for atheists

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Greg Bernhardt, Feb 4, 2002.

  1. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Loone,

    OK, so -

    What is the meaning of life?

    What is the purpose of life?

    Cris
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    No doubt the meaning is to obey god's whims, since if god says that standing on your head is meaningful then by his power he's automatically made it so.

    Religion will never die until the human species does, because humans don't have completelyrational minds. The imagination is very useful. Being too rational all of the time, on every issue, does not seem to have any evolutionary advantage... I doubt scientists reproduce more than everyone else.

    Besides, science can only answer "how?" and what people really want an answer to is "why?" (which of course has no real answer).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Bambi,

    I agree we're drifting a bit off-topic here.

    I take your point that GR is incomplete. It cannot really describe the moment of the big bang. We'll need quantum gravity for that.

    We could discuss the philosophy of the Lorentz transformations and what they really mean until the cows come home, but I don't think we'll make much progress. Suffice it to say that I probably hold a somewhat different view on that than you do.

    <i>Can we postulate a spacetime without any matter in it? Can we do the converse?</i>

    We can postulate all we like, but I don't think we can get definite answers, since we cannot do the appropriate experiments.

    <i>That is even more paradoxical than what I argued. What I was trying to say is, anything happening in a time-bound system and sending feedback into some “timeless” environment will have sequential effects on that environment due to the sequential nature of the feedback being sent.</i>

    I'm not so sure.

    <i>You ... seem to be arguing that “timeless” is actually a superset of “time-bound”. In which case, I’m having trouble understanding your definition of “timeless” as it no longer implies absense of time.</i>

    I guess it's similar to complex and real numbers. Some complex numbers are real, but not all. Similarly, perhaps some parts of the multiverse (e.g. our universe) are time-bound, but not all.

    <i>I can “conceive” a square circle too – that doesn’t mean such a concept is internally consistent.</i>

    Now that's a REAL logical inconsistency. The concept of a square circle is meaningless, because the very meanings of "square" and "circle" are mutually exclusive. If you have one you cannot have the other.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by James R

    Ok, I'm intrigued. Care to elaborate?

    How can something whose state can change be timeless? State itself is a time-bound feature. If a timeless domain cannot support state (which I'd argue it can't) then there can't be any communication between a time-bound and a timeless domain.

    You're talking relativism, I think. Even if you postulate that one domain can enter and exit another at any point in the other's time (hence not being subject to the other's time) the fact that this former domain has any interaction with the latter whatsoever points to the fact that the former domain is within its own time stream. Let me see if I can explain it a little better...

    Suppose a god sends part of itself into a time-bound domain. Incidentally, from within that domain it would look like part of the god just suddenly popped up from nowhere. Then that part of the god spends some time in the time-bound domain and therefore undergoes state changes, possibly accumulating information, etc. Now it needs to communicate what it has learned back to the timeless domain. Suppose such an act is not logically inconsistent -- then the timeless domain will be different after this communication than before -- otherwise there would be no difference between the case where communication occurred vs. if it didn't. But if the timeless domain has changed then there is now something about it that wasn't the same way before. The very presence of "now" and "before" indicates that the timeless domain is time-constrained -- which contradicts its definition. Reductio ad absurdum, the assumption that there can be communication (interaction) between time-bound and timeless domains is logically inconsistent.

    I can't help smiling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    When a contradiction is blatantly obvious, you call it a "REAL" inconsistency. Yet the only difference between a square circle and a timeless creator is that the latter is a logical contradiction wrapped up in a few layers of indirection. It's not any less real of a contradiction, just a little (but not much) more obscured.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Bambi,

    There really are lots of ways around the problems you're raising. My introduction of the idea of a timeless god was just one possibility among many I could have used to show that a god is not logically inconsistent. Another possibility would be for God to have Her own timeline, so that She lives in a universe with time, able to communicate or "cross over" to our universe, yet still exist independently of it. That would avoid some of the problems you are raising, but it's not the only way to do that.

    <i>If a timeless domain cannot support state (which I'd argue it can't) then there can't be any communication between a time-bound and a timeless domain.</i>

    Who knows what a timeless domain can and cannot support? We have no experience of a timeless domain.

    <i>...Now [a god] needs to communicate what it has learned back to the timeless domain. Suppose such an act is not logically inconsistent -- then the timeless domain will be different after this communication than before -- otherwise there would be no difference between the case where communication occurred vs. if it didn't.</i>

    An omniscient god would never learn anything, since He/She/It/They would already know everything. The timeless part of such a god would never need to change.

