A defence of Deism

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
A defence of Deism

During the show, Deism came up and people thought it was a rather wishy-washy position, as in Deist just don't want to admit the God does not exist. And also that those who are not evangelical are "pussies" along with people who don't talk about God, that think he kinda sorta exists etc...


My initial reaction of course, was what's wrong with not being sure? But aside from that, I think that perhaps 2-3 on Dawkin's scale would be a sufficent position.  I would argue that that is a much better position than evangelicals since the evangelicals seemed to just take this idea of God than ran with it.


I'm sure the references to Russels teapot or the FSM, will come flowing in, but I don't think that Deism is completly unfalsifiable.


The conformation of the Many Worlds Interputation of QM ( not to be confused with the multi-verse theory..), for example would at the very least make me seriously question my beliefs, or most likely make me discard them.



As for the point that people who vehemently argue for God, that's seems to be reasonable for an agnostic position.

 

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.


 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I've no quibble with Deism

I've no quibble with Deism but I wonder about the definition of "revealed religion".

Aren't all religions revealed in one form or another? In Deism's case, I think it's self-revelation that one may be calling "God". Is the Deistic definition limited strictly to "supernatural" revelation?

It seems like Deists say "Wow, science, the universe and the natural world I see around me is so cool! A god must exist and he must have created it all!"

Not trying to be snarky - simply to understand.

If I were going to go back to theism - deism would be as far as I'd go.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
I'll admit I haven't spent

I'll admit I haven't spent much a lot of time considering the deist position, so maybe I don't have room to speak, but I always thought of it as a position for people who never considered the absense of a god or deity.  Perhaps someone from a time or culture where the question isn't 'god or not' but 'which god' decides that none of the gods are real, but takes an agnostic deist stance of the beginning of the world\time\universe\physical existance type questions.  Deism to me just doesn't seem like a likely conclusion for someone thinking without a theistic presupposition.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
 While I no longer identify

 

While I no longer identify with the deist position, I've got no particular beef. I did declare myself a deist for a while before I took the atheist label. So I clearly would consider deism a step up from evangelical pentacostal christianity and the like.

(I only bring it up to indicate that I think Deism is a step up. That comment can also be read as a suggestion that you are being naive and that you'll one day "grow up" to my position or something. Forget that meaning. I only meant to convey that other thing I said before.)

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Pineapple, it's my

 Pineapple, it's my  understanding that deism is the positive belief that a removed deity set the universe in motion.  You seem to be saying that you hold no such positive belief, but reserve doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of a deity that may or may not be deistic in nature.  That's not deism in my book.  It's shrugging your shoulders.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm sure

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I'm sure the references to Russels teapot or the FSM, will come flowing in, but I don't think that Deism is completly unfalsifiable.
This is quite the claim. How would one go about falsifying Deism?


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Aren't all

jcgadfly wrote:

Aren't all religions revealed in one form or another? In Deism's case, I think it's self-revelation that one may be calling "God". Is the Deistic definition limited strictly to "supernatural" revelation?


I'm pretty sure it just excludes the 'supernatural' revelations.

 

 

Archeopteryx wrote:

I did declare myself a deist for a while before I took the atheist label.

 

Yeah, a lot of atheist seem to have taken that route.

 

I just hope it's not a trend

 

 

Hamby wrote:

 

 Pineapple, it's my  understanding that deism is the positive belief that a removed deity set the universe in motion.  You seem to be saying that you hold no such positive belief, but reserve doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of a deity that may or may not be deistic in nature.  That's not deism in my book. 

 

I would think that Deism is the belief of God, without the adherence of a religion. (As in belief in a Deity hence Deism..)

 

Is that the kind of people you were talking about on the show, the somewhat maybe unsure? 

 

 

Hamby wrote:

It's shrugging your shoulders.

 

<------- Avatar

 

Yeah, there are times when I'm really not so sure.

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

 

This is quite the claim. How would one go about falsifying Deism?

 

 

Well I gave the example of the MWI, as to if that itself is falsifiable, I don't know.

 

Or something along those lines.

 

 

 

 

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Yeah,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Yeah, a lot of atheist seem to have taken that route.

 

I just hope it's not a trend

 

 

It's too late. You're doomed!

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Well, Deism, though a much

Well, Deism, though a much more reasonable belief than say, fundamental Christianity, still suffers from the same core irrationalities of all religion.

 

A Deist, by definition, believes in some kind of deity, but with much more constraints than a traditional theistic god. This at least makes the deistic position much more plausible than the theistic one, because the paucity of evidence is to be expected of a deistic god.

