Religion: What it means to you

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Other than using the scientific method to measure things outside of its ability to be measured (it's fairly difficult to conduct controlled experiments when dealing with gods, I imagine), using induction to prove itself is also a little bit of a fun thing.

Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

PS: Still waiting on science to come up with a test for free will.

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

Honestly, I have neither faith in religion nor in science.

I'm Buddhist, but it doesn't really seep into my life.
Things ARE.
That's the point, I don't try to find depth in them unless they're typed on a page and the author is absent.

I suppose I'm buddhist for the same reason that some people are Christians: because if I'm right, I'm right, but if I'm wrong, this makes sense.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Why is god outside of our ability to be measured? He's always proving he exists in the old testament so why can't he do any of that stuff now? On the other hand if god has only ever existed outside of our universe and has never had anything to do with our universe than whether he exists or not is as irrelevent as last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, and so we can safely use Occum's razor to remove him.

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof. There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Quote:

I'm sure neuroscientists are working on it as we type.

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

Originally Posted by agreatguy6

I don't try to find depth in them unless they're typed on a page and the author is absent.

I thought this was funny, because it sounded like you were trying to say that interpretation is a foolish exercise...except in a specific set of circumstances into which the bible falls.

RR, in order to search for free will, don't we need to define it first? I don't know that that's been done. Also not sure how you'd test it. I mean, if you come up with a mapping saying that people with this combination of chemistry and this class of background will do A. Then you test that against a sufficiently large sample and find out that a statistically significant sample actually does B, all that shows is that your mapping may be incorrect.

It seems at its essence that absolute free will would mean choices outside of any criteria, or beyond reason.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Who said anything about the God you see in the Bible? I don't think I did recently.

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Gods aren't measurable because we can't set up experiments to verify or disprove their existence.

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

And last I checked Occam's Razor only serves to point what is most probably correct, not that something can't exist as a definite proof.

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

There's no reason I see why some god couldn't have created the universe and is just chilling out watching what's going on, maybe to intervene someday (or has in the past but decided to take a beer break or something).

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, as soon as they figure out why humans have free will yet computers, robots, dogs, insects, rocks, trees, and atoms don't, get back to me.

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I was just using it as an example of a god that exists within our universe.

But the important thing to remember is just because one might not be true it doesn't necessarily make all religions untrue. Induction is well and good and everything, but there's no way it can disprove something's existence in the future.

Quote:

Then how are they different to last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat.

I imagine those are completely non-observable, while a god which can choose to interact with us at any given time it would so desire. I meant the setting up experiments part as in, we can't make a god do something at our whim, nor do we necessarily know how to go about testing if it was work done by a god, so it's existence would be difficult to test for.

Quote:

Occum's Razor states that 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', or to put in another way, 'we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof'. That sounds like it covers the possibility that there is a god who exists outside our universe, has nothing to do with our universe (to say he created our universe is just 'god-of-the-gaps') and cannot be measured.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for which we do not have some proof."

Going by the former translation given on wikipedia it seems more like it's up to the individual what's actually a simpler explanation. Clever cutting and pasting, though.

Quote:

Then I assume you also don't see any reason to discount last-thursdayism, or brain-in-a-vat or the infinite amount of other things which might exist but for which we have no evidence.

As I've said before, I don't even know if I exist.

Quote:

Why do you think that humans have 'free will' and dogs don't?

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will, I just wonder where people try to make the distinction between things having and not having free will. Why is it bacteria only behave based upon the chemical impulses going on in their cells while we have some magic ability to not be held captive to our own chemical impulses?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

it's existence would be difficult to test for.

Again, how is this different from last-thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, as none of these proposals can be falsified in practical terms.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Going by the former translation given on wikipedia it seems more like it's up to the individual what's actually a simpler explanation. Clever cutting and pasting, though.

Here's some more copy-and-pasting from the same article.

'In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities (although this is not always the same as simplicity)'

'Occam's razor is not equivalent to the idea that "perfection is simplicity". Albert Einstein probably had this in mind when he wrote in 1933 that "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience" often paraphrased as "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." It often happens that the best explanation is much more complicated than the simplest possible explanation because its postulations amount to less of an improbability. Thus the popular rephrasing of the razor - that "the simplest explanation is the best one" - fails to capture the gist of the reason behind it, in that it conflates a rigorous notion of simplicity and ease of human comprehension. The two are obviously correlated, but hardly equivalent.'

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

As I've said before, I don't even know if I exist.

Skepticism is all well and good, but when it comes to things that can not be falsified then I find it best to disregard it rather than to stew over something that has no answer, other than 5 tons of flax of course.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will, I just wonder where people try to make the distinction between things having and not having free will. Why is it bacteria only behave based upon the chemical impulses going on in their cells while we have some magic ability to not be held captive to our own chemical impulses?

