Why people believe strange things

[Morningstar]

In the end whatever results as the final irreducable “thing” is God to me. Even if the final reduction truly demonstrated a string of cyclical functions like the infinity symbol illustrates, then that collective is God.

Thus defining God is the real intent of my focus.

[Stu]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19)

In the end whatever results as the final irreducable “thing” is God to me.  Even if the final reduction truly demonstrated a string of cyclical functions like the infinity symbol illustrates, then that collective is God. Thus defining God is the real intent of my focus.

So on this line you travel via Einstein and Spinosa to arrive at Dawkins. This is the danger of deism – the difference between atheism and pared-back deism is almost too subtle to recognise. You have the ultimate god of the gaps, or none, with no well-defined border between them. You are putting the border between you and I under an electron microscope and seeing the grey area.

Whatever it is that happened in those microseconds before our model of the beginning of this universe starts to make sense, it is very weird as far as our normal perception goes. You say none understand it – I say some understand it far better than me, and that there is no principle that says it cannot possibly be understood by anyone. I think a major difficulty is for people to get the concept of time and time dilation, first.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:12)

I also don't believe in the “supernatural” in the sense that word is used. I believe that whatever is considered supernatural, if indeed true is actually natural but not understood. Now, if one means beyond or outside of nature or beyond understood nature then I would agree with that.

Yes, the supernatural really doesn't exist for either of us. I don't think that there is anything going on in the universe like that described in any holy book; everything can be empirically or rationally described without any need for unseen causes. It is the scientific method that I see as providing the description of nature, and what you call supernatural I call the undiscovered universe. It is god of the gaps again.

Stuart

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,18:50)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:12) I also don't believe in the “supernatural” in the sense that word is used. I believe that whatever is considered supernatural, if indeed true is actually natural but not understood. Now, if one means beyond or outside of nature or beyond understood nature then I would agree with that. Yes, the supernatural really doesn't exist for either of us.  I don't think that there is anything going on in the universe like that described in any holy book; everything can be empirically or rationally described without any need for unseen causes.  It is the scientific method that I see as providing the description of nature,  It is god of the gaps again. Stuart

You Said:

and what you call supernatural I call the undiscovered universe.

Remember, I call it undiscovered as well.

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,18:44)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19) In the end whatever results as the final irreducable “thing” is God to me.  Even if the final reduction truly demonstrated a string of cyclical functions like the infinity symbol illustrates, then that collective is God. Thus defining God is the real intent of my focus. So on this line you travel via Einstein and Spinosa to arrive at Dawkins.  This is the danger of deism – the difference between atheism and pared-back deism is almost too subtle to recognise.   You have the ultimate god of the gaps, or none, with no well-defined border between them.  You are putting the border between you and I under an electron microscope and seeing the grey area. Whatever it is that happened in those microseconds before our model of the beginning of this universe starts to make sense, it is very weird as far as our normal perception goes.  You say none understand it – I say some understand it far better than me, and that there is no principle that says it cannot possibly be understood by anyone.  I think a major difficulty is for people to get the concept of time and time dilation, first. Stuart

I understand the time dialtion concept. I also understand Einsteins space/time fabric.

Even if a form of a steady state of things existed prior to the beginning of “time” then ultimately some reduction of things is reached. There is God.

I acknowledge that this God could be what you would call something else, like nature or the universe, I call it God.

Once again it comes down to defining God, science can't do that. I bring in philosophy.

[Stu]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,18:59)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,18:44) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19) In the end whatever results as the final irreducable “thing” is God to me.  Even if the final reduction truly demonstrated a string of cyclical functions like the infinity symbol illustrates, then that collective is God. Thus defining God is the real intent of my focus. So on this line you travel via Einstein and Spinosa to arrive at Dawkins.  This is the danger of deism – the difference between atheism and pared-back deism is almost too subtle to recognise.   You have the ultimate god of the gaps, or none, with no well-defined border between them.  You are putting the border between you and I under an electron microscope and seeing the grey area. Whatever it is that happened in those microseconds before our model of the beginning of this universe starts to make sense, it is very weird as far as our normal perception goes.  You say none understand it – I say some understand it far better than me, and that there is no principle that says it cannot possibly be understood by anyone.  I think a major difficulty is for people to get the concept of time and time dilation, first. Stuart I understand the time dialtion concept.  I also understand Einsteins space/time fabric. Even if a form of a steady state of things existed prior to the beginning of “time” then ultimately some reduction of things is reached. There is God. I acknowledge that this God could be what you would call something else, like nature or the universe, I call it God. Once again it comes down to defining God, science can't do that.  I bring in philosophy.