    <i>Reductio ad absurdum, the assumption that there can be communication (interaction) between time-bound and timeless domains is logically inconsistent.</i>

    One-way communication from the timeless to the time-bound poses no such problems. And presumably a timeless god would "always" have knowledge of all time in a time-bound domain "simultaneously". Again, the language fails, but hopefully you get the idea.

    <i>When a contradiction is blatantly obvious, you call it a "REAL" inconsistency. Yet the only difference between a square circle and a timeless creator is that the latter is a logical contradiction wrapped up in a few layers of indirection.</i>

    Says you. I see no such logical contradiction. Hence this discussion.
     
  9. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by James R

    I'm sure we can continue in this spirit until hell freezes over. You can keep coming up with imaginative ways for a god to exist, and I'll keep demonstrating that those ways are either logically inconsistent or severely demeaning for the deity (not to mention removing any grounds whatsoever for postulating the deity as a solution to the infinite regress of existence.)

    Then such a god is not really very special. It's much like you and me, only a little more advanced. It still exists within some universe and is subservient to that universe and limited by the applicable laws.

    Keep 'em coming...

    Well since you want to know who, then me for starters. State is an inertial concept. By definition it is either maintained or changed through interaction. Both modes of existence involve time. Even remaining unchanged over time still means remaining subservient to time.

    Well, now you've done it. You've gone and dragged omniscience in.

    First of all, it's easy enough to show that total omniscience is impossible (the god would have to know every detail of itself including its own knowledge, which leads to infinite regress.) So the omniscience must be relative to our universe.

    Now consider that the god is omniscient with respect to our universe. That means the god contains the complete worldline of everything in existence. Which means that the god cannot change anything within the universe, ever. Because if it did, that would alter the worldline and hence invalidate the god's prior omniscience, not to mention involving the god in self-modification and moreover binding the god into time again due to its changing state. Some god it's turning out to be...

    Moreover, we have to wonder how the god can possibly know anything at all (not to mention everything) about our universe if the god cannot ever exchange information between our universe and the god's domain (you sidestepped that paradox without resolving it.)

    And finally the god still cannot do anything (because there's no concept of time, so no action of any sort is possible.) Yet, what can possibly provide the meaning of "knowledge" under such a constraint? So what the heck is this god turning into? Some non-existent thing, that's what.

    A timeless entity has no way of penetrating into time-governed domains, because it is excluded from time by definition. It would have to be able to interact with spacetime before it could tinker with it. Interaction implies sequential behavior for both parties, and therefore imposes time on both.

    That's the point: there is no idea to get. "Always" is another time-bound term. Conceiving of some god as merely unchanging does not put the god outside of time. In fact, it kills the god.

    I've already said it many times and I'll say it again. No brain originating within and confined to this universe could ever conceive in a valid way of anything that cannot at least in principle be manifested within certain fundamental laws of this universe (with time being amongst that irreducible set.) Any attempt to do so will result in paradoxes. Which summarily invalidates all human attempts at imagining some sort of a supernatural entity. Within the human conception of existence, no such entity can exist.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2002
  10. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    This is ironic considering I believe the basic concept of god illogical, but since I love to argue against myself I'll spring to god's defense...

    Take a god that exists outside of our universe, but has its own sort of time and can therefore act. This god, through its universe (or dimension), somehow creates the start of our universe.

    Now, let's assume our universe is deterministic. Having the intellect to calculate every single consequence of the initial set of preconditions he's plugged into our universe, this creator god can essentially make anything happen at any point inside of our time simply by having planned ahead. With determinism, the infinite intellect of the god could know that from what he created humans would arise 10-15 billion years later, and could know what each of us would do at each moment. He could plan to have lightning strike down a particular person at a particular time, just by anticipation, without ever having to come into our universe to do anything or observe us. With this sort of god, it would be just as though he were in our universe without him ever physically being here and without there being any interaction between the creator's universe and this one after creation.

    There are lots of holes involved in the origin there, but at least everything after the creation of our universe could seem to be consistent with a god.
     
  11. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by Hoth

    That's pretty old news there, pal. First of all, you'll notice that your scenario is also consistent with two and a third gods working together. Also consistent with the god's dog accidentally pissing on some energetic substrate that resulted in the Big Bang. Also consistent with no gods whatsoever.

    And as far as that has gone, take a look at this post I made concerning the correspondence between imagination and reality.

    Also consider that under that scenario Hitler, for example, was part of the divine intent.

    Plus, of course, as you said all the problems of origin are still there.
     
