what she had to work with in the first place. So in this paradigm we've got at least two difficulties: creation without anyone dreaming up anything; and greater things inexplicably emerging from lesser things. And those difficulties are not isolated: they permeate the whole of nature from end to end and from the beginning to the indeterminate future. Well, except in us. We somehow emerged from that unfamiliar system and decided to work in the opposite way all the time.


Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMYou've dodged the issue here. We're talking about the supernatural, not "most of our lives." The issue is that the supposed evidence for the supernatural is not verifiable, and given that, I question whether it can even be considered evidence. It seems to me that you're basically saying it's a waste of time to consider this question, and it's too hard to even try.

I'm saying that believers approach the supernatural the same way they approach the rest of their lives: they believe, then act on those beliefs. For example, I believe (but am not certain) that writing this post is a worthwhile endeavor; but since I believe it is, I take the time and effort to do it. I also believe (but am not certain) that I'm going to be stuck with the kind of person I've made myself for all eternity; so I try to develop into the kind of person that I wouldn't mind having around forever. The same approach in both cases.

Now let's say I was an atheist. I might believe, for one reason or another, that writing a (somewhat different) post was worthwhile; and so I would take the time and effort to do it. Same as the theist version of me. But then I get stuck: since I believe that my final (and soon to come) end is non-existence, frankly, I feel lost. Perhaps that's because I think more philosophically than others; perhaps it's because I'm a naturally goal-oriented person. Perhaps it's something else. But whatever it is, it depresses me; if that's my ultimate (and not too far off end), what's the point?

So I go back to postulating God (as in the blue, above). And as I do, I notice that once again I've chosen the simpler, more familiar, and more consistent paradigm: the one that works the same for nature and super-nature; both here and hereafter.

Quote from: Recusant on December 21, 2014, 07:23:12 PMI've come to reject the existence of the supernatural as described by religion and preachers... I don't see any deep mysteries of the sort you're describing (one foot in the universe, the other somewhere else) going on. It all looks like this universe to me. Certainly there are unknowns waiting to be explored, but I've still seen no credible evidence that anything which could be honestly described as "supernatural" exists.

And that brings us back to our stories. Smullyan's planet where some "see humor in everything" while others can't see it in anything. Well's country where one guy sees everything and the rest see nothing. Abbott's flatland where some manage to "reach out" into that third dimension, while the rest are unable to get beyond the two. Those with ears to hear and those without.


Davin

#53
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 19, 2014, 08:54:45 PMSo to Davin I say, the moral of the stories is that "the faithful do not empirically prove that their god exists" in ways and terms acceptable to you because it can't be done -- your framework isn't large enough to admit the evidences.
In the stories, the things could be proven empirically to exist, but the main characters were too stupid to think of ways of doing so. Except the humor one, that one humor was already known to existed, but in a minority. Again, if we follow the stories as analogies into god as you seem to want to do, then the theists are the protagonists who can empirically prove that their god exists, but are unable due to their mental deficiencies.

Quote from: Gerry RzeppaThe stories I've referenced in this thread (like Edwin Abbott's Flatland, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/97/pg97.html) ask the reader to put himself in the place of the various characters in the interest of broadening the reader's perspective. These stories have been around a long time, and many people find them both thought-provoking and enlightening. I know I have. I thought some folks here might enjoy them in this way as well, and we might discuss them further. But we obviously won't get very far with people who discard lasting works of literature as "just stories" or "dreary walls of text".
It depends on the purpose of the discussion. It seems to me that you take these stories, and try to exert their fiction into reality. We don't need to play these games, or try to get people to read very large stories when you could just present your point.

For instance: Instead of a few long and boring stories and many posts of you avoiding getting to your point, you could have just said:
I don't think that people can empirically demonstrate that a god exists because there is no empirical evidence to support that a god exists. But there is a bunch of unreliable evidence that points to a god so long as one ignores the same kind of evidence that doesn't.

