Quote from: One Horse Town;250206Precisely. Even though i am agnostic, i find it amazing that folks feel threatened enough by others' beliefs that they insist on rubishing them at every turn. It's bollocks.

You never now anything (especially spiritual experiences) until you have experienced them for yourself.

This.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197That sounds an awful lot like faith.  I mean, how do you know it has a reason?

Oh, I don't know it has a reason. Like my beliefs on soul and gods and mysticism, it is based on my experiences and learning, but the lack of evidence [again] isn't evidence of lack: when we see something really random-looking come down the pipe, we always have to look at it and say, "This really could be random, and not deterministic chaos. Let's try to figure it out." Science means never being able to say you're certain.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197If the entire creation of the universe was a random act, so too would be everything that stemmed from it.

Not necessarily: the space outside our universe could be non-causal, while still allowing to be created within it a space which has a causal system. Same with things like gravity, and entropy: whatever our universe is embedded in - if that's how it works at all! - could be anentropic, and still allow to be created an entropic universe such as ours. The "bubble" that is our universe could behave according to laws without relation to the space outside; we [currently] have no way of knowing, although we're working on it!

Quote from: One Horse Town;250206You never now anything (especially spiritual experiences) until you have experienced them for yourself.

I would argue that having experienced something yourself still doesn't mean you know anything, experience being as flawed as it often is.

Quote from: wulfgar;250197l exception to your non-randomness belief would also seem to be a pretty significant item.  If the entire creation of the universe was a random act, so too would be everything that stemmed from it.

I'm going to raise an eyebrow here and claim people are messing with words they do not understand. "Random" has a number of definitions. One is "unpredictable". Another is "meaningless". An event can be (we believe) either, neither, or both. Arguing from one to the other is a very, very common mistake; if you don't pay close attention, you're about guaranteed to make it.

Physicists and statisticians mean (and should stick to) "unpredictable".

For a philosopher (I'm not one, but I play one on the 'net), the meanings are nearly contradictory. If nothing is truly unpredictable, then everything is preordained by the previous state. Tell me the state of the big bang and I can precompute everything that has and will happen, in theory. In that view, there are no choices, and hence, no meaning in anything.

We don't seem to live in such a universe, though for a few centuries, people thought maybe we did. Some things seem to be inherently unpredictable, largely because it turns out to be impossible to really measure the state of anything with the necessary degree of accuracy, and possibly for other reasons as well. That puts us in a universe where things might be (but don't have to be) meaningful, from some absolute viewpoint, or even our own.

Arguments about meaning rapidly become depressing. Just about everyone wants to demand that they and their choices are meaningful, and not just to them - at least, once they understand what "meaningless" actually means, pun intended. But most people generally can't put together an explanation of WHY choices are or should be meaningful, to save their lives.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212For a philosopher (I'm not one, but I play one on the 'net), the meanings are nearly contradictory. If nothing is truly unpredictable, then everything is preordained by the previous state. Tell me the state of the big bang and I can precompute everything that has and will happen, in theory.

I agree with this view.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212We don't seem to live in such a universe, though for a few centuries, people thought maybe we did. Some things seem to be inherently unpredictable, largely because it turns out to be impossible to really measure the state of anything with the necessary degree of accuracy...

There's a difference - and here's a pain-in-the-ass of the English language - between "unable to be predicted at the present time by humans" and "absolutely unpredictable under any circumstances." I would hesitate to look at things like the EPR paradox and the Uncertainty Principle and use them as examples of inherent unable-to-be-predicted-at-all-ness; there's really nothing that's been observed that suggests the universe is nondeterministic, only that we humans at this time can't make predictions or even observations beyond a certain level; but our inability shouldn't be mistaken for some quality of the universe.

Somewhere in the quantum movement, "we cannot detect the position and velocity of a particle" become "particles have no position or velocity," and while it's a useful transformation for the mathematics involved - when you can't directly observe something, statistics are useful - but somehow, the mathematical approximation became accepted as the actual reality; people believe the cat is half-alive and half-dead, when in reality, it is either one of those things or the other, but mathematically we have to treat both things as being half-possible, because of the limitations of information.

Quote from: Engine;250211I would argue that having experienced something yourself still doesn't mean you know anything, experience being as flawed as it often is.

:idunno: That's your thing to work out, as it is, everyones. How you interpret it is down to your own experience, mindset, and personality.

Quote from: Ikrast;250212Arguments about meaning rapidly become depressing. Just about everyone wants to demand that they and their choices are meaningful, and not just to them - at least, once they understand what "meaningless" actually means, pun intended. But most people generally can't put together an explanation of WHY choices are or should be meaningful, to save their lives.

I don't think that choice or freedom is necessary for our lives to be meaningful.  If I swing an intelligent sword at an orc, the sword may rightly conclude that it has a purpose and the the motion is meaningful, even if the sword had no say in the decision to swing it.

The sword need merely ask whether it was swung with a purpose, or without one.  It can probably deduce this by looking at who is holding it, and where it is headed.