 

However, the deistic position, because it holds the lack of evidence for a god to be a given, can only be arrived at through either divine revelation or rote faith. (Assuming, of course, the traditional arguments for the existence of God are false).

Since you claim to be an agnostic deist, the reason you arrived at this position is not out of divine revelation, since that would give you special knowledge. Therefore, your position is held entirely on faith.

Faith, since it is so arbitrary, is something I consider irrational.

If you consider deism to be just another hypothesis, consider the implications of randomly and arbitrarily selected a hypothesis among many others. Given the total lack of evidence, you may say that the deistic hypothesis has just as much credibility as any other "theory of everything" out there. Unfortunately it is not testable. Finding a "theory of everything" would not falsify the deistic position. We will just find some particle, some unifying force, or some arrangement of energy and matter which makes all of physics come to light. The deist could still say "Well, God made that," and it would continue on. Saying that a supernatural being made something is not a very satisfying explanation of the facts.

 

The best position is to not hold any strong beliefs about these hypotheses (the deistic one included) until the evidence is found. I don't know about you, but I would personally not like to delude myself into believing in something I know nothing about.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hedging a bet for Pascal's

Hedging a bet for Pascal's wager?

I see deism as an atheist trying to find social acceptance amongst the theistic adherents. lol.

Otherwise, why would deism need to be 'defended'?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy wrote:However,

theotherguy wrote:

However, the deistic position, because it holds the lack of evidence for a god to be a given, can only be arrived at through either divine revelation or rote faith. (Assuming, of course, the traditional arguments for the existence of God are false).

My understanding is that deists deny all divine revelation. Read "The Age of Reason" Part 1 for a basic guide to deism. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html

Deists don't just believe in a god, they believe in a god that refuses to interact with nature in any way. So no revelation, no prayer, and perhaps no afterlife. I wouldn't worry about they deists too much. I was one for a while. It is a stepping stone that leads straight to atheism. "Maybe God does not hear prayers or interact with us in any way," leads to "Maybe there is no God at all," which leads to "No, there just isn't a God." At least that is what happened with me.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Well I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Well I gave the example of the MWI, as to if that itself is falsifiable, I don't know.

 

Or something along those lines.

Where in the Many Worlds hypothesis is a god mentioned, again?

For falsifiability the hypothesis has to describe something. "God started it" doesn't describe anything.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Finally,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.

That's were you mistake is.  You should never question you beliefs.  God doesn't want us to question our beliefs.  I have never once questioned God not wanting me to question by beliefs, and that's why I have never had a problem knowing what to believe. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:That's were you

 

Quote:
That's were you mistake is.  You should never question you beliefs.  God doesn't want us to question our beliefs.  I have never once questioned God not wanting me to question by beliefs, and that's why I have never had a problem knowing what to believe.

That is so Poe.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
True believer

True believer wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.

That's were you mistake is.  You should never question you beliefs.  God doesn't want us to question our beliefs.  I have never once questioned God not wanting me to question by beliefs, and that's why I have never had a problem knowing what to believe. 

What a good little sheep - I hope you guessed the right shepherd.

You do know your belief is non-Biblical?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:True believer

jcgadfly wrote:

True believer wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Finally, as a student of nature, I actually do constantly question my beliefs,  more so when new data comes in, in fact, I am waiting eagerly for a conformation on the Theory of Everything.

That's were you mistake is.  You should never question you beliefs.  God doesn't want us to question our beliefs.  I have never once questioned God not wanting me to question by beliefs, and that's why I have never had a problem knowing what to believe. 

What a good little sheep - I hope you guessed the right shepherd.

You do know your belief is non-Biblical?

How could I have the wrong shepherd?  The lord is my Shepherd, who could know more about sheep then God!  He knows everything.  He knows your every thought.  He know what you had for dinner last night.  He sees you while you're sleeping, and he watches you in the shower. 

My belief is in Gods great Truth!  Perhaps you're not interpreting the bible correctly.  A lot of what the bible says is written in metaphors, and even if there is a problem with what the bible says then the problems must be the fault of humans.  You see God is perfect so if anything in the bible is flawed it can't be his fault.  Your problem is that you don't see how human imperfection proves God exists! 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:How

True believer wrote:

How could I have the wrong shepherd?  The lord is my Shepherd, who could know more about sheep then God!  He knows everything.  He knows your every thought.  He know what you had for dinner last night.  He sees you while you're sleeping, and he watches you in the shower. 