  12. Hoth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    I don't see how things like Hitler would be a problem, if god (or his dog) just felt like it. If he's that far above us he probably couldn't care less about people, and just thought them up as a diversion along with billions of other species. (But still could strike down a few people with lightning bolts here for more fun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) So I'm not sure how the universe is inconsistent with a god having created it. Yes, I know this isn't consistent with any existing Earth religions, but that's kind of beside the point in trying to do away with the idea of god(s). (If all you want to do is prove all Earth religions wrong, just stand back and let them all contradict each other and that's about as strong of evidence as anyone could need if they cared to take an objective position.)

    Origins are a problem for all of us unfortunately. The scientific system lacks a real explanation for why total nothingness would not be the natural state of things forever. Even if existence is called an illusion, the illusion and the perception of the illusion must be explained somehow.

    If the way of describing with no gods compared to with gods as a cause doesn't have any clear advantages beyond Ocam's razor, that's not a very firm basis, unfortunately.

    As far as your post in the other thread (which I hadn't read before since the thread title looked like a big signpost calling tony1)... as you said there, you haven't disproven all possible conecepts of god. Your long argument there doesn't seem to really bring things any closer to an actual proof.

    BTW, in that post you seemed to be using free will as evidence for things when you've already admited determinism is true. We're objects in this universe, determinism doesn't overlook us, so free will at least in the sense most people use it has to go.
     
  13. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by Hoth

    If you're talking about just the known universe, then true. However, if "universe" is to include everything in existence (including the god), then there is indeed a little inconsistency. At least we can get rid of that second alternative using a little logic.

    But consider that the idea of a god is just as earthly in origin as the religions you mentioned. If anything, that only dents the idea's credibility.

    Aye, including any potential godhead.

    Neither would a godhead provide such an explanation.

    On the other hand, as soon as you mention "state" you are no longer talking of nothingness. It's trippy stuff, to be sure.

    Okham's razor doesn't even enter into it, because it concerns itself with explanations. As it stands, the godhead doesn't explain anything at all (it merely transfers some of the questions into the domain of the godhead, even while introducing more questions all over the place.)

    That wasn't the intent of the post. If you re-read it, you'll find that the post mainly concerns itself with methodology of obtaining useful knowledge. As a special case, it argues that existence of a godhead is mathematically improbable (the probability of a god's existence is 0.)

    Not at all. I simply mentioned in passing some other post that Cris made.

    Very true.
     
  14. Aware watcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    how's this for the purpose of life. the answer is in the question so to speak. the purpose of life is to live

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Sir. Loone Jesus is Lord! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    God has purpose and meaning for all life!

    Aware!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    God your Creator has a greater purpose to your life then to just live! But to have life, and to have it more aboundently! To have life in the afther life, which is forevermore! And it will be far beyond the love, fun, freindships you whould have in life! GOD of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has something much better in the future for you, familey and friends! Yes a far better thing that the 'natural man' doen't even know about! Jesus the Son of God can get you to that wonderfull place that you will never get old, ill, or die, but to have eternal life with GOD, yes here on the future Earth that will last forever and will never be destroyed again! GOD is good! God is LOVE and He is not willing that any of you should parish, but to have life, and to have it more aboundently!

    This life is temperal! 70-90+ years or far less for some, is all you get in this world! But think how it could be, being immortal, and you can explore every star, you can be incharge of angels, and worlds! And that, more so then even the Sci-Fi Star Trek series, that you whould be the Sons and Dauthers of the "Most High GOD" your Creator and lover of your souls! Put off the 'temparal' for the 'ETEURNAL'! GOD has made you all and all before you, and all afther you in 'His immage' and because of Chist we can be with Him (JESUS) and rule and reign with GOD SPREME for evermore! And never again suffer loss of any kind!

    Mankind has an awsome meaning and purpose in life!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You are not an animal, but you all are human beings created in the immage of GOD your Creator, who loves you! ..Although we are a fallen race, we have JESUS who came and paid the way unto Heaven and even to have it on Earth in the now! Yes that is correct! May still have pain and so on but to have life in the hands of the one who made us, and loves and cares for us! We must have Faith in Him! The higher power and athority then Men, which appart from Him (GOD and His holy Word) is far too shourt sighted and ignorant of the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their exsitsance on the Earth! JESUS said: "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father ecept by Me." Turn to Jesus, He is the only way unto GOD, and the only way that you could ever know Him as GOD the Creator! Ask Him for forgiveness of doubting His very existance. He will prove, He is who He says He is! JESUS is alive and well, at the right hand of the Father God in Heaven, God is imnipresent and know you and me far better then we our selves do! GOD is, and He is high above nature He had created! JESUS is the one and only way that you can know Him that Created all you see, and can not see nor understand. Ask Him for your selves! He is very God, and is very real!

