06 Apr 06
Originally posted by Halitose
Consider it a mental compromise. It’s like a man who’s grown up on a tiny island who concedes the possibility that a large flat expanse of sea with a tiny spit of land may not be all that’s “out there”.
Certainly! Most atheists I know hold that view. Could there possibly be a Heaven and a Hell and a Spirit World and a god just like that described in the Bible. Sure.
What I, and others, object to is the guy on that tiny island turning to his fellow "strandee" and saying, "I know you can't see it, but way off in the distance there is a big piece of land. It is called Fantasia. It is ruled by the Grand Emperor who wears only the finest garments. Despite the distance, I can talk with the Grand Emperor, and he told me many things about Fantasia. He says that someday soon he is going to send an armada of ships to this island and rescue us. Well, some of us anyway. You see if you just scratch your name on this tree here, then you will be spared. BUT WOE UNTO YOU, if you do not! If the ships come and your name is not on the tree, then the Men of the Ship will leave you here to fry. Oh, I did mention they will scorch the island before leaving, right?"
06 Apr 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI hope I don't come across as one swinging from extreme to extreme.
Well, what I continue to fail to understand is why you consider it unreasonable to demand some justification in favor of my putting 'trust' in another. I doubt you would entrust the care of your children, for example, to some complete stranger on the street who promises to 'take real good care of 'em, ya hear'; but surely you might conceivably entrust t expanse of sea with a tiny spit of land may not be all that’s “out there”.
No, you don't. You come across as a very amiable chap who happens to hold some beliefs that I don't view as warranted.
Consider it a mental compromise.
My concern lies in the types of 'compromises' that bring heavy challenge to the rationality of my noetic structure.
I'd respond to the rest, but telerion (re-read above for good measure) already did so in fine fashion.
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionLol. My only reservation is that you paint the fundies a tad too much as a bunch of dimwits who have nothing but their imaginations to justify such machinations. Your analogy is quite good, it only misses the folklore of the Grand Emperor and this wacko head-hunter many moons ago who claimed to be the son of the Grand Emperor and told of strange and wondrous things. And of course there are those leaves with strange etchings of Fantasia.
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Consider it a mental compromise. It’s like a man who’s grown up on a tiny island who concedes the possibility that a large flat expanse of sea with a tiny spit of land may not be all that’s “out there”.
Certainly! Most atheists I know hold that view. Could there possibly be a Heaven and a Hell and a Spirit W ...[text shortened]... ave you here to fry. Oh, I did mention they will scorch the island before leaving, right?"[/b]
06 Apr 06
Originally posted by telerionYou see if you just scratch your name on this tree here, then you will be spared.
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Consider it a mental compromise. It’s like a man who’s grown up on a tiny island who concedes the possibility that a large flat expanse of sea with a tiny spit of land may not be all that’s “out there”.
Certainly! Most atheists I know hold that view. Could there possibly be a Heaven and a Hell and a Spirit W ...[text shortened]... ave you here to fry. Oh, I did mention they will scorch the island before leaving, right?"[/b]
Seems a small price to pay.
07 Apr 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWorship of "the Emporer of Fantasia". Various sometimes useful but sometimes useless restrictions on one's life. Depends on which version of the contract we're talking about in it's specifics.
And what do you take that contract to demand of those who sign, exactly?
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWormholes do, in fact, have a definition. Even if wormholes per se are not real, the concept of wormholes is. String theory, like many things in theoretical physics, is very hard to imagine. The concept of a 'string' is an easier way of imagining this concept which, i'll admit, i know nearly nothing about. Just because there aren't any real strings involved doesn't mean it can't be called string theory. This is quite different to the beginnings of the universe (including time).
Sorry..but wrong again....what you 'just don't get' is that I DO infact get what you are saying about 'time' and 'before' the universe. I understand you perfectly well. But as I have said before I don't think this is an 'invalid' question just because we don't have the right words to describe it properly.
The universe is basically a massive explosi ...[text shortened]... pace! What are you afraid of? Go on ..have a speculate...it won't kill you!
