Ye Religion Thread

[fdrjk]

:dohdohdoh:

[quadz]

My objection was to this apparent sleight of hand in the second part.
1. Avoid the pretense of knowledge.  2. Presume knowledge of god.

Which, perhaps, is postulating [without basis?] a motive on the part of the speaker having an intent to deceive?  Taking the statements as they are - without ascribing a possible motive, what do you think?

Hmm... I hadn't meant to suggest an overt intent to deceive.

When I say sleight of hand, I'm referring to the sort of logical gap that exists in the familiar creationist argument that takes the form: "The universe we see is too complex to have begun from a simple event like a quantum fluctuation (or big bang), therefore God must have created it."  The sleight of hand in this case being explaining away the first complexity by substituting an even greater meta-complexity.

I don't think they're being intentionally deceptive, but I do think as an argument from complexity, it's inherently flawed.

So my initial reaction to, "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him," was along similar lines.

However, after our continued discussion, I think I have a better sense of how the remark was intended.

And although I'm (personally) inclined to doubt there's really a god who's aware of 'being loved', all the same I can imagine how for someone who believes or who professes to believe in god, that letting one's experience and conceptualization and understanding of 'god' flow from a basis of love, will tend to produce different results than dictating what 'god wants' from a basis of 'knowledge about what god wants'.

Kind of thing.

Is that akin to how it was meant?


Regards,

quadz

[QuakeDuke]

Hmm... I hadn't meant to suggest an overt intent to deceive.

When I say sleight of hand, I'm referring to the sort of logical gap that exists in the familiar creationist argument that takes the form: "The universe we see is too complex to have begun from a simple event like a quantum fluctuation (or big bang), therefore God must have created it."  The sleight of hand in this case being explaining away the first complexity by substituting an even greater meta-complexity.

I don't think they're being intentionally deceptive, but I do think as an argument from complexity, it's inherently flawed.

So my initial reaction to, "if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him," was along similar lines.

However, after our continued discussion, I think I have a better sense of how the remark was intended.

And although I'm (personally) inclined to doubt there's really a god who's aware of 'being loved', all the same I can imagine how for someone who believes or who professes to believe in god, that letting one's experience and conceptualization and understanding of 'god' flow from a basis of love, will tend to produce different results than dictating what 'god wants' from a basis of 'knowledge about what god wants'.

Kind of thing.

Is that akin to how it was meant?
Regards,
quadz

As an argument from complexity I agree - but I think statements can be simple and still convey complex information.

I know you didn't mean to suggest an overt intent to deceive - At least I think I believe that based on our past conversations. I do think however, we can fall into the trap of assigning all people of a particular 'persuasion' be it religious, sectarian, race or any other grouping to the same group that we perceive to be those who don't necessarily present the true? best? representation of the group (usually because of our own bad experiences with some of those members)  and it makes it much harder to have meaningful dialog with the members of the group who might not be the same.

It  seems to be a failing of humans we tend to pay attention to that which makes the most noise (I believe there are many aphorisms expressing that ) but I believe with a bit of work on both sides of a point of view there can be meaningful dialog that will further understanding of each "side" and can produce cooperation between them  whether or not there is ever agreement about the subject being discussed.

When I say sleight of hand, I'm referring to the sort of logical gap that exists in the familiar creationist argument that takes the form: "The universe we see is too complex to have begun from a simple event like a quantum fluctuation (or big bang), therefore God must have created it."  The sleight of hand in this case being explaining away the first complexity by substituting an even greater meta-complexity.

It has always been a point of controversy between me and every theological group I have ever been part of (whether teaching or being taught) that we should be so arrogant as to "put God in a box" and say "This is the only way God ___________.  To me, this goes against the very concept of God . If God is, then God can do whatever He pleases, otherwise He would not be God. At least, this is where I operate from.  Who am I to say God didn't decide to use quantum fluctuation? In it's simplest form the command "Let there be" necessitates transition from a state of not to a state of is. How this is/was accomplished is far above my pay grade

QD

[reaper]

nothing does not have fluctuations, nothing has nothing by definition.  whether there ever was nothing is another matter.

[QuakeDuke]

nothing does not have fluctuations, nothing has nothing by definition.  whether there ever was nothing is another matter.

But is this a matter of perception?

QD

[quadz]

nothing does not have fluctuations, nothing has nothing by definition.  whether there ever was nothing is another matter.

Apparently this is not quite true.  'nothing' does have fluctuations, by law (quantum mechanics).

So I think your objection must be rephrased, something like:

nothing does have fluctuations, by definition.  whether there ever was an absence of quantum mechanics is an uncertainty.

[reaper]

that's not nothing

[quadz]

that's not nothing

There's no such thing - except between your ears.  (I.e. it exists only as a concept in your brain )

[reaper]

I would agree with that.  There would be no spacial dimensions, not even a 3dimensional coordinate system, it would be nothing.

[QuakeDuke]

But only because we have not learned to measure that as yet, yes? 

[reaper]

But only because we have not learned to measure that as yet, yes?  Wink Grin

My last comment was that truly nothing would have no spacial measurements, it's actually empty and void of anything, there is no frame of reference to measure anything - there is no 3 dimensional coordinate system (there is no coordinate system at all..).  I believe quadz was saying this exists only as a concept in the mind, which I would agree with.

From nothing comes nothing..

[Arm0r]

   So there never really was true "nothing", it has always existed huh?  Sounds religious to me.  Keep the faith.

[QwazyWabbit]

Space-time is not nothing. It is space-time. It is fields, it is dimensions, how many we do not know yet. "Empty space" is space-time without the quantum fields we call matter. Since quantum mechanics tells us matter and energy are interchangeable the theory is that matter can spontaneously appear in "empty space" from a quantum fluctuation of space-time energy. Since matter and energy are interchangeable the theory also supports the notion that space-time has a gravity component so we have all the components of the GUT in "empty" space-time; gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces all come into play when the quantum fields produce the first matter particles.

[QwazyWabbit]

"Time is that property of the Universe that keeps everything from happening at once."

[reaper]

So there never really was true "nothing", it has always existed huh?  Sounds religious to me.  Keep the faith.

But wouldn't this be an alternative explanation for the formation of the universe, not requiring supernatural intervention?  Ultimately Occam's razor would be a guiding light no?  Not only that, but this understanding of the universe and its mechanics were built on sound scientific principles, where many components are even testable.  Science often requires creativity, and this theory that something always exists, leads us to these conclusions based on our knowledge of the universe.  Won't this be one of the highlights of humanity?

 

Well in all seriousness I have quite a bit of problems with these conclusions, but I have no problem with atheists, although I am not one.

Sorry just had to answer that one for quadz.  Did I do okay with my impersonation?