    Satan is a spirit also, and is the spirit of lies and deciever of your souls to the fact that their is an intelligent designer that loves His creation, and loves you personally!

    Jesus is our only hope in this world for peace outwardly, and peace in the heart of man! JESUS, just ask Him for that peace, and He shall give it unto you, peace, not as the world understands it, but a peace that will surpass all understanding!

    So long as you people live, there is hope that you will meet GOD and be saved, and find out you are far more then just an animal-like being, but a being with an immortal soul and spirit that will spend eturnity somewhere! JESUS Saves!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Loone,

    And so what is it? It looked like you were going to explain this but your monologue drifted into preaching again.

    Are you saying the purpose of life is to become immortal in heaven? If so then that sounds OK.

    But what about the meaning of life? Even if I live forever what would be the meaning of my life, as distinct from purpose?

    Cris
     
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Aware,

    Or put another way, to survive.

    So yeah that works for me.

    Cris
     
  18. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Loone,

    I just wanted to let you know that it deeply offends me when you attempt to associate my country's flag, and therefore me by implication, with religion.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    FlatWorld

    Bambi,

    Here's a thought experiment for you to consider.

    Suppose I get a large sheet of paper, perhaps graph paper. I intend to create a universe on this sheet of paper, which I shall call <b>FlatWorld</b>. The sheet of paper can, in principle, be as large as you like.

    I create FlatWorld by drawing little pictures or symbols on the paper. I also have a handy eraser, which means I can create movement of the pictures by erasing a picture from one location and redrawing it at another location.

    I can create arbitrary rules, which may or may not interact with each other, restricting what kinds of things I may draw on the paper, where they can be drawn, how far they can be moved in one "step", and so on. All these restrictions are restrictions I place on myself, just for the fun of it. To make things more interesting, I could introduce some random elements, such as rolling some dice to determine where to put certain pictures or how to move them around, or I could make FlatWorld a completely deterministic place in which everything follows fixed rules.

    In principle, I can make the system of rules complex enough so that the pictures I draw on the paper appear to act in ways similar to those of lifeforms. (Have you ever seen Conway's "Life" game?) I can set things up so that the pictures can appear to have motivations of their own, and even knowledge which is based on things around them. There can be rules for reproduction of lifeforms, etc. Each lifeform can have a set of internal states (perhaps literally drawn inside the lifeform) representing the knowledge, experience and "inheritance" of that lifeform.

    Where do I, as creator of FlatWorld, sit in relation to it? Answer: As far as FlatWorld is concerned, I am God.

    Let's look at some of my attributes in relation to FlatWorld. The first one is that I am omniscient. I can see the entire state of FlatWorld at any particular time. Moreover, if I wish, I can predict how FlatWorld will evolve should I choose to make some changes (either arbitrarily or according to self-imposed rules). But I can also break my rules at any time (potentially), creating "miracles" in FlatWorld (relative to the "usual" rules). As far as FlatWorlders (as I choose to call the lifelife inhabitants) are concerned, I am omnipotent. I can destroy any part of their world at a whim, and create new parts. I can transport one FlatWorlder across the World in an "instant".

    What is time like in FlatWorld? Well, the FlatWorlders could come up with their own concept of it by observing changes in their own internal states, or in the states of other "objects" in FlatWorld. But obviously, FlatWorld time has absolutely no impact on <i>my</i> time. I can leave the sheet of paper in a cupboard for seven years of my time, and no time will have passed in FlatWorld. I am "outside" FlatWorld's time system, though constrained by my own time system.

    Can I interact with information in FlatWorld? Yes. Can it change my "state"? Yes. I might see something in FlatWorld which I didn't initially foresee would result from applying my rules. Potentially, I can learn things from my observation of FlatWorld, which may tell me more about FlatWorld than my initial awareness. Those insights may or may not be translatable to my own "real" world.

    Can FlatWorlders conceive of my existence? Obviously, they can. They might well imagine an invisible hand directing everything in their world and call it "God". Could they prove my existence? Not unless I wanted them to. I <i>could</i> reveal myself to them, or not, as I pleased. I could choose never to break my rules (or natural laws, as they would see them), or I could make exceptions in particular circumstances.

