TTI Forums

Torazelan wrote:Hello, I'm new here, applying to the corp. I was reading this and thought you all might appreciate a couple bits of text from chat I follow:

"> It is different if the unlikely event is pre-specified. If a
> series of stars went nova so as to spell out "I am the Lord
> your God, so fuck you, atheists" then I would have to admit
> that something unusual was going on... Stathis Papaioannou

Here is how one can tell the difference between a typical extropian type person versus pretty much all normal people in the world. In the event that the novae spelled out such a message as Stathis describes above, the normal people would immediately conclude there is a supreme being and fervently worship accordingly. We extro and transhumanist types, on the other hand, would have an alternate explanation. We would conclude that it isn't necessarily a supreme being exactly, but rather that we are all simulations
(or at least I am, you guys may be avatars), and that the not-necessarily-supreme programmer has a sense of humor.

-spike"

This sounds like nonsensical post-modernist crap. Even if one could extrapolate some meaning it still becomes a false purpose fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_purpose) and clearly a strawman argument. It completely obfuscates the point by adding another possible and unlikely occurence.

Oleksandr wrote:So what is God? Can somebody on a pro-God side provide a definition?

(A supreme being does not count, unless you explain what supreme means.)

I am an Atheist but I was raised mormon (yes "lol" get it out of your system ) So I can give you the mormon version if that might help- Mormons believe that God is an alien for all intents and purpose. He is all powerful and all knowing (I'm assuming that those two characteristics are mandatory to be considered a deity) that created Earth for his amusment and fell in love with his creation (kinda creepy to fall in love with your "pseudo children" very Woody Allen of "him" ). A mormon can become a god of his/her own universe when they die if they follow simple rules while they are alive (i.e. married in a temple, have children etc...)

Anyways, I do like Ayn Rands explanation best: "God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive."

-

Definition:

Qin Mei wrote:There likely exist creatures with access to power outside our understanding. There likely exist creatures with greater understanding of the universe than man. But, such creatures would be Gods only if they could violate the rules of the universe, which would require a perfect understanding of how the universe behaves.

Proof:

Qin Mei wrote:So, Godhood requires two conditions then. Perfect understanding of ALL laws pertaining to every particle, wave, and speck of hydrogen in the universe, and the ability to violate those laws at will. A perfect understanding of a universe trending toward entropy and filled with self-willed beings? Good luck finding one of those.

Under these constraints God would be a very remote probability, an infinitely small fraction. Not sure you’d get a majority consensus on the definition.

You are right about the ever evolving state our understanding and ability to predict the natural world. Still I think we could have a more rational and verifiable conversation about the electron than we could about any God. And yet Religions have dedicated far more human capacity in their search for God. Why do they do that?

Are binding sacred garments driving these Churchies on?

Sorry Redhotrebel just had to put my LDS dig in there…

It is interesting that scientific thought moves forward, and we do occasionally see paradigm shifts, and yet “A is A” is immutable…

musashi wrote:It is interesting that scientific thought moves forward, and we do occasionally see paradigm shifts, and yet “A is A” is immutable…

Lol, you mean that logic and reason is still immutable? Well, of course.

Torazelan wrote:The purpose of my original post in this thread was to be humorous and point out an escape for just about anything if you want to make up one. Even when face to face with "a miracle" (something outside mans ability to conceive?) one could find some argument to it.

You will find that I can be quite dense at times- you really gotta spell it out for me! C'mon I responded to SPAM!

Torazelan wrote:I'll just say about Ayn Rands definition of a god that it is a moving target as man power to conceive things increases, unless you think mans ability is limited in some way. (I realize physical man today is limited, but I also refer to our conciousness in the future, or any tools we could create, artificial intelligence etc etc that could expand on "mans" ability)

I'm not sure if you're attempting to say that Rand's argument is the moving goal post or if religions definition of god is the moving goal post. If it's the latter than we agree, however, I think that some people have watched "what the bleep do we know" waaaaaay too many times. If you desire to live a rational life you can't live by Pascal's wager or in a dream world where a pervy old man is watching everything you do and judging you. I would go so far as to say that if a person believes in magic they are completely irrational (whether that magic is defined as a god, higher power, xenu, unicorns, santa or otherwise). Saying that god is not magical thinking just because we might someday disprove it still makes it irrelevant because we have to live by the bounds of our universe not the universe that may or may not exist in 200 years.


