I don't know – That simple phrase is the main difference between religion and science.

Science says I don't know and then sets about finding out, certain things then become proven truths like evolution, electronics, physics, chemistry. Others remain theoretical like elements of cosmology and so on certain things may always be unknowable for example how did life on this planet begin? Science is about asking questions, trying to prove things and accepting that today we don't know certain things and maybe never will.

Religion offers the solace of certainty, but the arrogance is beyond a joke.

Not only do the religious claim to have special knowledge of their creator, they also claim to know the mind and preferences of this being and then furthermore claim to be representatives and translators of it's will on earth.

Religion is completely contradictory, has absolutely no evidence for ANY of it's claims and has no room to develop. as all it's truths are already in place.

I am happy not knowing every answer but being amazed by what we do know. I have no need for a god in my life.

page boundary bump (due to forum bug)

"well, I guess that's why I'm willing to accept any number of gods from zero to infinity and ignore them all equally"

that's pretty much my philosophy. although, everyone else has their own ideas and philosophy, and that's ok. I find it really hard going though, trying to have the same point of view as sfb!

dalesboyz – Member

all i can say is, if there was a "god" wont he perfer if no one know about him (or her) then have millions of people die just to prove that there ideas about god. and that is why i dont belive in him as, if he had the power to build the world why didnt he make it fair for everyone and thing and if it was just adam and eve would we look all the same and be very inbred?

That's the reason the concept is flaw in terms of creation god and would be better if they simply referred to them as titans. Titan is more acceptable because they can be considered as normal gods with egos and perhaps unfairness.

For centuries many have tried to evolve an acceptable concept of creation god but no matter how they tried the concept lacks logic in relation to the law of nature. Look at the three different versions of Abrahamic religions and you will notice that the root cause of the problem inevitably link to the concept of creation god, except that the earlier schools slowly gives way to a more evolved latter version of the same concept. Worst still they fight amongst themselves in addition to trying to eradicate others who do not follow their chain of thought. Also you get those who use them as vehicle for expansion and create even more suffering.

😕

simonfbarnes – Member

sounds good but what does it mean ?

Many lack the wisdom to question the concept due to many factors (fear, intimidation, etc …) or simply too quick to give in (again many factors contribute to that).

I don't follow…

Attempt to question or to debate or to doubt the concept would inevitably bring severe sanctions on the individuals. Punishment by death in many cases so light hearted debate in STW is completely different from say trying to question the validity of the concept in some other countries.

I can see you're trying to say something, but I can't make out what it is

It is "cryptic" 😉 but perhaps you could search for the terms cause and effect and law of nature to make up your mind. Plenty being debated and not only in science.

🙂

"Not even wrong" – and that's all of it, all religion, all lumped in together …

I find it difficult, impossible even to see past the absurd, arrogant, self-centred conceit implicit in 'religion'. Of the millions of species that have ever lived, that H. sapiens have the idea that they are in any way special or chosen is only because of a brain wiring that makes such thoughts both likely, and evolutionarily self-serving.

In evolutionary terms, it just luck that we ended up where we are, the world hasn't been created with us in mind, East Africa got a bit drier following a big quake, the highlands then create a rain-shadow, and the equatorial forest (although I'm not sure that's quite the right word, given that forest has come to mean a deer-park, not a wooded area) dries out, becomes a savannah, and some members of whichever higher primate species was around to make use of it chances it's arm and spends more and more time out on the plain exploiting the new environment (whilst the other side of the family stays in the woods).

Nobody has time to think about 'religion; until some kinda agrarian practice means that there is now a bit of spare time off. Time off from trying to find enough food to survive without [also] being eaten in turn. It's all nice simple stuff for a while, a few beads and flowers popped in as grave goods, a bit of ochre wiped on, and being laid out facing the rising sun, and something to say thanks to the animal spirits for the fecundity of the catch et cetera … but it all then goes kinda way too intense at some point after that.