    Is my existence logically inconsistent with the existence of FlatWorld? Obviously not. FlatWorld would not exist without me. It is true that, depending on how I set things up, FlatWorlders may not require me as a logically necessary concept. But that says nothing about whether I exist or not. I cannot be logically excluded by anything, unless that logical is faulty, because the fact is, as you can see from outside the system, I exist.

    Perhaps you can now explain to me why we (you and I) cannot logically be living in a kind of FlatWorld of our own?
     
  20. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    James,

    I admire the effort you put into that exercise, but regretfully there was no need. Hoth and I had already addressed this scenario (even though in a less specific way) in the immediately preceding posts.

    Basically you are right, logic cannot rule out such a godhead. On the other hand, such a godhead is:

    1) ultimately just as limited as you or me
    2) still subservient to some encompassing universe and its laws (and now where does that universe and those laws come from, not to mention that godhead?)
    3) mathematically improbable
    4) not in agreement with any of the world's religions
    5) anthropomorphic and naive to a fault

    And even if you could enhance the godhead's image in a logically consistent fashion to remove number 5) from the above list, you still cannot address the other four issues in a logically consistent manner.

    Now, aside from all the philosophy, don't you find such an idea (i.e. the world exists and moves because some godhead constructs and moves it) just a little primitive? It's in the same vein as earthquakes being due to a god shaking the earth's foundations or the moon sailing across the sky because a god makes it do so.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Bambi,

    <i>I admire the effort you put into that exercise, but regretfully there was no need.</i>

    That's ok. I had fun, and I'll probably get to use that example in some future conversation anyway.

    <i>Basically you are right, logic cannot rule out such a godhead.</i>

    So, it seems we have reached agreement on the logic. Good.

    Then we come to gut-feeling objections...

    <i>On the other hand, such a godhead is:

    1) ultimately just as limited as you or me</i>

    Not in <i>our</i> universe - only in His own.

    <i>2) still subservient to some encompassing universe and its laws (and now where does that universe and those laws come from, not to mention that godhead?)</i>

    I agree that this solution merely pushes the question back one step. It's the age-old question "Who made the universe? God. So who made God?" My example aimed to illustrate one easily-understood conception of a god-like being. <i>Our</i> god, if there is one, need not be very much like us at all.

    <i>3) mathematically improbable</i>

    That's an interesting one. How do you figure that?

    <i>4) not in agreement with any of the world's religions</i>

    I don't know about that. The world's religions describe God as the Great Designer, whose hand guides the universe etc. etc. Not much difference that I can see.

    <i>5) anthropomorphic and naive to a fault</i>

    The anthropomorphism was for explanatory convenience only. It is easily removed.

    <i>Now, aside from all the philosophy, don't you find such an idea (i.e. the world exists and moves because some godhead constructs and moves it) just a little primitive?</i>

    This is the real crux for you, isn't it? You don't want a God who seems so small and limited. On this point, I don't have the same gut-feeling problem that you seem to have. Also, the fact that an idea is "primitive" does not necessarily make it wrong. Our "primitive" ancestors were pretty much as smart as we are.

    <i>It's in the same vein as earthquakes being due to a god shaking the earth's foundations or the moon sailing across the sky because a god makes it do so.</i>

    You can look for proximate causes or final causes, as you please. Many things can be "explained" without the need for a final cause. The whole of science is based on that idea. God is certainly not scientific, but that doesn't mean that such a being does not exist.
     
  22. Sir. Loone Jesus is Lord! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    To the Glory of your Creator! And His love for you!

    PHP:
    The GOD of love is Glorious!
     
  23. Bambi itinerant smartass Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    309
    Originally posted by James R

    But what's the difference? I mean, in an absolute sense.

    Or, more likely, needn't be at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    See here: http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5720&pagenumber=4#post83318

    Such a godhead is no longer a primary cause of all existence. It is merely a primary cause of our existence. Quite a step down from every religion I've encountered so far.

    I don't think you understand what I'm referring to. Having any sentient actor as an explanation of anything that is not obviously authored by sentience is essentially anthropomorphic and naive to a fault. It's a baby's view of the world.

    That's not the feeling. The feeling is that such a God is not only small and limited, but utterly irrelevant and totally unessential for existence.

    How many ideas of our "primitive" ancestors haven't turned out to be wrong so far? Intelligence is not everything; one must have the knowledge to make any use of it.

    So how is the God you propose any different? It's just another proximate cause, not a final one. Not to mention that the very idea is spurious, aside from being wrong with overwhelming likelihood. I suppose one can huddle with it in some imaginary reality, but what's the point?
     

Share This Page