So is there god in things that are discovered?

With the expansion in the rate of humans acquring knowledge, does this god shrink along a 1/x shaped graph?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Hey guess what?

Nothing become something and something became everything, including you and me.

No this isn't a strange belief, this is the big picture to the Theory of Evolution, or any theory that denies a creator.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Dec. 07 2007,23:59)

Hey guess what? Nothing become something and something became everything, including you and me. No this isn't a strange belief, this is the big picture to the Theory of Evolution, or any theory that denies a creator.

So you are adding here the lies a moderator (not you, surely?) wrote on the portal pages to this site. Did you not think there was enough ignorance in the world already?

Stuart

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,20:56)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,18:59) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 07 2007,18:44) Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 07 2007,17:19) In the end whatever results as the final irreducable “thing” is God to me.  Even if the final reduction truly demonstrated a string of cyclical functions like the infinity symbol illustrates, then that collective is God. Thus defining God is the real intent of my focus. So on this line you travel via Einstein and Spinosa to arrive at Dawkins.  This is the danger of deism – the difference between atheism and pared-back deism is almost too subtle to recognise.   You have the ultimate god of the gaps, or none, with no well-defined border between them.  You are putting the border between you and I under an electron microscope and seeing the grey area. Whatever it is that happened in those microseconds before our model of the beginning of this universe starts to make sense, it is very weird as far as our normal perception goes.  You say none understand it – I say some understand it far better than me, and that there is no principle that says it cannot possibly be understood by anyone.  I think a major difficulty is for people to get the concept of time and time dilation, first. Stuart I understand the time dialtion concept.  I also understand Einsteins space/time fabric. Even if a form of a steady state of things existed prior to the beginning of “time” then ultimately some reduction of things is reached. There is God. I acknowledge that this God could be what you would call something else, like nature or the universe, I call it God. Once again it comes down to defining God, science can't do that.  I bring in philosophy. So is there god in things that are discovered? With the expansion in the rate of humans acquring knowledge, does this god shrink along a 1/x shaped graph? Stuart

I think this is your conclusion because you gain information on how something works and therefore erase God from what you call that “gap”.

I think God has placed within Creation, which he is not part of, governing laws and systems.

I think God sustains the universe and occasionaly intervenes in acts that many would call a supernatural manner. Which would actually be a very natural act just not understood.

[Stu]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,00:23)

I think God sustains the universe and occasionaly intervenes in acts that many would call a supernatural manner.  Which would actually be a very natural act just not understood.

An intervention would have to be 'extra' to the laws such a deity had original set in place (otherwise the intervention would have no different effect to just the natural laws operating), and therefore the deity would be detectable.
We would be able to observe a temporary change in physically measured quantities. Many repeated measurements of a huge number of physical constants are made daily across the world, yet no 'not understood' events of relevance to human daily life have been recorded.

Until you can use it to make a prediction that can be tested, your hypothesis is cut to shreds by Occam's razor – the most parsimonious explantation is the best one: yours explains things that are not observed and evidence that does not (yet) exist.

Stuart

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,00:50)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,00:23) I think God sustains the universe and occasionaly intervenes in acts that many would call a supernatural manner.  Which would actually be a very natural act just not understood. An intervention would have to be 'extra' to the laws such a deity had original set in place (otherwise the intervention would have no different effect to just the natural laws operating), and therefore the deity would be detectable.   We would be able to observe a temporary change in physically measured quantities.  Many repeated measurements of a huge number of physical constants are made daily across the world, yet no 'not understood' events of relevance to human daily life have been recorded.   Until you can use it to make a prediction that can be tested, your hypothesis is cut to shreds by Occam's razor – the most parsimonious explantation is the best one: yours explains things that are not observed and evidence that does not (yet) exist. Stuart

Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category.

I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.

At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them.

[NickHassan]

Hi MS,
Philosophy is vanity.
It gets a bad rap in scripture.