Hal, the multiverse is basically a very badly defined idea in my opinion. The standard definition of the word universe could easily include several "verses" which would be the multiverses postulated - but they would still, necessarily, be below the level of the universe, which includes everything.
KM, if you want to discuss whatever it is, and speculate on whatever it is, you want then that's fine. I'll stick with things that are real, okay?
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnz...and just because there isn't any time (as we know it) 'before' the universe doesn't mean we can't use the word 'before' . You are hoisting yourself by your own petard!!
[b] String theory, like many things in theoretical physics, is very hard to imagine. The concept of a 'string' is an easier way of imagining this concept which, i'll admit, i know nearly nothing about. Just because there aren't any real strings involved doesn't mean it can't be called string theory.
As I said before , it's mere pedantic wordplay and semantics but if you want me to find some different words then try this. What initiated the Big Bang? If there was nothing to initiate it why did this massive explosion 'occur' when this 'absolute zilch' you talk about might just as easily have carried on 'being nothing'?
Also , in order for something to occur you argue that you need time for it to occur. So how did time occur if there was no time in which time itself could occur? You argument collapses in on itself into paradoxical absurdity. The concept of eternity is more rational because you are never left having to explain how something can occur or be initiated from zilch. It's a problem you have which I don't . You are saying that you can have an event without a cause. I am not saying this. I am saying you can have something that is not an event but is preexistent or eternal. By saying the universe 'came out of nothing' you immediately set up a problem for yourself which flies in the face of rationality. By saying God is eternal I set up a different problem for myself ( and it's not having to explain how God came out of nothing) . The problem is more one of trying to imagine the virtually unimaginable , something so incredible and mindblowing , but rather than TRANSGRESSING rationality, it TRANSCENDS rationality. I can still preserve rationality by saying 'everything that has a beginning HAS to have a cause' by instead saying 'not everything has to have a beginning'.
By now you are probably picking holes in my semantics and deciding to not wrestle with the basic question at hand , but this doesn't matter. Anybody following this thread will know which theory sounds more rational and plausible and will have noted your evasiveness and unwillingness to contemplate on this.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe uinverse is real , it's occurence is real , the rationale of basic science (there is a cause or reason for everything) is real , the question is real , people have pondered on it for centuries and that's real, science is about hypothesising and speculating , that's real, it's not good science to stop speculating or hypothesising - real , the fact that there is somehting out there still to find out - real enough ,
KM, if you want to discuss whatever it is, and speculate on whatever it is, you want then that's fine. I'll stick with things that are real, okay?[/b]
Hmmm ..quantum physicists speculate all the time and as soon as a theist starts doing it you start appealling to 'real' ?
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisteryou still make no sense. You take the same argument and change the words, but it's still the same argument that you obviously don't fully understand. You talk of something 'initiating the big bang', but don't seem to realise that initiation is a time dependant phenomenon. You'll accuse me of being pedantic again, but it just boils down to your wish to not accept the answer.
...and just because there isn't any time (as we know it) 'before' the universe doesn't mean we can't use the word 'before' . You are hoisting yourself by your own petard!!
As I said before , it's mere pedantic wordplay and semantics but if you want me to find some different words then try this. What initiated the Big Bang? If there was nothing to i ...[text shortened]... ll have noted your evasiveness and unwillingness to contemplate on this.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe difference between quantum physics and theological speculation is that QP bases its speculation upon facts and experimentation, theologians have a defined end point (god) before they start and then try to use any argument no matter how abstract to get there.
The uinverse is real , it's occurence is real , the rationale of basic science (there is a cause or reason for everything) is real , the question is real , people have pondered on it for centuries and that's real, science is about hypothesising and speculating , that's real, it's not good science to stop speculating or hypothesising - real , the fact t ...[text shortened]... late all the time and as soon as a theist starts doing it you start appealling to 'real' ?
I can see exactly where you are going KM, trying to open up an arena to try and prove the existance of god, unfortunately your 19th century understanding of science will not allow that nowadays - I'll always be right here to stop you.