My belief is in Gods great Truth!  Perhaps you're not interpreting the bible correctly.  A lot of what the bible says is written in metaphors, and even if there is a problem with what the bible says then the problems must be the fault of humans.  You see God is perfect so if anything in the bible is flawed it can't be his fault.  Your problem is that you don't see how human imperfection proves God exists! 

Which God?


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Don't feed the trolls.

Don't feed the trolls.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 Pineapple, it's my  understanding that deism is the positive belief that a removed deity set the universe in motion.  You seem to be saying that you hold no such positive belief, but reserve doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of a deity that may or may not be deistic in nature.  That's not deism in my book.  It's shrugging your shoulders.

That's how I read that post, too. Isn't that usually called "agnostic"? Just sayin' is all.

I mean, I suppose you could believe that there's some kind of magical creature, but you're not sure it's there. But again, you're messing with the undefined. Given a mysterious domain, well, anything could be there. Any guess has a pretty good chance of being wrong. In fact, if you look at it like a calculus problem (I know you love calculus - you're in physics) you could say that the chance that you guess wrong approaches infinity, given infinite possibilities.

If you want to have a math-off at this point, I'd understand. For instance, this would be the best way for God to be infinite.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:My

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
My initial reaction of course, was what's wrong with not being sure? But aside from that, I think that perhaps 2-3 on Dawkin's scale would be a sufficent position.  I would argue that that is a much better position than evangelicals since the evangelicals seemed to just take this idea of God than ran with it.

 



I'm sure the references to Russels teapot or the FSM, will come flowing in, but I don't think that Deism is completly unfalsifiable.

Sure, Deism is not falsifiable, but the reason those examples keep flowing in is because they are apt.  They accurately represent the issue.

The teapot or FSM are also not completely unfalsifiable - hence the point.

 

I guess I don't understand what your issue is.  Are you simply concerned about labels?  Maybe it's better that we avoid the semantic argument, and simply focus on the arguments.  After all, if someone says "I'm an atheist" or "I'm an agnostic", we can always ask what they mean by that. We don't have to jump to one conclusion or another (though, I appreciate the benefit of having clearly defined terms.)

 

Are you bothered that some people call you a pussy? Or that some people feel you should be tortured in Hell for eternity for not choosing?

 

Anyhow, the teapot and FSM are apt analogies to god - in fact, the FSM is considered a god. 

 

i guess I'd ask:  What are you agnostic about, exactly?  How the Universe "began", or whether an omnipotent, perfect, personal Being made it magically appear?  My issue would be - why even entertain the latter for more than a second or two, since there is nothing whatsoever that gives evidence for it.

 

In all your studies of Nature, have supernatural Beings appeared?  Why do you hold onto a Faith that one still could?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  As an atheist ( and

  As an atheist ( and formerly fundamentalist Christian ) I consider all supernatural concepts as being purely bogus, nevertheless I have no qualms with deism as I consider it to be among the most passive, inert, and lifeless form of theism to have ever been conjectured.  Deism = The Church Of Nothingness.

 

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  As

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  As an atheist ( and formerly fundamentalist Christian ) I consider all supernatural concepts as being purely bogus, nevertheless I have no qualms with deism as I consider it to be among the most passive, inert, and lifeless form of theism to have ever been conjectured.  Deism = The Church Of Nothingness.

Agreed. As long as they don't puss shit on me I'm ok with them.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Um... If memory serves me

 Um... If memory serves me right, True Believer is one of those closet atheists from that silly little challenge a while back, right?

That's why I said his post was Poe.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that reeks of an atheist trying to sound like a theist.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

Yeah, a lot of atheist seem to have taken that route.

 

I just hope it's not a trend

 

 

It's too late. You're doomed!

 

*cough* excuse me?

What Would Kharn Do?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:That's why

Hambydammit wrote:

That's why I said his post was Poe.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that reeks of an atheist trying to sound like a theist.

True Believer is at least amusing in his/her Poe creations.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

I did declare myself a deist for a while before I took the atheist label.

 

Yeah, a lot of atheist seem to have taken that route.

 

I just hope it's not a trend

Once I realized I was simply creating this god that set the big bang in motion and that if I were to do that what's to stop me from creating another god that created the god that created the big bang, well it was all over. 

We don't know what happened right before the big bang.  Why make up an answer?  Science gives us answers to old questions when we wait it out, why not wait it out?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Where in the

JillSwift wrote:

Where in the Many Worlds hypothesis is a god mentioned, again?

For falsifiability the hypothesis has to describe something. "God started it" doesn't describe anything.