If you would just cut out all the condescending bullshit, we could actually have a useful conversation and have some common ground. But you seem to want to keep pretending to be teaching me, when everything you've brought up, are already things I've covered at least a dozen times (over a hundred for some things). All I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Gerry Rzeppa

#54
Quote from: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PMAll I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:



On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum, but you did ask for my own words).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?

xSilverPhinx

Argument from design is. a. fallacy. It's poor thinking.

I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Davin

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Davin on December 22, 2014, 02:55:25 PMAll I'm asking is that you cut the bullshit and get to your points, address all criticisms to your points, answer all questions, and to do so in your own words. You know, like we're having a conversation.

Okay, here's the question posed by the stories in my own words and pictures:

http://i58.tinypic.com/2jg5ax4.jpg

On the top, we have three images of a guitar amp I designed and built: from the outside; with the "skin" removed; and a close-up of one portion. On the bottom, similar photos of a person.

Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious. The one system I know to be designed, and the other appears to be designed. The important point is that this appearance, no matter whether I look from far or near, is so striking, so compelling, so obvious and overwhelming -- the complexity so vast and the engineering so subtle and the functioning so sublime -- indeed, the elegance and grace and overall beauty of the whole is so moving that I really can't imagine the human body not being the result of design. It's all I can do to hold myself back from saying something like, "Praise be to the Creator!" (which I realize is not the kind of thing that is welcome on this forum).

My question is this: Do you folks (a) not see the parallel at all? (b) see it but don't find it striking and compelling? or (c) do you see it as clearly as I do, but have convinced yourself on other grounds that the striking and otherwise compelling similarities are completely illusory?
What are we on about now? One post we're talking about some lame stories, and now you seem have taken an alley way in another direction. I do hope that you'll actually address all my criticisms and questions. In the meantime, in good faith, I'll answer your questions (but keep in mind, I am speaking for myself and not "atheists")

a) I can see the parallel, it is a common mistake made many a time by several theists. I, and many others, are more than familiar with this kind of erroneous thinking.
b) It's not compelling at all once one is familiar with many problems that occur with the human thinking process. Things that fallacies correct for. In this case, there are a few fallacies, which is why it's not compelling.
c) I'm not entirely convinced that you can see anything clearly, given that your posts so far tend to be very vague, scattered, and inconsistent. But I doubt that this would be the case.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

MikeyV

Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious.

I don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice?

Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.
Life in Lubbock, Texas taught me two things. One is that God loves
you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the
most awful, dirty thing on the face of the earth and you should save
it for someone you love.
   
   -- Butch Hancock.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: MikeyV on December 22, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
Quote from: Gerry Rzeppa on December 22, 2014, 08:25:17 PM
Now to me the parallel, the analogy, is obvious.

I don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice?

Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.

*nods*   Now imagine that thing in a giraffe. Now compare it with a fish, that technically has no neck. Read up on evolution, Gerry.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Gerry Rzeppa

Quote from: MikeyV on December 22, 2014, 09:01:07 PMI don't see anywhere in your amp design a wire that needs to cover a distance of a few inches, but uses a few feet of wire to wrap around your capacitors before doubling back on itself to make its final connection. Why is that? Is it because you know that would be a bad design choice? Now explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve as intelligent design.

Actually there are a couple of wires (the 6.3v heater feeds for the tubes) that take a very roundabout path to get where they are going (to reduce 60hz hum). I'm sure this would strike a person who doesn't understand tube amps not only as odd, but a waste of wire and an example of poor engineering. And there are other wires and components that appear in unexpected places for other reasons: balancing the look and feel of the outside with the necessities of the circuit on the inside, keeping similarly packaged (but functionally unrelated) parts together, economies of assembly, concern for the future repairman, aesthetics, etc. In short, the design really shouldn't be evaluated by anyone who doesn't understand all of the competing objectives and constraints that were being considered by the designer. I suspect there is an equally reasonable explanation for the "recurrent laryngeal nerve".