somewhatdamaged Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 I believe it's just a book of good moral stories Not good morals! I believe we were all made by Galactus using the Power Cosmic. You mean the great Galactus from Marvel? Absolutely! What other God could there possibly be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 The omnipotent being may well be a fool, but to have created all this suggests a certain level of intelligence. I have asked myself all the questions regarding our existence and the conclusion I am drawn to (repeat) that there has to be some presence that has always been there. I believe there has to have been something/someone there "from time immemorial" for all this to happen. That someone/something may well have been a fool to have produced something so flawed as we are now but maybe in the future all will be redeemed and it's part of the growing up process. Very little designed works perfectly immediately. VOR, I hope you don't think I am getting at you - its just you are about the only person vocalizing something which I think is very commonly believed, but something I disagree with and so wish to discuss more! Obviously, as we all admit, this is basically personal opinion and if you beg to differ that is fine by me, but I do wish to discuss your ideas that any first mover has necessarily to exist or has to be powerful, or intelligent, or a designer. I really don't see any reason for any of this and wonder if you can explain your thinking more - if its just your gut feel fine, but I do think such beliefs are common and are some of the main reasons why many people are deists, or have a hankering for Intelligent Design - VOR your posts seem to indicate beliefs in both of these ideas and hence my replies to you! Firstly I question how constrained do you think this prime mover was? - here's a flawed analogy - pi is an exquisitely complicated ratio - it is literally infinitely precise. Now if someone were to argue that pi was an example of how amazingly fine tuned the universe is I would go rot - the value of pi is absolutely fixed, given its definition, and there is no way for any creator to do anything different [awaits VinnieK's reply about Reiman geometry]. I am pretty sympathetic to the idea that the physical universe is what it is and there was no choice available for any designer to fiddle around with it - in that case you simply don't need any designer at all - the infinite regress of what caused each event can either breaks down with the conclusion that the universe is infinitely old - or it can be broken arbitarily and there really isn't any need for you to do that at any powerful eternal creator being - the physics of the universe, especially if they are self-consistent will equally do; or you can accept a prime mover, but say it was constrained - it had to create the universe this way, there was no other way for it to be done. Secondly, I really find it difficult to believe that it was necessary for any creator to have any idea what "it" was doing. I totally accept "Darwin's strange inversion of reasoning" [more technically here!]. The physical universe just chuggs away, doing what it does, and if life (and non-life) is able to do something, then it does it - forming a black hole, or a flower or whatever. All you need is the physical laws of the universe and happenstance and what will be, will be! It isn't planned or ordained, it just is. Throw a rock of a mountain and things will happen - is it necessary that you know all of these things will happen before it is possible to throw the rock? Obviously not, then why is the start of the universe any different? I also really would like to understand more about your idea that the universe is designed with a purpose. How can we possible know, and how can we distinguish it from a purposeless universe? Especially as we have no idea what so ever of any of the motivations of any such creator - ok saying this will get the religious all wound up, but I simply find their claims to be able to see or recieve a revelation of these motives totally unconvincing. Anyway, I've gone on enough - am I making any sense? VOR you seem to see a reason for a creator, for it to be intelligent and for the universe to have a purpose. I don't have any of those hopes and can't even start to see how I can find them looking out into the universe as i see it. But my guess is that far far more people feel like you than me - I am trully foxed by that! And hence love trying to get people to talk about this sort of thing - an earlier attempt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Only 2.63% believe in religion. My faith in the true Manx is restored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 What - 2.63% of MF active members are true Manx - sounds about right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 5, 2009 Author Share Posted September 5, 2009 The physical universe just chuggs away, doing what it does, and if life (and non-life) is able to do something, then it does it - forming a black hole, or a flower or whatever. All you need is the physical laws of the universe and happenstance and what will be, will be! It isn't planned or ordained, it just is. Throw a rock of a mountain and things will happen - is it necessary that you know all of these things will happen before it is possible to throw the rock? Obviously not, then why is the start of the universe any different? , some of those later dimensional splits involve folds suggesting an infinite number of infinitely different universes, with an infinite number of initial conditions - thus actually making everything possible. If anything and everything is possible and anything and everything is infinite and thus certain, then there could be a creator who resides in a different universe with different initial conditions we don't understand. Also follow that logic and it is even possible to retrospectively create a creator. Enough to do your noggin in, and the main reason I say I'm agnostic, because I'll never know for certain, and why I think that atheists like Dawkins are just as much 'faith' pushers as are religious fanatics. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Firstly I question how constrained do you think this prime mover was? - here's a flawed analogy - pi is an exquisitely complicated ratio - it is literally infinitely precise. Now if someone were to argue that pi was an example of how amazingly fine tuned the universe is I would go rot - the value of pi is absolutely fixed, given its definition, and there is no way for any creator to do anything different [awaits VinnieK's reply about Reiman geometry]. I never like to let folks down, so, true to form, I shall now witter on at a tangent to the main point. I'm not sure what you mean by pi being an exquisitely complicated ratio. If anything it's a tremendously simple ratio, being nothing more than circumference to diameter. In fact, this simplicity of expression is part of its appeal. Also, infinitely precise doesn't make much sense - that makes it sound like we came up with a number named pi, and then found this extraordinary ratio that matches it. More to the point, 2/1 = 2.000... is infinitely precise, that doesn't make it amazing or special. As an aside, I think the main flaw in your analogy isn't the above. Creationists bring up the watchmaker argument in reference to things they claim exhibit the hallmarks conscious design, whereas the correlation between the number Pi and the ratio described above can be stated as a mere consequence of the form of the thing being designed and created, namely that of the physical universe (or more accurately, the localized Euclidean approximation of its geometry). Anyway, I'm not that sure what any of this has to do with VOR's statements thus far. Really it seems to be playing semantics with the term omnipotence, rather than actually pick up on a genuine flaw in reasoning. Concepts of omnipotence can and do accomodate notions of constraint. Someone could say their deity is all powerful in the sense that they are all powerful within the context of the physical laws that are a consequence of their creation, or that the powers they do have are unlimited in extent or scope. If pulled up on some inconsistency they need only shrug their shoulders and retort with "fine, I'll use a different word". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 6, 2009 Author Share Posted September 6, 2009 Firstly I question how constrained do you think this prime mover was? - here's a flawed analogy - pi is an exquisitely complicated ratio - it is literally infinitely precise. Now if someone were to argue that pi was an example of how amazingly fine tuned the universe is I would go rot... Creationists bring up the watchmaker argument in reference to things they claim exhibit the hallmarks conscious design, whereas the correlation between the number Pi and the ratio described above can be stated as a mere consequence of the form of the thing being designed and created, namely that of the physical universe (or more accurately, the localized Euclidean approximation of its geometry). Concepts of omnipotence can and do accomodate notions of constraint. Someone could say their deity is all powerful in the sense that they are all powerful within the context of the physical laws that are a consequence of their creation, or that the powers they do have are unlimited in extent or scope. If pulled up on some inconsistency they need only shrug their shoulders and retort with "fine, I'll use a different word". Isn't that counter-reasoning, and indeed all counter-reasoning to a deity, be it: god; the spaghetti monster; a giant chicken; or a piece of string; all superferlous in a 10 dimensional existence consisting of an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of initial conditions where everything and anything is possible? You are arguing about pi in just one universe, our own, with the set of initial conditions we were stuck with. The ideas and theories of a 10 dimensional existence are derived from, and support, superstring theory, with superstrings identified as being the underlying source/cause of anything and everything and pervading all universes. Anything and everything of course includes universes with initial conditions nothing like our own e.g. many may have ip instead of pi; some may have time running backwards wrt us; in another we may be duplicated and are all actually travelling in a giant flask of tea on the No 10 bus to Peckham; and one or more or an infinite number of universes even, might house a creator. In a nutshell, everything and anything is possible in a 10 dimensional existence, so it renders all argument fruitless on all sides, so on that basis then surely even science has to admit therefore that superstrings are a potential vehicle for omnipotence themselves. But that doesn't happen, because the scientists as well as the religious fantics generally keep the argument to one universe only - this one, one out of an infinite and infinitely different set. On the part of scientists, how scientific is that? Surely it is simply dogma against religion as it is recognised by us on this planet - and by no means a reflection of the true possibilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I believe it's just a book of good moral stories Not good morals! What’s wrong with this lot as examples of good morality? Don’t get into things that will do you no good. Don’t steal Don’t murder Don’t be jealous of what others have Don’t break up a partnership Keep a bit of time for yourself on a regular basis Pay heed to what your parents tell you And that’s not even going into the New Covenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 If this 'creator' started the universe for a purpose, why not just get on with it and stop the torture, genocide, murders, rapes, abuses and general tomfoolery of life that he 'created'. Or is he just a sadist with a very warped sense of humour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 What’s wrong with this lot as examples of good morality? Don’t get into things that will do you no good. Don’t steal - wishy washy. If this commandment simply means kidnappign then it makes sense. But if it means property then it could mean that it is wrong to take anything from another person if it is legally classed as their property or seen to be their property. I don't agree with this, I don't think is moral. And the Torah advovates the selling of someone into slavery if they are caught and cannot pay back the amount. Does it not also mention that gentiles who steal must be given the death penalty? Don’t murder Don’t be jealous of what others have - What is wrong with covetting the things that others have? Should you be happy with your lot? Don’t break up a partnership - It is not breaking up a relationship that is mentioned, it is committing adultery. I don't think that should be a moral imperative. Why should marriage (which was certainly little more than a property contract then) be given credit as being a sacred and special thing? Anyway, aren't adulterers supposed to be stoned? Keep a bit of time for yourself on a regular basis Pay heed to what your parents tell you - as a moral imperative, it is not wise. Why should you always obey your parents? Why the assumption that they know best and are wise themselves? Mu understanding is also that a son who does not heed his parents words can be stoned. And that’s not even going into the New Covenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 infinite number of universes with an infinite number of initial conditions where everything and anything is possible? You are arguing about pi in just one universe, our own, with the set of initial conditions we were stuck