 

 

No, it doesn't have to mention God to falsify it.

Special Relativity for example falsified the luminious aether theory, it showed that the aether can't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

daedalus wrote:

 

Are you bothered that some people call you a pussy? Or that some people feel you should be tortured in Hell for eternity for not choosing?

 

 

I don't think any directly called me a 'pussy', but yeah, it kinda bothers me 'agnostic theists' are thought to be pussies.

daedalus wrote:

What are you agnostic about, exactly? 

 

 

 

The existance of God

 

daedalus wrote:

In all your studies of Nature, have supernatural Beings appeared?  Why do you hold onto a Faith that one still could?

 

 

 

Why is God supernatural? If he exists, wouldn't he, by definition, be natural?

 

 

Sapient wrote:

 

Why make up an answer?  Science gives us answers to old questions when we wait it out, why not wait it out?

 

 

Cause I'm weird, or that I dare to dream.

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7530
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Cause

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cause I'm weird, or that I dare to dream.

What's the dream?  You'll have some sort of afterlife? 

Making up a deist god that doesn't offer an afterlife doesn't sound like a dream, it sounds like you're just making something up.  It doesn't make you weird if you're not able to give the notion up.  However it may mean that the impact that society has had on you (god belief being the norm) is deeply embedded in your subconscious.  Why do you think I had a god that created the big bang right before I abandoned god belief?  It was because god belief just felt normal. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:No, it

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
No, it doesn't have to mention God to falsify it.

Special Relativity for example falsified the luminious aether theory, it showed that the aether can't exist.

Oh hon, that's not at all what I meant. I asked how Deism could be falsified, you said you gave the example of the Many Worlds hypothesis.

So it sounded like MW must have mentioned god, thus making Deism falsifiable along with the MW hypothesis.

The point I'm making is, you can't falsify "God started it". It's not a hypothesis, it's a bald and baseless assertion.

If you care to belive in a deity who "flipped the switch", that's your perogative. But, it's still not rationally defensible.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Why is

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Why is God supernatural? If he exists, wouldn't he, by definition, be natural?

No, supernatural is just anything that exists outside of what can be perceived by our senses and science. If you could know that he existed, then he would be natural. This is why I tend to scoff at people who claim anything supernatural; any supernatural belief should be virtually completely unjustified, by definition.

Quote:
Cause I'm weird, or that I dare to dream.

Lol, sounds like you just need some time to think about it. You'll be an atheist eventually. Muhuhahahahahahaha!

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Totally drunk is I. Just

Totally drunk is I. Just sayin'. It's all downhill from here.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I don't think any directly called me a 'pussy', but yeah, it kinda bothers me 'agnostic theists' are thought to be pussies.

Not that there's any really substantial difference between agnostic atheists and agnostic theists in terms of "agnostic".

Is there, or is there not an invisible friend? Agnostic! It's like giving up, only more philosophical sounding!

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
daedalus wrote:

What are you agnostic about, exactly?

The existance of God

But surely we must be agnostic with regards to a specific undefinable creature that recedes like a shadow in the daylight. Surely mystery itself will forever present us with the possibility that any portion of our imagination could produce a coincidental reality. Surely the God we know can be reasonably considered to possibly exist because of statistical humility.

Quote:
Why is God supernatural? If he exists, wouldn't he, by definition, be natural?

Proof positive that the Captain has a mind capable of grasping the universe.

Quote:
Cause I'm weird, or that I dare to dream.

Anyone who faults you for dreaming lacks imagination. But you know the heavy shackles of science. That which we do not know is fair game, but speculation better have a good case. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Making up a

Sapient wrote:

Making up a deist god that doesn't offer an afterlife doesn't sound like a dream, it sounds like you're just making something up.  It doesn't make you weird if you're not able to give the notion up.  However it may mean that the impact that society has had on you (god belief being the norm) is deeply embedded in your subconscious. 

 

I never grew up in a religious enviroment, and have been through High School in which it seemed that God belief was against the norm, along with my life now.

 

JillSwift wrote:

 

Oh hon, that's not at all what I meant. I asked how Deism could be falsified, you said you gave the example of the Many Worlds hypothesis.

So it sounded like MW must have mentioned god, thus making Deism falsifiable along with the MW hypothesis.

The point I'm making is, you can't falsify "God started it". It's not a hypothesis, it's a bald and baseless assertion.

If you care to belive in a deity who "flipped the switch", that's your perogative. But, it's still not rationally defensible.

 

Sweetie Pie, I mean to show it false.

