Everyday I move a little closer to Agnosticism - Page 6

motivez · 06-27-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

For me, it is different. I am a de facto Atheist (a six on the Dawkins' scale). I really don't see the rationale in being a strong atheist, id est, knowing there are no deities. For me the existence of a god is equiprobable to the existence of an invisible unicorn. There is really no reason to believe in either, but there is no reason to rule out the possibility either.

If there's no evidence of either, isn't that at least one reason to rule it out?

Schrödinger's Cat · 06-27-2008, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If there's no evidence of either, isn't that at least one reason to rule it out?

What I mean by "ruling it out" is considering it as a zero percent possibility. I am not that sure of anything. I don't know how can one be honest with oneself and do that, because I do think there is a infinitesimally small possibility; the possibility is there nonetheless. However, I can be a de facto atheist because I do consider a deity completely out of the realm of probability. It is a slight difference, but I think it is important to not consider it impossible.

Photon1001 · 10-26-2008, 04:29 AM

I'm agnostic. If god is rea(l), then it is Nature.

Sorry, nature is neither good, nor orderly in its direction, all those parasitic wasps and worms and such that live inside the bellies of caterpillars that Darwin talked about, for example. People can be though. ..I'd like to paraphrase Lincoln, if I may, in my belief that some of them can be always, or at least nearly so, and all of them can be sometimes, or at least a majority.

jimeigh · 10-26-2008, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

For me, it is different. I am a de facto Atheist (a six on the Dawkins' scale). I really don't see the rationale in being a strong atheist, id est, knowing there are no deities. For me the existence of a god is equiprobable to the existence of an invisible unicorn. There is really no reason to believe in either, but there is no reason to rule out the possibility either.

well here's something to think about. when you talk about unicorns we know what you're talking about - a horse-like creature with a horn on its head. and we know that invisible means that it you cant see it.

now, when talking about "God" there seem to be an incredibly amount of contradictory, and almost always internally contradictory, descriptions on what the nature of "God" is. as such "god" is a meaningless utterance. how should someone consider the idea that, "i see no reason not to believe in Smargislarb."

Photon1001 · 10-26-2008, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Originally Posted by humanbeast

I'm agnostic. If god is read, then it is Nature.

The Science Journal?

Dude, that is so awesomely funny!

HughRuss · 10-26-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

well here's something to think about. when you talk about unicorns we know what you're talking about - a horse-like creature with a horn on its head. and we know that invisible means that it you cant see it.

now, when talking about "God" there seem to be an incredibly amount of contradictory, and almost always internally contradictory, descriptions on what the nature of "God" is. as such "god" is a meaningless utterance. how should someone consider the idea that, "i see no reason not to believe in Smargislarb."

Hold on now. The difference here is that Man's description and believe in a supreme deity is chalked full of inconsistencies and logical contradictions. However, to apply that to the nonexistence of a supreme being is an illogical leap. It's simply man's description of a God that doesn't exist (and thus, why all religion is wrong).

jimeigh · 10-27-2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Hold on now. The difference here is that Man's description and believe in a supreme deity is chalked full of inconsistencies and logical contradictions. However, to apply that to the nonexistence of a supreme being is an illogical leap. It's simply man's description of a God that doesn't exist (and thus, why all religion is wrong).

what is the nature of said "supreme being"

HughRuss · 10-27-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

what is the nature of said "supreme being"

To put a definition to a supreme being is to automatically refute its existence.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 12:41 PM

^How so?

Schrödinger's Cat · 10-27-2008, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^How so?

god = a ÷ 0

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 01:19 PM

ok, what is a?

Schrödinger's Cat · 10-27-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

ok, what is a?

a is the dividend, 0 is the divisor and God is the quotient.

He said a supreme being can't be defined.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 01:27 PM

^Oh, thats a divide sign. My bad, my eyesight a'int what it used to be.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 01:36 PM

Here's the so-called ultimate question for me:

First watch this, if you're not familiar with the 10-dimensions concept already:

Tenth Dimension

You're pretty bright, so I'm guessing you are, so continuing..

There's either 10 or 11 dimensions or an infinite number of dimensions. Or maybe its more like this: There's one multiverse, and its either infinite or finite. The strangest part, in what you might call my sense of "faith", if you could even call it that anymore, that is, is that if it is infinite, then I would suppose then any divine deity is an absolute fallacy. If not, then the entire thing could very well be it, I think.

This was written by a religious man, but in my view, if he is right, then truly all of existence truly has not a grand purpose, and his religion goes from being 99% wrong to 100, I think.

Originally Posted by Blaise Pascal

For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed.

Schrödinger's Cat · 10-27-2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

Here's the so-called ultimate question for me:

First watch this, if you're not familiar with the 10-dimensions concept already:

Tenth Dimension

That's a bunch of pseudo-scientific crap written by someone with no background in physics whatsoever.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 01:51 PM

I take it you don't buy into the multiverse theories then? Fair enough, if the 3 or 4 dimensional universe is finite, then who's to say the universe itself is not divine? The universe, afaik, did create itself, no?

Schrödinger's Cat · 10-27-2008, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

I take it you don't buy into the multiverse theories then? Fair enough, if the 3 or 4 dimensional universe is finite, then who's to say the universe itself is not divine? The universe, afaik, did create itself, no?

What you posted has little to do with science or physics. He is basically making up his interpretation of higher dimensions, which is fine for science fiction. I personally think the M-theory has potential, but it is nothing like displayed in that video or in Bryanton's book. Don't parade that as an explanation for real models in theoretical physics. Instead, read books by actual physicists that research in these areas.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 02:34 PM

^I haven't even read his book. What truths does he misrepresent in the video though? Seriously, I'm curious.

Schrödinger's Cat · 10-27-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Photon1001

^I haven't even read his book. What truths does he misrepresent in the video though? Seriously, I'm curious.

Everything after the 4th dimension is his own fantastical interpretation do to his spiritual/philosophical bullshitery which is in the book. There's no corresponding theories, mathematical models for his ideas of these other dimensions. Bryanton doesn't even try to pass this as actually being science. He is just using the popularity of string theory by taking the "many dimensions" and then tagging on his own interpretations and philosophical blatherings... the end result being to make money. At best, it can be called science fiction that was inspired by theoretical physics.

Photon1001 · 10-27-2008, 03:07 PM

Well, that's fine, his book can go find itself to the nearest bonfire fo all I care. The point I found interesting in the video is imagining higher dimensions (time, possibilities in alternate universes created by statistical probabilities and theoretical time travelers, etc) the way we imagine lower dimensions (the figures on playing cards, or the concept of Flatland). Seriously, are these analogies completely invalid and useless?