Le 2011/04/25 19:32, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 4/24/2011 9:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:44:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>>>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>>>>> evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an
>>>>> extend contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any
>>>>> evidence(, hence my reference to that book of my father). I think you
>>>>> will find that true for other atheists as well.
>>>>
>>>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>>>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it? I find that *highly*
>>>> unusual.
>>>>
>>> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing
>>> at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they
>>> "are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands
>>> of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person
>>> showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did
>>> it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious
>>> people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk
>>> about what constitutes evidence.
>>
>> Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that makes a lot of
>> sense to me (andrel, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?)
>>
>>> Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:
>>>
>>> 1. Things any two bit magician can replicate. 2. Things we could
>>> replicate now, with preparation. 3. Things we could at least imagine
>>> replicating, if we had certain technologies.
>>> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
>>> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.
>>
>> The first three things you state are things that make sense to me. #4,
>> though, I'm not sure 'probably not possible' seems a little wishy-washy
>> to me.
>>
>> Jim
> Well, probably not possible due to the fact that most theories about
> multiple universes seem to imply that you can't get there from here,
> even if you managed to somehow make one. The laws of physics in, never
> mind between, them would tend to preclude it.

There is a model that say that it may be possible to create many 
universes in your common high school lab... The experiment could be 
explosive, but the energy would instead be channeled at an angle 
relative to this universe and result in the creation of one or several 
distinct universes. Each of those would have it's own physical laws, 
maybe tinted by those from our universe.

It's only a mather of concentrating enough energy (a few mega joules) in 
a small enough volume (per cubic milimeter) for a short time (less than 
0.0000001s is enough).


That model states that we may already, albey accidently, have created 
thousands to trillions of new universes.

As there is, at least now, now way to prove or disprove that, it should 
stay at the theoretical model stage.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.

I think we call that The Sims.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 26-4-2011 0:50, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 14:16, andrel wrote:
>>> That's weird to me.
>> Oh no, not again!
>
> I wasn't planning to discuss it further. I just wanted to be sure I had
> understood your objection was to a deity, rather than a particular deity
> interested in the doings of mankind.

It is not so much an objection. The point is that being an atheist has 
become so much part of me over the years that a God in any form is not 
compatible with being me. Or to put it more technically, we are mutual 
exclusive. Either a God exists or me, not both at the same time.
Part of the discussion with Jim was also that I think this sort of 
philosophical ideas creeping into your being is more common that you 
might expect. If they do they, become undiscussable. You and me notice 
that in religious people, but without really being aware of it, it might 
happen to you too, and it probably has. That also implies that we are 
less rational than we like to think.
Although our level of irrationality is nowhere near that of some 
religious people. (But they might say the same)

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-4-2011 0:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:05:31 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> On 25-4-2011 23:43, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:33:00 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe.
>>>> (my feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh,
>>>> aren't you missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>>>
>>> Maybe try saying it a different way - I think I understand, but I want
>>> to be sure before I comment. :)
>>
>> I am prepared to accept any deity if and only if it has never had any
>> influence on my universe and it will never have, and as long as it's
>> existence can be rigorously and scientifically proven by an experiment.
>
> So a deity that has no past, present, or future influence over the
> universe?  I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.

Me neither.

> But that is how I read what you wrote the first time.

And to be sure I added the second clause that is incompatible with the 
first.


-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

On 26-4-2011 0:53, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/25/2011 14:33, andrel wrote:
>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. (my
>> feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't you
>> missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>
> As a native english speaker, I'd say
>
> "Only if it isn't nor ever was at any time able to interfere in this
> universe."
>
> So, yeah, negate "is" as well. I can't say I could actually express as
> rule why that's right, tho.

for me that is strange because you than have a negated and an unnegated 
term in a (negated) disjuction.

By De Morgan's law I would transform 'is nor was' into 'is not and was 
not' which is what I meant. But are ordinary natives aware of that?

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/26 12:49, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/26/2011 9:04, Alain wrote:
>> I don't beleive that Elvis is dead because I do KNOW that he's dead!
>
> See, that sentence is nonsensical to me. That's not how the word
> "believe" is defined for me. It's like saying "I'm not driving a
> vehicle, I'm driving my *car*."
>

My native language is French.
"to beleive" translate to "croire"
"to know" translate to "connaitre" or "savoir"

In French, "croire" imply an impression or a guess. That makes the two 
terms realy distinct.
"savoir" means actual, factual, knowlege devoid of any beleif or impression.

Thus, for me, "beleive" is very, extremely, different from "know".



Alain

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/26 12:51, Darren New a écrit :
> On 4/26/2011 9:16, Alain wrote:
>> If you are sitting in front of your keyboard now, there is absolutely NO
>> need to beleive it. It's a fact, so you KNOW that you are sitting in
>> front
>> of your keyboard.
>
> To me, the world belief includes the word knowledge. Knowing is a kind
> of believing, just like faith is a different kind of believing.
>
>> "God is Love"? How can you be sertain of that?
>> Read the bible carefully. Is the great fload an act of love? Is the
>> destruction of Sodome and Gomora an act of love?
>
> Oh, the God that is Love is not the one in the bible.
>

For me, beleif specificaly exclude knowlege.
Then, faith can be seen as a small subset of beleif.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 10:38, Alain wrote:
> Thus, for me, "beleive" is very, extremely, different from "know".

Sure, I can understand that. As I've been saying all along, we're really 
discussing the definitions of the words, not some deeper meaningfulness of 
reality. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 10:19, andrel wrote:
> but without really being aware of it, it might happen to
> you too, and it probably has.

I know it has. I'm fully cognizant of my pathway from my childhood to where 
I am now, philosophically speaking.  I think the difference between me and 
many others I know is that I'm not worried by being illogical, irrational, 
etc.  I like to think I'm less irrational only to the extent that I know 
where I'm irrational.  At least, I like to think so.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/26/2011 10:29, andrel wrote:
> On 26-4-2011 0:53, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/25/2011 14:33, andrel wrote:
>>> Only if it is nor was at any time able to interfere in this universe. (my
>>> feeling is that this is correct English, my brain says 'huh, aren't you
>>> missing a negation', but where to put it?)
>>
>> As a native english speaker, I'd say
>>
>> "Only if it isn't nor ever was at any time able to interfere in this
>> universe."
>>
>> So, yeah, negate "is" as well. I can't say I could actually express as
>> rule why that's right, tho.
>
> for me that is strange because you than have a negated and an unnegated term
> in a (negated) disjuction.
>
> By De Morgan's law I would transform 'is nor was' into 'is not and was not'
> which is what I meant. But are ordinary natives aware of that?

You could also so

"Only if it neither is nor was at any time able to interfere."

So the "neither" means "that negation also applies to the 'is' part."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message