One a complete side note- IMO the following is the funniest thing ever!: (No need to discuss- just written for your enjoyment )
TOP TEN REASONS WHY BEER IS BETTER THAN GOD
1) No one will kill you for not drinking Beer.
2) Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
3) Beer has never caused a major war.
4) They don't force Beer on minors who can't think for themselves.
5) When you have a Beer, you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
6) Nobody's ever been burned at the stake, hanged, or tortured over his brand of Beer.
7) You don't have to wait 2000+ years for a second Beer.
8 ) There are laws saying Beer labels can't lie to you.
9) You can prove you have a Beer.
10) If you've devoted your life to Beer, there are groups to help you stop.

-

How can man, in his finite existence, possibly fathom infinity? All that we know and exist resides on a plane of reality with a defined beginning and an avoidable end; so how is it we, as mere mortals, of flesh and thought, can fully understand that which is boundless with no beginning or end?

If such divine presence does exist, and one can rationalize it within their own finite existence and thought, then is it divine? What makes us (humans) so sure we can come to the conclusion on that which we cannot conclude from the tools we created by our own limited thought and existence? Would not a “God” be beyond our deductive reasoning and instruments?

knownasthatguy wrote:How can man, in his finite existence, possibly fathom infinity? All that we know and exist resides on a plane of reality with a defined beginning and an avoidable end; so how is it we, as mere mortals, of flesh and thought, can fully understand that which is boundless with no beginning or end?

If such divine presence does exist, and one can rationalize it within their own finite existence and thought, then is it divine? What makes us (humans) so sure we can come to the conclusion on that which we cannot conclude from the tools we created by our own limited thought and existence? Would not a “God” be beyond our deductive reasoning and instruments?

Very true so far. So how did you first learn of infinity then?

Oleksandr wrote:Very true so far. So how did you first learn of infinity then?

In math class... It seems that the identity logic of A is A is also near that fundamental level of math. Maybe that is where these new religions should be moving towards.

musashi wrote:

Oleksandr wrote:Very true so far. So how did you first learn of infinity then?

In math class... It seems that the identity logic of A is A is also near that fundamental level of math. Maybe that is where these new religions should be moving towards.

That's the same word but not the same meaning. If he meant mathematical infinity then we can already grasp that.

So what does he mean by 'infinity' if not mathematical concept?

Traditionally, infinity in respect to the Jewish god concept is a categorical infinite. Beginning with say, a mouse, place it in category, such as rodent. Then place rodent in its own category, and so on. Eventually G-d is supposedly the master category, i.e. the embodiment of the universe. This is an important distinction, as opposed to the embodiment of an avatar.

Scriptural evidence supporting this definition can be found at Jeremiah 23:24, I Kings 8:27, and Isaiah 45:18 for you fact checkers out there. You should really interpret these via a Jewish site though, as the new age rip offs tend to grossly misunderstand the original intentions of the texts.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... iah23.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ings8.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... iah45.html

Lakche wrote:Traditionally, infinity in respect to the Jewish god concept is a categorical infinite. Beginning with say, a mouse, place it in category, such as rodent. Then place rodent in its own category, and so on. Eventually G-d is supposedly the master category, i.e. the embodiment of the universe. This is an important distinction, as opposed to the embodiment of an avatar.

This is not a definition.

Definitions are always of a form that combines genus and differentia. Genus means to which group is belongs; differentia means that separate it from that group.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

In the definition of man (“A rational animal”), “rational” is the differentia, “animal” is the genus.

So... Still waiting on a definition.

And I certainly can't agree with that definition of man as humans appear to be anything but rational at times.

Perhaps that needs to be amended to read "potentially rational animal?
But certainly a much better definition than what you could ascribe to "God"

No, no, no.

Just because most humans don't choose to be rational changes nothing about their nature. _Any_ healthy human can choose to be rational; it is in his nature to be capable of. You might as well say that it's not correct to say that humans is a creature with hands, since some of them might refuse to use their hands.

_No_ other animal is rational nor _can_ be rational. That is what it why rational is part of the definition.

On a side note, rationality implies volition, which is why any single human can choose to be irrational. This has no impact on the definition.

You bring up an interesting point Olek...about whether or not man is the only being capable of being rational. I have been arguing this for quite some time, but when I discussed it a length with my professor of Biology, she vigorously disagreed with me. She pointed to numerous studies citing animals acting in rational behavior - often in the light of evolution.

I did a bit of research into this further, but haven't hit anything concrete. Here's what I've come up with. Clearly, man is the ultimate rational being on this planet. While other things may make logical decisions and reason specific tasks out, other beings are incapable of the level of thinking man possesses.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this because I have to admit I'm still working through it.

I would question and then question again what those scientists mean by "reason" and "rational." Aristotle discovered reason (logic) a while back but most of the meaning has been lost since then.

A reasoning process involves ability to abstract, use concepts, and form generalizations. Whoever claims that another animal is rational needs to prove all of the above.

