GOD: The Failed Hypothesis

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them.

We are all engines of karma

[RonD1120 62]

Well stated. The curious thing for me is that any spiritual or religious topic always digresses to whether or not God exists.

I believe the main issue is individual accountability for activities that create good feelings or emotions. The most common objections, don't tell me when and with whom I can have sex; don't tell me I have to be responsible for children I created; don't tell me I can't get high on the drug of my choice; don't tell me not to steal what I need; don't tell me I have to trust....

The natural man does not want to be held accountable. Spiritual law i.e., the Ten Commandments, reveal sin and accountability.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Useless? I don't know it seems religions are not useless...

From a hopeful point of view, religion might be the crutch an individual needs to persevere during an otherwise hopeless time.

From a cynical point of view - religion one hell of a way to fund-raise.

From a hopeful point of view, the lottery has infinitely better odds.

From a cynical point of view, religion is one hell of a good motivator for a nice, long, bloody war.

My point was not whether or not religion is a good or bad thing. My point is that religion has its uses = not useless.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

By reservoirs of energy, are you referring to potential candidates for God-Units?

Reservoirs of energy come from the 1st Law of Thermo. So far, we've identified kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy, and a host of others. But, I seriously doubt we've found all of them.

Back in the days when I could solve a time-independent Schrödinger equation (for H), I thought zero-point energy was an interesting concept. Still do … but not sure I could do much quantum anymore.

Gotta keep up my ‘nerd’ credentials. -[at myself]

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

My point was not whether or not religion is a good or bad thing. My point is that religion has its uses = not useless.

Concur.

Even with all the conflict and atrocities motivated by religious disagreement throughout human history, in consideration of the amazing art, music, literature, architecture, and community that our religions have yielded, that's not a trade-off worth making, im-ever-ho.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

BL:
Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions
Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to)

That’s a forced dichotomy.

(Many) religious beliefs depend on faith. Testing is often of a personal nature. (A few religious traditions encourage questioning. How that tradition reconciles with reality is another issue.)

Science is a process that is repeatable/reproducible, open/public, and not subjective relating to the physical/natural world to determine causal relations. The process of experimental science generates both explanations and new questions; scientists tend to be very comfortable with uncertainty, even actively demanding measures of uncertainty (as opposed to imprecision or inaccuracy).


If something is outside of the testable realm -- the “realm of sense-perception” -- science is not the appropriate method.

One might call religion a process to comprehend the untestable within the limits of our biological human capacity.

Philosophy -- from Aristotle’s “forms” to Heidegger’s DaSein to post-modern deconstructionism -- has tried to bridge the testable realm with the untestable with varying degrees of success and precision.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The natural man does not want to be held accountable. Spiritual law i.e., the Ten Commandments, reveal sin and accountability.

There are quite a few, im-ever-ho, really, really interesting questions underlying that statement. Science, the human spirit/individual experience (humans are storytellers), and organizational structures (e.g., religion) can provide valuable insight, again im-ever-ho.

Does natural man, perhaps due to cognition or organizational behavior wired into our squishy grey matter, create such systems of ethics and behavior?
We know that altruistic-like behavior is observed in animals, that suggests it’s not a merely human trait.

Does responsibility or accountability require religion? Require a specific religion?
Some assert it does. If I understand correctly, that’s the assertion you’re making?
Some assert that it requires their religion or sub-sect of religion.

Does it have to be one or the other?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 4]

Quote

The curious thing for me is that any spiritual or religious topic always digresses to whether or not God exists.

No shit really? I wonder why that is? Could it be because without a "god" the rest of it just falls apart like a house of cards making the entire issue moot?

You talk about the Ten Commandments, well, either they come directly from God or Moses made them up. If they come from God then, ok, fine, they're a little paranoid coming from an all mighty being who supposedly is giving us our own free fill, but if they come from Moses, they're just complete and total bullshit by some crazy man with a "magic" walking stick trying to be the leader of a tribe of people wandering the desert.

So the key question to the entire thing is . . . does God exist. There simply is no more important question when it comes to religion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,990]

>If they come from God then, ok, fine, they're a little paranoid coming from an
>all mighty being who supposedly is giving us our own free fill, but if they come
>from Moses, they're just complete and total bullshit by some crazy man with a
>"magic" walking stick trying to be the leader of a tribe of people wandering the
>desert.

If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So the key question to the entire thing is . . . does God exist. There simply is no more important question when it comes to religion.

that is the absolutely least important question of all when it comes to faith or religion

for those (others) of faith, the point of believing in something without proof, is the keystone of how they behave and how they want to be - it's also why I laugh at religious types that want to prove the existence of their deity - it means they don't get it any better than their adversaries on the same topic

it's really a matter of application -

if one's faith is used to make themselves better, more honest, better parents, decent and moral, then that faith is a great thing for society - I think that's true for most people of faith

if it makes one self righteous, judgmental, and allows power structures to bloom that exploits people of faith, than that is a terrible thing for society - I think that's true for a very small portion of people, but it gets a LOT more press than the other and is the basis for people being so terribly cynical and cruel about faith


If Quade wants to believe that his camera is sentient and talks to him, I only care if he says the camera tells him to burn and kill. If it tells him to be decent to people and to use the correct f-stop, and to always compose the picture nicely - then I don't much care. In fact, I'm happy for him. The fact the I consider the camera doesn't REALLY talk is pretty moot from my perspective at that point

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

or this, it's more pithy than my note but pretty much says the same story

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

No single person claims authorship of the Constitution. It was a document made by committee and signed by committee. It does not claim that if YOU don't follow it, YOU will have committed a sin against the government, but rather that if government doesn't follow it, then the government has committed a "sin" against the people.

