Do you believe in God?
NoahYates wrote:
Do you mean to imply that because there is some "evidence" for the multiverse hypothesis....so that to "believe" in its descriptive/explanatory scope/power is not an act of faith? Because I wholly reject his accusation of equivocation (I am accusing him of using a word incorrectly, and his response is to accuse me of equivocating ( shows that our definitions do not line up...) so he is only "correct" in the "system of knowledge" that opposes faith and reason.
Also... a bit about Occams Razor... "do not multiply hypotheses beyond necessity"...
That definitely fits the theory of the multiverse... God the necessary being and the prime mover of contingent things.... no way... far too complicated... we need to hypothesis an infinity of randomly ordered universes (generated by the clashing of two higher "branes" in thee 15th dimension.... universes.... some of which will just happen to have special features that will look like ours.... (sarcasm)
Also... a bit about Occams Razor... "do not multiply hypotheses beyond necessity"...
That definitely fits the theory of the multiverse... God the necessary being and the prime mover of contingent things.... no way... far too complicated... we need to hypothesis an infinity of randomly ordered universes (generated by the clashing of two higher "branes" in thee 15th dimension.... universes.... some of which will just happen to have special features that will look like ours.... (sarcasm)
I am sorry if that is what you assumed, I may have misunderstood.
But again, what I wanted to emphasize, was that the multiverse is not a fully debunked theory.
As a person who was about to start writing a dissertation in string theory ( I began a Ph.D in theoretical physics before doing Law), I cannot say that string theory is of any testable or holds any pragmatic utility.
_________________
Sebastian
"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck
Perhaps one of my greatest peeve in when some garner the conviction that Atheism makes someone smart or more logical. I too was an atheist, but ironically, the more I learned about physics and the sciences, the more that I came to the conclusion that God is really the only plausible explanation.
Sometimes arrogance and conceit prevents any rational thinking or inquiry. The lady above seems to be quite ignorant of Pascal's wager.
_________________
Sebastian
"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck
Deltaville wrote:
Perhaps one of my greatest peeve in when some garner the conviction that Atheism makes someone smart or more logical. I too was an atheist, but ironically, the more I learned about physics and the sciences, the more that I came to the conclusion that God is really the only plausible explanation.
This is my story as well. I was brought up in a household where we weren't necessarily religious. My mom told us things like "God loves you... and we go to heaven when we die... etc, etc. So I can say I was brought up with an underlying "belief" in a generic God. Well... I around the 7th grade, when I was 12 years old, my cousin who is 3 years older than me, heard me mention God and proceeded to make fun of my belief in God... saying that God doesnt exist... basically giving the most trivial atheistic rejection of God (santa claus/tooth ferry/flying spaghetti monster). Well, because this cousin was my "role model" I was instantly converted to atheism. I adopted his ideology on faith (trust/confidence in his ability to reason to the correct conclusion.)
Well... wind the clock forward to my Sophomore year of high-school. I was taking a biology class. I had procrastinated to study for my microbiology exam and needed some help studying. I asked my dad who is a professor of biology, human ecology, and botany to help me study for the exam. Basically in that car ride which i will never forget he explained the molecular machinery that operates in our cells. I was absolutely blown away by what he was telling me "intelligently" occurred within our cells. I first saw the "thumbprint" of some sort of Mind in operation behind nature (which is what the atheists were saying did not exist.) I quickly began to investigate this new possibility that "wait... wtf... maybe there is a God?!" The book I read when I first "chose" to become a theist was Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, where he too starts from the single seed of truth from which you can build a tree of knowledge. That single seed is the awareness of your own mind-- Mind is primary. Again, I also took the correct interpretation of pascal's wager into account from when my Dad scolded me for belittling a Christian years ago.
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
NoahYates wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
Perhaps one of my greatest peeve in when some garner the conviction that Atheism makes someone smart or more logical. I too was an atheist, but ironically, the more I learned about physics and the sciences, the more that I came to the conclusion that God is really the only plausible explanation.
This is my story as well. I was brought up in a household where we weren't necessarily religious. My mom told us things like "God loves you... and we go to heaven when we die... etc, etc. So I can say I was brought up with an underlying "belief" in a generic God. Well... I around the 7th grade, when I was 12 years old, my cousin who is 3 years older than me, heard me mention God and proceeded to make fun of my belief in God... saying that God doesnt exist... basically giving the most trivial atheistic rejection of God (santa claus/tooth ferry/flying spaghetti monster). Well, because this cousin was my "role model" I was instantly converted to atheism. I adopted his ideology on faith (trust/confidence in his ability to reason to the correct conclusion.)
Well... wind the clock forward to my Sophomore year of high-school. I was taking a biology class. I had procrastinated to study for my microbiology exam and needed some help studying. I asked my dad who is a professor of biology, human ecology, and botany to help me study for the exam. Basically in that car ride which i will never forget he explained the molecular machinery that operates in our cells. I was absolutely blown away by what he was telling me "intelligently" occurred within our cells. I first saw the "thumbprint" of some sort of Mind in operation behind nature (which is what the atheists were saying did not exist.) I quickly began to investigate this new possibility that "wait... wtf... maybe there is a God?!" The book I read when I first "chose" to become a theist was Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, where he too starts from the single seed of truth from which you can build a tree of knowledge. That single seed is the awareness of your own mind-- Mind is primary. Again, I also took the correct interpretation of pascal's wager into account from when my Dad scolded me for belittling a Christian years ago.