Quote from: Engine- which we currently believe to be impossible, though I have my doubts

We can't, uncentrainty principe prevents it, and even if we could gather perfect information, where would we store all that data.

Quote from: EngineWithin quantum circles, my beliefs are widely held to be in ignorance of current research; in truth, it is not ignorance, but rejection.

Don't worry about it, quantum effects don't leak too much into macrocosm... there's some theory called quantum decoherency that explains why...

Quote from: Fritzs;250220We can't, uncentrainty principe prevents it...

No, it means it's impossible today. It's impossible for some very simple, easily explicable reasons, although I prefer to explain why in a dark room with a pool table. Anyway, I'm not yet ready to surrender to Heisenberg.

Quote from: Fritzs;250220...and even if we could gather perfect information, where would we store all that data.

Why, outside, of course. The universe, I mean.

Quote from: Fritzs;250220Don't worry about it, quantum effects don't leak too much into macrocosm... there's some theory called quantum decoherency that explains why...

Quantum decoherence, and while I don't claim to be an expert in the field, it should be noted that while all the words in your sentence have meaning, they're not particularly meaningful in combination with each other, at least to me.

Nothing to say, Engine?

Quote from: wulfgar;250153Why do you think God lacked a lot of foresight?

I'd argue that taking either one of your options (belief or unbelief in God) requires believing in a fantastical explanation.

-You were personally created in the image and likeness of an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has existed since before time began....pretty fantastical.

-You are the product of billions of years of random chance.  Through chance, the universe was created.  Through chance, this planet was formed with such conditions that through chance, life would arise where there was no life before.  And through chance, that first life, a microscopic cell, evolved over the ages into a human being sitting there typing on a computer....pretty fantastical.

So unless someone simply never thinks about such things, I'd say the choice is which fantastical explanation you believe in, not whether to believe one or not.

Really. I would argue more this way.

- Belief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

- Belief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

Now, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse Town;250235Nothing to say, Engine?

I'm sorry; nothing to say to what?

QuoteNow, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Not at all Bill.  No offence taken in the slightest.

QuoteBelief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Speaking at least from a Catholic Christian perspective, pretty much all of what you decribe is different then what I believe:

-I belive God has shown Himself to us in a multitude of ways and continues to do so.
-I believe God does a great deal for those who are suffering
-I think the world is older than 10,000 years and nothing in my religion's teachings tells me I have to think otherwise.  Could I be wrong, and the world reall is 10,000 years old? Sure.  I think the evidence supports a much, much older earth, but it wouldn't blow my mind or destroy my faith if new evidence showed the earth younger or older then what I think it is.

QuoteBelief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

I too think science is an important tool for understanding the universe.  However, I would counter that there have been no proveable or reproducable experiments conducted for things like creating the earth or creating life where there was no life before, so arguing things in those terms in regards to creation sounds a bit like...weak sauce

And still, there's nothing in my faith that says evolution doesn't or can't happen.  Personally, I think that it's quite likely evolution is a tool used by God in His creation.

You're critique of belief in a God who created the universe and then sits back and watches it go to hell in a handbasket, does sound a good deal like the "watchmaker" view of God or generally what Deist believe.  This view is, again generally speaking, rejected by pretty much all Christian denominations, who believe God is active and involved in the Universe.

I hope I don't come across as "you must believe as I believe" either.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250248Really. I would argue more this way.

- Belief in a magical creature that never shows itself, has infinite power, infinite good, and yet still does nothing for the suffering of his creations. A fantastical 10000 years ago, it whipped up the universe in 7 days. Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

- Belief in provable, reproducible, experiments and archaeological evidence. A verifiable age that goes beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that go far beyond reproducible to actually being used in industry and real life. Random chance is not such a daunting thing if you understand how it works. It means nothing to stand at the end of incredible odds and look back if your pool of probability is large enough.

Now, it may sound like I am saying "You must believe what I believe" but that is not my goal.

Bill

I would argue more this way:

- Belief in a supernatural deity that frequently has revealed Himself, has infinite power, infinite good, and is willing to relieve the suffering of his creations by taking their sufferings upon himself. About 6,000 years ago, he whipped up the universe in 6 days (and rested on the seventh).

- Belief in unprovable speculation that cannot be reproduced by experiments and has no basis in archaeological evidence. No verifiable method to date things beyond 10000 years. Evolutionary principles that either are bland enough to fit within a creationist model (some people have red hair), or absurdly inexplicable (bat wings evolved from webbed fingers), and that make almost no contribution to industry and progress (which are driven by intelligent designs). An explanation that is empty at it's core (origin of universe, origin of life), and must ask it's adherents to accept as happening by chance events that are either apparently impossible (an environment suitable to create the components of a cell is unsuitable to sustain a living cell) or, under the best of circumstance, so improbable as to militate against their happening by chance (the universe is, by the most popular theories, neither big enough nor old enough to give a pool of probability large enough to expect life to occur by chance, and to survive).

Fantastical and weak sauce at that.

Oh, my.