The two documents are fundamentally different in who is in control of the "tribe."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

it's really a matter of application -

if one's faith is used to make themselves better, more honest, better parents, decent and moral, then that faith is a great thing for society - I think that's true for most people of faith

Morality is a human construct and does not require religion to exist.

Quote

if it makes one self righteous, judgmental, and allows power structures to bloom that exploits people of faith, than that is a terrible thing for society.

Which I personally believe is the case far more than you're willing to admit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Morality is a human construct and does not require religion to exist.

{{{if it makes one self righteous, judgmental, and allows power structures to bloom that exploits people of faith}}}
Which I personally believe is the case far more than you're willing to admit.

a - Religion is a human construct and, in the best case, is equivalent to a moral code. If it works for someone, great, it if doesn't, one can find another construct to hang morality on. Why belittle the tools another individual uses if that's what it takes for it to work for them? Aren't you tolerant of another's life choices?

b - Noting that religion is used to exploit others is interesting, but it's naive to think that in the absense of religion, that some other structure wouldn't emerge to exploit the same in an even worse fashion (clubs, politics being the most equivalent to religion, IMO).

Fanaticism leading to exploitation, self righteousness, etc - is found in all areas, not just religion - and the fanatics are the ones I'm worried about most - be they religious nuts, enviro nuts, public health care, cheerleading moms, people that using tanning salons, etc.

as far as the judgmental/selfrighteous people - I find that a lot more with people with strong politics than I do with the religious people I know who tend to be quiet and personal about their beliefs. But it's all anecdotal and you run with a much more judgmental crowd, so I'd suspect you see more of the extremes than I would for all type - including the religious.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,990]

> It does not claim that if YOU don't follow it, YOU will have committed a sin
>against the government, but rather that if government doesn't follow it, then the
> government has committed a "sin" against the people.

Let's change the language just a bit:

Thou shalt not be a Representative unless one attains the age of twenty five years.

Thou shalt not be a Senator unless one resides in the United States for nine years.

Thou shalt not be a President unless one takes the Oath of Office.

Thou shalt not discharge a slave from service to his master.

If thou flees justice, thou shalt be delivered back to those who would administer it.

Sounds like a document listing "sins" against the government!

[Icon134 0]

Quote

Quote

ya know Tom, they call it scince FICTION for a reason.

It's pronounce SKINTCH - and, strangely enough, it stand for a metric simultaneously describing the location and velocity of Douglas Adams while he is eating lunch on any given Tuesday.

Douglas Adams is dead... so does that mean that there is no actual unit of measure for the SKINTCH... since he won't be eating lunch on any given tuesday (or really any day for that matter...)?

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

You talk about the Ten Commandments, well, either they come directly from God or Moses made them up. If they come from God then, ok, fine, they're a little paranoid coming from an all mighty being who supposedly is giving us our own free fill, but if they come from Moses, they're just complete and total bullshit by some crazy man with a "magic" walking stick trying to be the leader of a tribe of people wandering the desert.

i think the christians borrowed the idea from greeks.

Let us now turn to the Ten Commandments of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1.60), which run as follows:

594 B.C.E

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Born ok 1st time.

[quade 4]

Quote

a - Religion is a human construct and, in the best case, is equivalent to a moral code. If it works for someone, great, it if doesn't, one can find another construct to hang morality on. Why belittle the tools another individual uses if that's what it takes for it to work for them? Aren't you tolerant of another's life choices?

Look, I'm FINE with people practicing whatever religion they want. If in a troubling time they find some solace in the belief in God, who am I to deny that?

However, I'm especially annoyed at the idea that some people's beliefs in God is driving them to set public policy for the rest of us. The issue for me is that even recently religion in the US has been the basis for government officials making decisions on not just a national level, but an international one.

Your "god" doesn't trump my "god" or lack of "god". It just doesn't. If you want to believe it does, ok, I guess I can't stop you, but the fact remains that it still doesn't unless you can prove to be that it does, which you can't, so it still doesn't.

And that is the basis for thousands of years of war, right there, "my god is better than your god so I'm 'in charge'." Well, that's just bullshit.

Quote

b - Noting that religion is used to exploit others is interesting...

If we can separate "god" from religion for a moment.

Religions exist for the purpose of controlling the masses. Look at any religion (other than your own of course) and you'll instantly see this to be true. A class of people (priests, medicine men, witch doctors) colludes with the ruler in a symbiotic relationship. They claim he has a divine right to rule because "god" told them he does. No one can question it because only the priest class can talk to "god".