Snap, I don't believe in 'free will' either, although life is a lot simpler and more enjoyable if we allow ourselves the illusion that we have some sort of control over our actions.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

What response was that? The majority of the respondees only seem to be quite irritated that you fail to offer any evidence for your position despite repeatedly saying that you have some (although your lack of understanding of what evidence actually means might explain this). Your posts have painted you as a person who is amazingly stubborn and pig-headed....

Judgemental posts like this. So consumed with winning you compromise what you say with the way you say it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Judgemental posts like this. So consumed with winning you compromise what you say with the way you say it.

Could you rephrase that in english perhaps.

What do you mean by winning? If by winning you mean getting everyone around to my point of view then I'm afraid you are projecting onto me. My only goal has been to present of own personal viewpoint and the reasons that have resulted in me choosing to adopt this viewpoint, and if I percieve any weaknesses or inconsistencies in other people's arguments then I point them out. Perhaps you could give an example of where I have said that my goals are any different or where I have 'compromised what I say with the way I say it', whatever that means.

If you could show where you actually offered any actual evidence for your assertations I would glady make a full and complete retraction of the post in question. As for being judgemental, I feel that if someone seems to be (knowingly or not) trying to wind people up by insulting their ethics and declaring themselves to the the only one in the right without a shred of evidence for their stace, then I feel I have the right to be judgemental.

This is not all that relevent to the topic, but,

Quote:

Well, other than me not believing anything has free will...

I dont understand. In almost any situation you have the free will to do whatever, I think that you are confusing the consequence to what you choose to do with your free will, with free will itself.

Originally Posted by Token

I dont understand. In almost any situation you have the free will to do whatever, I think that you are confusing the consequence to what you choose to do with your free will, with free will itself.

What do you mean by 'free will'?

Originally Posted by Pangalin

Do you even understand what "courage" means? Courage is about steeling yourself to press forward in spite of great fear and foreboding. Believing firmly that existence is utterly meaningless and still resolving to grind through it is deeply courageous. If you firmly believe that in the end everything will be all right and we'll all get mai-tais in Heaven, you don't need any courage because, for you, there is nothing to fear.

Well the Christain does have plenty to fear but we do have a reason to have courage(salvation through Jesus).
Its not easy going out out and taking it on the chin for Jesus. In some countries being a Christian is illegal. I believe I will get my reward but standing up for what I believe about my maker does in some cases require incredible courage Such action has killed other believers and could kill me too.

Originally Posted by agreatguy6

Honestly, I have neither faith in religion nor in science.

I'm Buddhist, but it doesn't really seep into my life.
Things ARE.

Do you have a particular deity in your belief system?
What shores up your convictions if you have any?

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

Could you rephrase that in english perhaps.

Sorry its the Yoda in me creeping out again.

Originally Posted by kinkymagic

I feel that if someone seems to be (knowingly or not) trying to wind people up by insulting their ethics and declaring themselves to the the only one in the right without a shred of evidence for their stace, then I feel I have the right to be judgmental.

I am challenging the ethics of others and searching out the source of everyones beliefs. Its been open season on my position from the start but I have refrained from name calling.

The best proof we can wrestle with is this. (Ecclesiastes 3:11 releates to this)
People throughout history have been concerned with the afterlife and spiritual concepts. No atheistic culture has ever been discovered & even in our modern time, belief in such concepts has survived the most thorough mental conditioning & violent repression. The notion that the human condition has a spiritual dimension is widely accepted.

Generally on the matter of an afterlife religions have these two basic principals.
1. A persons current life and actions affect their spiritual condition before & after death.
2. There is some kind of mechanism that sorts people out on the basis of some kind of system.

In this area my religion means a type of security like insurance on a car. In the event of death I am covered. As for why I am covered by a Christian system, its founder made a statement of
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me
this statement and others like it in the Bible sets Christianity apart from all other religions. This statement of exclusive direction is in stark contrast to the other major religious systems being practiced today.
The Bible offers teaching in the area of specific direction tward the afterlife that other religious systems lack. Like any good insurance policy the Christian plan for salvation leaves no room for guess work. It lays out what is covered under the deal and the ramifications of not being covered.

I'm critical of the atheist because of the denial of a God on the basis of faith without some kind of back up plan.

Quote:

What do you mean by 'free will'?

The ability to choose what you want to do, when you want to do it.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I'm critical of the atheist because of the denial of a God on the basis of faith without some kind of back up plan.

Wait, back up plan for what?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I'm critical of the atheist because of the denial of a God on the basis of faith without some kind of back up plan.

What, you mean some kind of life-after-death schtick? We generally think that when you die, you rot away and go back into the Earth. No pearl gates, no hand of god, just DEATH.

I know that's a scary idea to some people. But life is scary. Deal with it.

You can be as critical as you like of atheists. We're critical of you, too.