Acts 17
” 16Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

17Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?

20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.

21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) “

Scripture is the wisdom of God.

Luke 11:49
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

[Morningstar]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Dec. 08 2007,05:29)

Hi MS, Philosophy is vanity. It gets a bad rap in scripture. Acts 17 ” 16Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. 17Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. 18Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? 20For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. 21(For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) “ Scripture is the wisdom of God. Luke 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

hey it brought me to the bible.

I don't use philosophy to interpret the bible. just things outside of the bible.

how are you going to even get people to consider the faith if from the outset they reject the concept of a creator. You can't just hand them a bible.

Paul used the words of philosopher's many times to bring home his points to the pagans.

Once they reached that understanding he showed them the futility of philosophy apart from the word of God. (meaning not just a book we call the bible, but the word written in spirit).

[Stu]

Hi Morningstar

Quote

Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category.

Perhaps. Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason. You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong.

Quote

I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies. At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them.

What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method?

Stuart

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,16:25)

Hi Morningstar Quote Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category. Perhaps.  Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason.  You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong. Quote I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.   At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them. What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method? Stuart

Any question that can't be answered through observation and experimentation. Or any question that observation and experimentation might not be able to be answered within ones lifespan.

[Stu]

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,19:26)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,16:25) Hi Morningstar Quote Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category. Perhaps.  Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason.  You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong. Quote I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.   At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them. What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method? Stuart Any question that can't be answered through observation and experimentation.   Or any question that observation and experimentation might not be able to be answered within ones lifespan.

Can you think of an example of a question that cannot be in principle investigated by science?

Is lifespan is the limiting factor on suspending judgement? Do we wait a certian length of time then switch from science to gut instinct? Is there nothing that we can die wondering about? Must we come to our own conclusion on everything about which we are curious? Doesn't life have more edge if you learn to live with a little uncertainty? Are fundamentalists educated out of being allowed to leave some things in the 'don't know' basket?

Stuart

[Morningstar]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 09 2007,09:24)

Quote (Morningstar @ Dec. 08 2007,19:26) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 08 2007,16:25) Hi Morningstar Quote Perhaps, interventions have been detected but remain in the “not understood” category. Perhaps.  Regardless of whether they are understood or not, such events or phenomena cannot be attributed to a deity without reason.  You can just as validly say that no events of this kind have ever been caused by a deity, and you would not be wrong. Quote I fully acknowledge the veractiy of the scientific method. I fully acknowledge the “need” to seperate religious concepts from scientific studies.   At this stage of our knowledge, and for a potentially limitless extension of stages of human knowledge, science cannot be used to answer some of these questions. Only philosophy can address them. What worthwhile question do you think could not be addressed by the scientific method? Stuart Any question that can't be answered through observation and experimentation.   Or any question that observation and experimentation might not be able to be answered within ones lifespan. Can you think of an example of a question that cannot be in principle investigated by science?   Is lifespan is the limiting factor on suspending judgement?  Do we wait a certian length of time then switch from science to gut instinct?  Is there nothing that we can die wondering about?  Must we come to our own conclusion on everything about which we are curious?  Doesn't life have more edge if you learn to live with a little uncertainty?  Are fundamentalists educated out of being allowed to leave some things in the 'don't know' basket? Stuart

you can make your own choice, which obviously you do.

[Theologian-and-Apologist]

I don't know why people believe strange things, I don't know why people don't believe in God, considering that all other views are impossible and self-defeating.

[Stu]

Quote (Theologian-and-Apologist @ July 14 2008,13:07)

I don't know why people believe strange things, I don't know why people don't believe in God, considering that all other views are impossible and self-defeating.

Don't you think basing your critical understanding of your own belief system AND your understanding of those who don't share it on ignorance is a bit limiting? Do you not feel some responsibility to educate yourself?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

“Why people believe strange things” is an interesting heading.

Regarding that, why do people believe in the Santa Singularity? A point that came from nothing and became not only something but something so amazing that even it spawned life so it could see itself.

Wow, what a belief. Even though I know Santa Claus is not real and men who wear red suits at Christmas are impostors, it is far more feasible that Santa exists than believing that out of nothingness came a singularity that expanded to become the cosmos and created bananas as a spin off product.

[Author]

Posts