 

I gave the example of SR and aether because S-R showed the aether cannot exist. The MWI would imply that God cannot exist.

 

butterbattle wrote:

No, supernatural is just anything that exists outside of what can be perceived by our senses and science. If you could know that he existed, then he would be natural. This is why I tend to scoff at people who claim anything supernatural; any supernatural belief should be virtually completely unjustified, by definition.

If something is outside nature, than wouldn't it mean it doesn't exist? Since nature is existance, then outside of existance is supernatural.

 

So if God (or anything else for that matter..) exists it would be natural. It would have to be natural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:If

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If something is outside nature, than wouldn't it mean it doesn't exist? Since nature is existance, then outside of existance is supernatural.

 

So if God (or anything else for that matter..) exists it would be natural. It would have to be natural.

If God exists and is natural, wouldn't He/She/It/Them have to operate under natural laws?

If the answer to the above is yes, how can a god with enough power to create the world be natural?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Sweetie

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Sweetie Pie, I mean to show it false.

I gave the example of SR and aether because S-R showed the aether cannot exist. The MWI would imply that God cannot exist.

It still makes no sense. How is a deity any more probable with a single iteration universe over multiple?

There is no rational basis for hypothesizing a god of any sort.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cpt_pineapple

jcgadfly wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If something is outside nature, than wouldn't it mean it doesn't exist? Since nature is existance, then outside of existance is supernatural.

 

So if God (or anything else for that matter..) exists it would be natural. It would have to be natural.

If God exists and is natural, wouldn't He/She/It/Them have to operate under natural laws?

If the answer to the above is yes, how can a god with enough power to create the world be natural?

Just to play Deist's Advocate here... is that an argument from ignorance you just played? Smiling


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:No,

butterbattle wrote:
No, supernatural is just anything that exists outside of what can be perceived by our senses and science. If you could know that he existed, then he would be natural. This is why I tend to scoff at people who claim anything supernatural; any supernatural belief should be virtually completely unjustified, by definition.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
If something is outside nature, than wouldn't it mean it doesn't exist? Since nature is existance, then outside of existance is supernatural.

So if God (or anything else for that matter..) exists it would be natural. It would have to be natural.

I believe that nature is what we can perceive as existence. In other words, something can exist outside of nature, but it would be impossible for us to know about it. Spiffy, isn't it? This is, of course, why, in a sense, we can't "disprove" supernatural gods. By definition, we're not supposed to be able to know about them. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote:jcgadfly

triften wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

If something is outside nature, than wouldn't it mean it doesn't exist? Since nature is existance, then outside of existance is supernatural.

 

So if God (or anything else for that matter..) exists it would be natural. It would have to be natural.

If God exists and is natural, wouldn't He/She/It/Them have to operate under natural laws?

If the answer to the above is yes, how can a god with enough power to create the world be natural?

Just to play Deist's Advocate here... is that an argument from ignorance you just played? Smiling

If it was, it was unintentional.

Most of it was my philosophy degree (pre-theatre geek days) coming out. I just try to ask enough questions until I find the right one or enough good ones.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It still makes no

Quote:
It still makes no sense. How is a deity any more probable with a single iteration universe over multiple?

There is no rational basis for hypothesizing a god of any sort.

Having just finished reading The Fabric of Reality (fascinating book; I highly recommend it), I'll try to clarify what I think Alison is saying:

If the MWI is true (personally, I'm now almost completely convinced. Copenhagen / Waveform collapse = junk science), 'God' as a divine creator is a concept absolutely incompatible with the worldview. The MWI (I'm unsure if you're already aware of this or not; apologies if I'm just restating stuff you already knew) essentially states that, just like the 3 dimensions of space we conventionally percieve is full of the matter and energy of a universe, the 4th dimension of a given universe is full of every possible outcome from a given causal effect.

'Divine' anything is meaningless in this strictly deterministic context; since every possible outcome to any action is realized (within a given universe's framework, likely spelled-out as soon as it is crunched-up into a singularityby a black hole and boomed out the other side), no single instance is at all special or unique: the universe is just doing as it does.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Having

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Having just finished reading The Fabric of Reality (fascinating book; I highly recommend it), I'll try to clarify what I think Alison is saying:

If the MWI is true (personally, I'm now almost completely convinced. Copenhagen / Waveform collapse = junk science), 'God' as a divine creator is a concept absolutely incompatible with the worldview. The MWI (I'm unsure if you're already aware of this or not; apologies if I'm just restating stuff you already knew) essentially states that, just like the 3 dimensions of space we conventionally percieve is full of the matter and energy of a universe, the 4th dimension of a given universe is full of every possible outcome from a given causal effect.