Over and over and over this happened all over the the face of the planet.

Why do you think that is? Is it because "god" spoke to each of these tribes?

It continues to happen today when shyster televangelists claim "god" came to them in a vision and told them he needs money or caused Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins or a 90 foot tall Jesus spoke to them. It's just complete bullshit.

And why does it work? Because of a basic belief in "god". Religion has a very difficult time operating without a "god". Sure, some exist; Taoism, Buddism (and Buddism is huge!) . . . but even they have some central figure that somehow magically knew the way and was "enlightened" beyond our understanding. That knowledge is ways held by the priest class and continues to maintain power in a symbiotic relationship with the "ruler" (in some cases being one in the same).

It's all a way of maintaining power over people.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

i think the christians borrowed the idea from greeks.

Oh, there's a whole LOT of borrowing going on if you want to talk about religions and their stories.

Look at Jesus and Horus.

Google it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

If we discovered that one of the authors of the Constitution was not who we thought it was, would that document become total bullshit, a fabrication of crazy men?

Let us know when people can democratically ammend the contents of the Bible.

How is this even a valid comparison?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Look, I'm FINE with people practicing whatever religion they want.

However, I'm especially annoyed at the idea that some people's beliefs in God is driving them to set public policy for the rest of us.

If we can separate "god" from religion for a moment.

Religions exist for the purpose of controlling the masses.

So we agree on most all of it in a general basis.

I'm not specific to religion though, I'll add in all the other creeps and fanatics too. Since I'm also against other people's subjective beliefs setting public policy for the rest of us ...... depending on the policy. religious or non-religious

religion - I'm not religious, but the concept of thou shalt not kill I have no problem with that being a law - I do have issue with other things the extra devout profess

example other religion - I do have an issue with many of the green opinions (of the extra devout) resulting in public policy, etc, and that's no different or worse than some kooky religious ideas


opinions are crazy things - and this old worn out discussion just leapfrogged from a statement about whether it matters or not if a god exists

so back to the original - I don't think it matters if a god exists or not - what matters is results of an individual's personal beliefs on the matter and whether it makes them a better person or not.

the position that on a large or organized scale if the practice of those beliefs is good or bad - I posit that it doesn't matter, because in a void, some other organization would emerge with equivalent good and bad results like we've seen in the past - If a group of people would tend to be fanatical in a religion, then in the void of religion, they'll find something else to be fanatical about. The evidence is all around us that this is true.

so I just consider the issue on a personal basis since we aren't all drones - no matter how easy it is to treat people like that

IMO

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[frequentfaller 0]

Quote

Oh, there's a whole LOT of borrowing going on if you want to talk about religions and their stories.

Look at Jesus and Horus.

Google it.

Yeah, i know. leading characters always have virgin mothers and born around the time of the winter solstice.

Born ok 1st time.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Usually that is due to shuffles later on. Various cults that were arising in Rome during the first 2 centuries AD would try to steal some thunder from the rapidly-growing Christian religion, by re-arranging the myths to make them resemble Christ's story.

The thing is, there are no records of these resemblances prior to the first century AD, the other religions' stories were altered by their respective worshippers AFTER the foundation of Christianity.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 4]

Quote

The thing is, there are no records of these resemblances prior to the first century AD, the other religions' stories were altered by their respective worshippers AFTER the foundation of Christianity.

That's completely untrue. The stories of Horus date back to at least 3,100 BC and the archeological evidence (writing) hasn't changed one iota. The Christ story and the story of Horus are remarkably similar.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

Well thank you for such a brilliant demonstration of the self-evident.

"With science we take the axiom that empiricism will tell us something about the empirical world we live in."

Yes, the sensible world tells us about the sensible world. Incredible.

It doesn't, however, prove to us that the empirical world is in fact reality or that it is even representative of reality. Scientists have to assume that the empirical world is actual in order to constructively study it. Doing so to study somethinig that is admittedly either real or not real isn't naive. Making the claim that science does provide us information about the "actual" world is naive.

What is naive of scientists is linking their discoveries within the sensible world as actuality. That m uch is not provable. It is naive to say that it is actuality when you cannot prove it.

>Even if there is a hidden unempirical reality behind our empirical reality, that is somewhat irrelevant since science only tells us about the working of the observable, empirical universe

It is irrelevent for someone who does not concern themselves with epistemology. (You know, that field that is actually concerned with finding the truth behind the field of knowledge. Is it possible for us to actually "know" something? What is knowledge? Can we "know" that God exists? Science doesn't concern itself with those questions; those questions are pivotal to proving God exists and that we can know such a thing; therefore, science cannot answer whether or not God exists and that we can know such a thing.

Unfortunately, since today's science is intended as a crusade for truth, it becomes naive by ignoring its most critical assumption, that the empirical world is reality.

>no more and no less than it is expected and designed to do
Oops! Looks like science won't be able to answer for God's existence or non-existence after all.