It was education that brought me closer to God than ever. It is ironic, I know.
Simply put, the idea that our universe has phsycial concepts of 10^10^123 of even existing bring the odds to a de facto MORE than one in to all of the subatomic particles in the universe. Simply put, the odds are AGAINST the universe being formed by chance.
_________________
Sebastian
"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck
Its not ironic for me It is only ironic for those who establish a false dichotomy between science and religion, reason and faith, intelligence and religiosity, logic and intuition.
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't find religion to be necessarily incompatible with science.
I just don't believe in God.
It would be nice if there was some place I could go to after my cessation of life, though.
I just don't believe in God.
It would be nice if there was some place I could go to after my cessation of life, though.
Look up the Orch OR theory by Stuart Hameroff.
_________________
Sebastian
"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck
kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't find religion to be necessarily incompatible with science.
I just don't believe in God.
It would be nice if there was some place I could go to after my cessation of life, though.
I just don't believe in God.
It would be nice if there was some place I could go to after my cessation of life, though.
This is a very reasonable form of atheism..... I very much respect his attitude.
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
kraftiekortie wrote:
It would be nice if I could be conscious of my existence within the neurons of a person living subsequent to me.
If I am correct in my theory that we are all God pretending that we are not... this is precisely what is already happening.
Look into Leibniz's Monadology
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
This is a MUST WATCH
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Last edited by NoahYates on 11 Mar 2016, 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Another one of my favorite lectures by Alan.
_________________
“In the same way that you see a flower in a field, it’s really the whole field that is flowering, because the flower couldn’t exist in that particular place without the special surroundings of the field; you only find flowers in surroundings that will support them. So in the same way, you only find human beings on a planet of this kind, with an atmosphere of this kind, with a temperature of this kind- supplied by a convenient neighboring star. And so, as the flower is a flowering of the field, I feel myself as a personing- a manning- a peopling of the whole universe. –In other words, I, like everything else in the universe, seem to be a center… a sort of vortex, at which the whole energy of the universe realizes itself- comes alive… an aperture through which the whole universe is conscious of itself. In other words, I go with it as a center to a circumference.”~ Alan Watts
Deltaville wrote:
...
Honestly, the idea that Occam's razor favors a far less probable hypothesis is when I feel it is being used under an ill motivation.
There are many well known modern physicists, for instance, who happen to be Christian. For instance, George Ellis, J. Richard Gott III, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Gerald Cleaver are just a very few examples. Would you consider these men to be irrational?
A Catholic Priest hypothesized the Big Bang theory, and even Roger Penrose is suspected be a theist in the closet by many physicists.
Honestly, the idea that Occam's razor favors a far less probable hypothesis is when I feel it is being used under an ill motivation.
There are many well known modern physicists, for instance, who happen to be Christian. For instance, George Ellis, J. Richard Gott III, John Barrow, Frank Tipler, Gerald Cleaver are just a very few examples. Would you consider these men to be irrational?
A Catholic Priest hypothesized the Big Bang theory, and even Roger Penrose is suspected be a theist in the closet by many physicists.
I think these people compartmentalize the Christian aspect of their lives from their scientific career.
There is nothing even slightly probable about a God.
NoahYates wrote:
Do you mean to imply that because there is some "evidence" for the multiverse hypothesis....so that to "believe" in its descriptive/explanatory scope/power is not an act of faith? Because I wholly reject his accusation of equivocation (I am accusing him of using a word incorrectly, and his response is to accuse me of equivocating ( shows that our definitions do not line up...) so he is only "correct" in the "system of knowledge" that opposes faith and reason.
Also... a bit about Occams Razor... "do not multiply hypotheses beyond necessity"...
That definitely fits the theory of the multiverse... God the necessary being and the prime mover of contingent things.... no way... far too complicated... we need to hypothesis an infinity of randomly ordered universes (generated by the clashing of two higher "branes" in thee 15th dimension.... universes.... some of which will just happen to have special features that will look like ours.... but most are doomed to be "selected out" in the "evolution of universes" (sarcasm)
Also... a bit about Occams Razor... "do not multiply hypotheses beyond necessity"...
That definitely fits the theory of the multiverse... God the necessary being and the prime mover of contingent things.... no way... far too complicated... we need to hypothesis an infinity of randomly ordered universes (generated by the clashing of two higher "branes" in thee 15th dimension.... universes.... some of which will just happen to have special features that will look like ours.... but most are doomed to be "selected out" in the "evolution of universes" (sarcasm)
There is no evidence for either hypothesis (I'm being generous in calling God an hypothesis, which it isn't). But one is compatible with science and one is not. This means that it's not rational to be totally convinced by either one. But if one had to pick which is more likely, God gets the boot. And it may prove to be none of the above.