'Divine' anything is meaningless in this strictly deterministic context; since every possible outcome to any action is realized (within a given universe's framework, likely spelled-out as soon as it is crunched-up into a singularityby a black hole and boomed out the other side), no single instance is at all special or unique: the universe is just doing as it does.

Thanks for helping make that more clear for me, Kevin.

Still: MWI being more caustic to the idea of a switch-throwing god still leaves the question: Why hypothesize a god in the first place?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Still: MWI being more

Quote:
Still: MWI being more caustic to the idea of a switch-throwing god still leaves the question: Why hypothesize a god in the first place.

...Well, in Alison's case, I believe she stated in a prior thread that it's because said hypothesis makes her feel better. Sticking out tongue

I'd take a guess that this is generally the case with any theist or deist.

 

Something sort-of funny that I just thought of, though: while I doubt that this is a probability that would be represented anywhere in our universe's 4th axis (given our universal constants), it's essentially infinitely probable that some universe has at least one outcome where, indeed, life is so abundant and so devoid of anything we could call 'suffering' that the only logical conclusion it's inhabitants could come to is that it's designed to be that way (essentially, the world is the fine-tune proponent's wet-dream).

That might be another reason for hypothesizing that a deity exists. Eye-wink

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:daedalus

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Are you bothered that some people call you a pussy? Or that some people feel you should be tortured in Hell for eternity for not choosing?

Well, I suppose we shouldn't worry what people call us, unless it leads to arrest, a tribunal in front of the The House Committe on Un-American Activities, or the Inquisition or some other organization that punishes thought crimes.... -)
 

I don't think any directly called me a 'pussy', but yeah, it kinda bothers me 'agnostic theists' are thought to be pussies.

daedalus wrote:

Quote:
What are you agnostic about, exactly? 

The existance of God

Yes, but what is "god"?  How can you not believe in something when you don't even what it is you don't believe in?   In your following statement you ask "why is god supernatural"?

Why is god a being that can exist?  How do you know something even like a god you are imagining can exist at all?

Why would you spend time wavering about whether or not you believe in something you can't define?

It's like saying, "I don't know if I believe in something - some specific thing that I won't define, but hold a vague mental picture of because people seem to talk about "it" a lot..."

Quote:
daedalus wrote:

In all your studies of Nature, have supernatural Beings appeared?  Why do you hold onto a Faith that one still could?

Why is God supernatural? If he exists, wouldn't he, by definition, be natural?

I don't know!  I don't even know WHAT you are really talking about - what are you referencing when you say "god"?

 

Do you see my point?  You don't believe in anything, other than a collection of various definitions that you match together like a Mr. Potato Head.  Put the Mustache on, take off the Supernaturalism, take off the hat, put on the Omni-Benevolance, etc.

 

Problem is, there is no body in the first place: there is no there there.  The Corpus doesn't exist - why would the Being?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I think Kev actually summed

I think Kev actually summed that up quite well. But then again in another universe maybe he wasn't as clear Sticking out tongue

 

I've never read that book, but the Copenhagen interputation is the most experimentally valid AFIAK.

 

 

 

Quote:

...Well, in Alison's case, I believe she stated in a prior thread that it's because said hypothesis makes her feel better.

 

Which topic was that?


 

 

daedalus wrote:

Why is god a being that can exist?

 

 

I don't know.


 

 

 

And I'm happy playing with Mr. Potato head.

 

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I've never read that

Quote:
I've never read that book, but the Copenhagen interputation is the most experimentally valid AFIAK.

How so? The Copenhagen interpretation does not account for dark energy/matter (MWI does) and does not account for quantum entanglement (MWI does). It relies on the vague 'observer' and 'waveform collapse' assertions based on the particle double-slit experiment, while MWI explains the same experiment without violating Occam's Razor by introducing strange principles.

Now, granted, MWI is not currently beyond much of a hypothesis (and perhaps will never be beyond that, given that anything outside of our 3-dimensional space is, essentially, inaccessible), but it's much more elegant than the Copenhagen JuJu invocations.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:How so?

Kevin R Brown wrote:

How so? The Copenhagen interpretation does not account for dark energy/matter (MWI does)

 

 

How exactly is dark matter incompatiable with CI? You may be confusing MWI with the multi-verse theory here. (Dark matter could be interference from another universe, the MWI doesn't have to be invoked..)