with. I see what you're getting at, but you don't have to go to string theory to see the relationship between pi and the ratio of circumference and diameter of a circle break down. Space is thought to have a curved (non-euclidean geometry) that just looks very similar to the geometry we're taught in school of 'flat' x,y, and z planes in certain localized areas and/or on a small enough scale. So in a setting where this curved geometry is evident, this ratio will not equal pi (which is really just an intellectual construction that happens to be a useful approximation for most practical purposes). It's also a bit of a fallacy that infinite possibilities = all outcomes occur in at least one universe. You can have an infinite system of outcomes in which an infinite number of outcomes are excluded, because infinity is a tricky thing that refers only to size rather than the content of what's being measured. By way of example, consider a sequence of positive numbers being generated by a machine. If you have an infinite number of universes then it's reasonable to imagine that across the entire system there's an infinite number of different numbers being output at a given time, but in no universe will that machine be producing a fraction or an imaginary number at that point. In fact, we can make a much stronger statement about this: say that our machine is no longer operating under any restriction on what number it produces at a given point (i.e. negative numbers, fractions, et al are also permitted). It is still impossible that every number will appear across the system of different universes at any given point. The reason for this is the set of all numbers is substantially bigger than the set of all positive whole numbers, even though both are infinite. The number of all universes (and hence these machines) will be the same size at the set of all positive whole numbers (since you can label them 1, 2, 3, and so on), but the set of numbers is much bigger, so there will always be (an infinite amount) of numbers that aren't being output at any given point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Don’t steal – wishy washy. If this commandment simply means kidnappign then it makes sense. But if it means property then it could mean that it is wrong to take anything from another person if it is legally classed as their property or seen to be their property. I don't agree with this, I don't think is moral. But it IS wrong to take a thing from another person if that thing is theirs. And the Torah advovates the selling of someone into slavery if they are caught and cannot pay back the amount. Does it not also mention that gentiles who steal must be given the death penalty? I think that you’re making the classic mistake of believing that the Torah is a ‘set in stone’ thing like the Koran. It isn’t. The Torah is the basis of both Judaism and Christianity (but NOT Islam) but in addition to the Torah must be tread in conjunction with the Talmud and the Haftorah. It is by means of continual Rabbinical debate that the silly things such Mr Cohen (the Rabbi) needing to burn his daughter if she goes on the batter (Lev 21:9) are now no longer mandated. Don’t be jealous of what others have - What is wrong with covetting the things that others have? Should you be happy with your lot? It is not wrong to aspire to what others have, but to be jealous of them for having a thing, that might only lead to trouble, especially if they are a close neighbour or relative. Don’t break up a partnership - It is not breaking up a relationship that is mentioned, it is committing adultery. I don't think that should be a moral imperative. Why should marriage (which was certainly little more than a property contract then) be given credit as being a sacred and special thing? Anyway, aren't adulterers supposed to be stoned? I deliberately chose to use the wording that I did because the meaning goes far beyond a bit of the old in-out though I do accept that is also prohibited. Marriage IS a special thing. Divorce is not ruled out, but for someone to deliberately set about destroying a marriage especially out of the desire for sex, is wrong. As for adulterer being stoned, that’s dealt with in the Talmud, and also in The New Covenant. (John 8:7) Pay heed to what your parents tell you - as a moral imperative, it is not wise. Why should you always obey your parents? Why the assumption that they know best and are wise themselves? Mu understanding is also that a son who does not heed his parents words can be stoned. The Decalogue reads (in any translation from Hebrew to KJV) HONOUR your father and mother. It means pay heed to what they say, it does not mean blindly obey them. As for stoning, see also the earlier comments involving the Talmud. A word on The Talmud. Rather than go into a long explanation I suggest that it’s worth reading the Wikipedia entry for the Talmud. It’s very well written, a damm site better than I could do, and provides all sorts of ‘references out’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 But it IS wrong to take a thing from another person if that thing is theirs. It does depend on how it determined whether something is 'theirs' or not. Especially in today's society I'd have a problem with this point. It is not wrong to aspire to what others have, but to be jealous of them for having a thing, that might only lead to trouble, especially if they are a close neighbour or relative. It might lead to trouble, but it might not. Nothing wrong in being jealous about what others have, especially if they have no 'right' to such things. I deliberately chose to use the wording that I did because the meaning goes far beyond a bit of the old in-out though I do accept that is also prohibited. Marriage IS a special thing. Divorce is not ruled out, but for someone to deliberately set about destroying a marriage especially out of the desire for sex, is wrong. That seems more specific than the commandment. As for adulterer being stoned, that’s dealt with in the Talmud, and also in The New Covenant. (John 8:7) I know that passage, but why it is relevant? Pay heed to what your parents tell you - as a moral imperative, it is not wise. Why should you always obey your parents? Why the assumption that they know best and are wise themselves? Mu understanding is also that a son who does not heed his parents words can be stoned. Ok, good point. I also think the resting on the Sabbath day thing is immoral too. This is a commandment is it not? It seems a good idea, but what if you disobeyed? What's the threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Burning in the fires of eternal damnation whilst satans minions do nasty things to your bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 And what about always forgiving others for their misdeeds? That's not good moral instruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.