In simple language, being rational means (among many other things) thinking on the range of years. Animals don't do that; at best they have some instincts that they acquired from evolution. Or an animal can do a very simple learning, which has nothing to do with moving mentally from today into year long plans.

Show me an animal that has a mid-life crisis, and then maybe we have something to talk about.

That's kind of what I was thinking. I've seen people point to studies about gorillas planning an event ahead of time or dogs recognizing when bad things are happening, etc... but the level of reason that is required to even begin a decent conversation isn't even breached.

Thanks, Olek.

Oleksandr wrote:Definitions are always of a form that combines genus and differentia. Genus means to which group is belongs; differentia means that separate it from that group.

Since the Hebrew interpretation of G-d is the category which contains all categories, the only definition of G-d would be G-d. If you are wondering why I am always leaving out the vowel, it's tradition not to speak the definitive name of the one Hebrew god. Instead, there are specific titles delegated to G-d's aspects, such as Hashem, or Adonai--'The Name,' or 'The Lord.' So the appropriate English cross over would be to censor it. However, perhaps it is not an ineffable name because of taboo, but because it has no meaningful definition, i.e. it's ineffable because it is ineffable.

musashi wrote:It seems that the identity logic of A is A is also near that fundamental level of math. Maybe that is where these new religions should be moving towards.

That's where they were a long time ago. Kabbalists were the ones who read the Tanakh as rational discourse, instead of a historical document. There's still some neat tricks you can learn if you treat everything metaphorically, but not really anything Chrysippus didn't do in a language that translates much better with English.

Edit: In Exodus 3:14 G-d says to Moses "I am that I am."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... odus3.html

LOL. This is a pathetic answer.

Lakche wrote:Since the Hebrew interpretation of God is the category which contains all categories, the only definition of God would be God.

[Proper English is God not G-d, so I've corrected it.]


Imagine somebody starting a conversation like this:
"I come here to tell you what is X!"

"Mkay, what is X?"

"Ah, but the only explanation of X is that it is X. So the definion of X is X. Is everything clear now?"



LOL

Proper English would be yhwh. The third reason it is ineffable because nobody remembers how to pronounce it, presupposing there was indeed a way.

Lakche wrote:Proper English would be yhwh. The third reason it is ineffable because nobody remembers how to pronounce it, presupposing there was indeed a way.

I was always told it was done in respect and preservation (or perhaps to prevent the attempted imagination) since finite humans have no way of naming or concieving of the infinite. Thus, in attempt to not limit the image of infinite God with finite human definitions they would not pronounce any word that was supposed to mean or designate God.

Many people, both deists and athiests alike, seem to have quite limited ideas of what god is. "I don't believe in some guy in the clouds that controls everything," is a phrase I hear some people say. And even some christian illustrations depict God as being some white haired old guy. Perhaps this is what Jewish convention was trying to prevent.

Lakche wrote:Proper English would be yhwh. The third reason it is ineffable because nobody remembers how to pronounce it, presupposing there was indeed a way.

Hieder wrote:I was always told it was done in respect and preservation (or perhaps to prevent the attempted imagination) since finite humans have no way of naming or conceiving of the infinite.

To me it always seemed like a form of aniconism. The Muhammadins get upset when pictures of GOD are drawn. Orthodox Judaic traditions avoid naming the imaginary Supreme entity. Like most practices Islamic, I think aniconism was Jewish tradition in practice before Isaac wandered the dessert.

I would say that even starting and participating in a thread like this is pure unadulterated masochism. It always bould down to: He does too! He does not! He does too! He does not!

You might say that this sentiments reflects back at me, but I would argue that this reply is meant to serve as closure for this discussion. In fact I would like to request that this topic be removed or at least locked as I find it extremely tiresome and even makes me vaguely nauseous. That could be due to all the chocolate chip cookies I just had - I give you that.

Sq7 wrote:...In fact I would like to request that this topic be removed or at least locked as I find it extremely tiresome and even makes me vaguely nauseous...

So just to be clear, you think that this topic should be "removed" or "locked" because you don't like it? Who the fuck do you think you are? If you don't like it- don't read it. I, however, find the open discussion interesting and will lead to a logical rational conclusion. your argument that it will end in a childish back and forth:

Sq7 wrote:I would say that even starting and participating in a thread like this is pure unadulterated masochism. It always (*)boiled down to: He does too! He does not! He does too! He does not!

Is making the assumption that the members in this debate are lacking even moderate intelligence.

So again I ask- who do you think you are deciding what topics are suitable to discuss?

(*)fixed spelling

I don't participate in this thread despite having strong feelings on the subject, but still its entertaining to read and no thread should ever be locked down IMO.

Like Red said, you don't like it, don't read it. No harm, no foul.