 

Quote:

and does not account for quantum entanglement (MWI does).

 

How?

 

Quote:

It relies on the vague 'observer' and 'waveform collapse' assertions based on the particle double-slit experiment, while MWI explains the same experiment without violating Occam's Razor by introducing strange principles.


The double-slit experiment is good evidence for CI since if a detector is placed near any slit, the electron behaves classically.

(The detector collapses the wave-function so it's a particle that goes through one slit rather than a wave that goes through both...)

 

How exactly does the MWI explain the double slit?

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Quote:and does not

Quote:

Quote:

and does not account for quantum entanglement (MWI does).

 

How?

MWI proposes that an entangled particle is actually just 'straddling' two or more extremely similar lines of probability (that is, there are multiple 'worlds' - or planes along the 4th dimensional axis -  that 'share' the same particle (thus 'entangling' it).

Quote:

The double-slit experiment is good evidence for CI since if a detector is placed near any slit, the electron behaves classically.

(The detector collapses the wave-function so it's a particle that goes through one slit rather than a wave that goes through both...)

 

How exactly does the MWI explain the double slit?

No, it isn't 'good evidence'. Note that you had to invoke the equivalent of a mystical phenomena (waveform collapse) - that is, a totally mysterious effect that is only alleged to happen - in order for the Copenhagen model to 'explain' things.

MWI provides a much simpler, much more succinct answer to the riddle: observing an object, while having no obvious effect in the 3-dimensional space that we intuitively are aware of, has much more dramatic effects in a 4-dimensional environment because the act of watching something happen drastically alters the number of possible ways things may turn-out. With a detector absent, the electron has far more 'traffic' to contend with in terms of what it may wind-up doing and so end-ups interfering with itself - with a detectr present, many of the 'branches' of potential are sheared-off, so the electron behaves much more predictably.

Now, this is all still hypothetical, but one hypothesis seems to be a real contender while the other is just so much fluff.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:daedalus

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

daedalus wrote:

Why is god a being that can exist?

I don't know.

And I'm happy playing with Mr. Potato head.

 

OK, i think we all like playing with ideas and Mr. Potatohead.

 

But the point is, you are playing with different parts with no body - no substance to anchor it.  In fact, there is no evidence the body exists, let alone that the nose, hair and glasses would even fit.

 

That is, we reognize Love exists, but that doesn't mean there is a hole to plug it into (hahaha.... *blush*), well, you see what I'm saying.  That Love exists, but it doesn't mean it is an attribute of a being that we don't know exists or not.

 

Like saying, do Pixies like wearing nike shoes.  we have the shoes, but we have no idea if pixies exist, have feet, wear shoes, etc....

 

The concpets of Omnipower, Omniknow, Omninice, Omnifair, etc, exist, but that doesn't mean they apply to anything other than how they exist as concepts in our minds.  Likewise, the christian believes miracles exist.  we know strange things happen, but that doesn't mean we attach it to an unseen Being.

See, IMO, the agnostic is just creating a mild personal religion: they come up with a list of things they imagine a god would have and then declare that we can't know if they are right or not.  Why should we even begin to suspect that a person could be right about those things in the first place?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:MWI

Kevin R Brown wrote:

MWI proposes that an entangled particle is actually just 'straddling' two or more extremely similar lines of probability (that is, there are multiple 'worlds' - or planes along the 4th dimensional axis -  that 'share' the same particle (thus 'entangling' it).

 

Then why haven't we detected any of these other worlds, seeing as they are interfering with our world?

 

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:
MWI provides a much simpler, much more succinct answer to the riddle: observing an object, while having no obvious effect in the 3-dimensional space that we intuitively are aware of, has much more dramatic effects in a 4-dimensional environment because the act of watching something happen drastically alters the number of possible ways things may turn-out. With a detector absent, the electron has far more 'traffic' to contend with in terms of what it may wind-up doing and so end-ups interfering with itself - with a detectr present, many of the 'branches' of potential are sheared-off, so the electron behaves much more predictably.

 

So the same electron in another universe is interfering with itself  in this universe because it split off before it went through the slit, and yet this is "simpler"?

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Now, this is all still hypothetical, but one hypothesis seems to be a real contender while the other is just so much fluff.

 

False dichotomy, even if CI is wrong, it doesn't mean MWI is.

 

 

daedalus wrote:

But the point is, you are playing with different parts with no body - no substance to anchor it.  In fact, there is no evidence the body exists, let alone that the nose, hair and glasses would even fit.

 

That is, we reognize Love exists, but that doesn't mean there is a hole to plug it into (hahaha.... *blush*), well, you see what I'm saying.  That Love exists, but it doesn't mean it is an attribute of a being that we don't know exists or not.

 

Like saying, do Pixies like wearing nike shoes.  we have the shoes, but we have no idea if pixies exist, have feet, wear shoes, etc....

 

The concpets of Omnipower, Omniknow, Omninice, Omnifair, etc, exist, but that doesn't mean they apply to anything other than how they exist as concepts in our minds.  Likewise, the christian believes miracles exist.  we know strange things happen, but that doesn't mean we attach it to an unseen Being.

See, IMO, the agnostic is just creating a mild personal religion: they come up with a list of things they imagine a god would have and then declare that we can't know if they are right or not.  Why should we even begin to suspect that a person could be right about those things in the first place?

 

But wondering about God is different than wondering about Pixies, even if Pixies exist, it really wouldn't alter our view of the world, but if God exists, it would. God could be the difference between higher meaning and not.

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Then why haven't we

Quote:
Then why haven't we detected any of these other worlds, seeing as they are interfering with our world?

Arguably, we have. We've detected (in theory) the gravitational, electromagnetic and energetic effects of these 'other worlds' (I'm not a fan of that term - it's the same world, just extended along a 4th dimensional axis).

Quote:
So the same electron in another universe is interfering with itself  in this universe because it split off before it went through the slit, and yet this is "simpler"?

Copenhagen model: An observer somehow magically makes a 3-dimensional object behave differently.

MWI model: All objects are inherently 4-dimensional. Watching an object affects it in the 4th dimension by changing the number of possible outcomes for it.

The MWI model is actually a model. It does not invoke a vague magical unknown factor ('wavefunction collapse'). It is not necessarily correct, and does still deal with unknown variables, but is a much more solid guess.

Quote:
False dichotomy, even if CI is wrong, it doesn't mean MWI is.

I made it perfectly clear that MWI is still a hypothesis, and may still be quite incorrect, so this is bogus. Yes, both theories may be quite far from the truth. However, of the two current theories, one actuall has meat - the other is Woo Woo junk.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and something I forgot

Oh, and something I forgot to mention:

The MWI hypothesis may actually yield a practical application in the form of quantum computing. What practical applications do you see emerging from the Copenhagen hypothesis?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  As

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  As an atheist ( and formerly fundamentalist Christian ) I consider all supernatural concepts as being purely bogus, nevertheless I have no qualms with deism as I consider it to be among the most passive, inert, and lifeless form of theism to have ever been conjectured.  Deism = The Church Of Nothingness.

I would agree to a point. Yes, Deism is a belief based on a half of a belief that is completely irrelevant. Unfortunately it cannot be discounted as inert. While it, like the other "harmless" versions of supernatural hogwash, continues to affirm the legitimacy of the fundamentals of the more harmful beliefs it should not be coddled. If I believe in something useless like Deism, I am saying that it is reasonable to believe in such a thing. I am saying that "yes, it is reasonable to believe in whatever you can make up". When these beliefs happen to propel someone into a building via a plain full of jet fuel... well... until you stop trying too legitimize the fundamentals of supernatural idiocy... you supported it. Thanks, I appreciate your fucking help in making the world a better place.

So I am not on the "oh but it's harmless" bandwagon. The beliefs are just as made up and ridiculous as any of the others... it is just less interesting.

Having said that, if the religious peoples of the world were ALL Deist then I'll happily dismiss their beliefs as moronic and not have another thought about them.

It pains me to see such clearly clever people insisting on compartmentalizing their intellect. It's a tragedy.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Copenhagen model: An

Quote:

Copenhagen model: An observer somehow magically makes a 3-dimensional object behave differently.

 

Actually that's Consciousness causes collapse, in the CI, information collapses the wave function.

 

Quote:

MWI model: All objects are inherently 4-dimensional. Watching an object affects it in the 4th dimension by changing the number of possible outcomes for it.

The MWI model is actually a model. It does not invoke a vague magical unknown factor ('wavefunction collapse'). It is not necessarily correct, and does still deal with unknown variables, but is a much more solid guess.

 

 

What do you mean by 'change the number of possible outcomes?' I never read that book, but I don't see how observing something limits it's possible outcomes.

 

 

Quote:

Oh, and something I forgot to mention:

The MWI hypothesis may actually yield a practical application in the form of quantum computing. What practical applications do you see emerging from the Copenhagen hypothesis?

 

CI is compatable with QC, and also adds Quantum Encryption to the mix.