At some future point in time, and statistically quite soon (albeit based on a combination of verifiable, sound empirical data andthe perhaps, slightly mystical applied mathematics field of probability) we'll join the significant majority of other species that have ever existed, and simply become extinct, owing to insurmountable environmental change.

Whatever follows on in a bit might have a go at something similar if it evolves up a similar evolutionary dead-end, or life might happily rumble on for a good few million years until the next big nugget / super-volcano / ice:seawater:methane ratio wipes the slate clean and something else gets to have a go.

Will any of it mattered then?
Not in any way likely is it? – Unless it turns out to be true of course 😉 – but we all know that's it's not really true don't we, even if one has to dig all the way down, past all the incontrovertible solidity of all that faith, the dogma, the rhetoric: when it comes to it, that there is nothing there at the end.

"Existence" doesn't hate you, nor does it love you, it's completely indifferent – all the human endeavours, the suffering, the glory, love, hope … all just tricks of your endocrine system, itself duped by a bit of viral protein simply hitching a ride onto the next generation, and the next, and the one after that … reprogramming the host a bit as it goes to suit the conditions (like it's done for the last ~3.5 billion years (on this planet anyway – could be longer elsewhere)).

What was the question – I think I might have gone off on a bit tangent?

🙂

It is "cryptic" but perhaps you could search for the terms cause and effect and law of nature to make up your mind. Plenty being debated and not only in science.

that's not how I like to debate. Instead of saying "look it up" say what you mean. If you can't put it in a paragraph then it's too vague…

In evolutionary terms, it just luck that we ended up where we are, the world hasn't been created with us in mind

but that's a hypothesis too. Had the world been fashioned by Slartybartfast, complete with fossil record, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I say it doesn't matter – what we have is NOW, however it came about, and whatever it leads to.

simonfbarnes – Member

It is "cryptic" but perhaps you could search for the terms cause and effect and law of nature to make up your mind. Plenty being debated and not only in science.

that's not how I like to debate. Instead of saying "look it up" say what you mean. If you can't put it in a paragraph then it's too vague..[/quote]

Ok, perhaps look at it this way events that happened are dependent on the causes and conditions that themselves are triggered by their own causes and conditions, which is similar to chain reaction that continues from one to another or as the result of cause and effect. That is the nature of things. To say that event happens spontaneously by itself is in fact ignoring the very fundamental principle of the nature. Applying this principle to the idea of creator you will see that it is not plausible because there cannot be an effect without a cause. To say that creator come into being by him/herself is also not possible because there is an absence of the condition/causes which triggers his/her appearance. Hence, the creator him/herself is in fact the result of causes and condition that derived from somewhere but that question is no longer important since the notion of creator that created us in his/her image is inaccurate. 🙂

simonfbarnes – Member
"… what we have is NOW, however it came about, and whatever it leads to."

Whatever you do now will have consequences in the future. Cause and effect.

is in fact ignoring the very fundamental principle of the nature

but I've also seen it suggested that we invented the concepts of time and cause and effect, rather than them being inherent. But either way if deities are outside our universe then they may follow different rules

simonfbarnes – Member

but I've also seen it suggested that we invented the concepts of time and cause and effect, rather than them being inherent. But either way if deities are outside our universe then they may follow different rules

Your answer still relates to cause and effect.

The question you need to ask yourself (tiny self in the spectrum of the universe etc) is this – Does it matter to me NOW to know how deities or gods outside of our universe live their lives?

Like I said before the principle is the same … cause and effect …

🙂

Does it matter to me NOW to know how deities or gods outside of our universe live their lives?

obviously not – but I don't see how causation is relevant.

I've got some biscuits..

simonfbarnes – Member

obviously not – but I don't see how causation is relevant.

It is irrelevant but what I am advocating is that the same principle should apply too. i.e. if we perceive them to be there then they are there and if they got there by themselves then they must have done something to get there, either way there is a condition and a cause.

🙂

❗ I have faith in lager and real ale.

if we perceive them to be there then they are there

but not all things we perceive are real

and if they got there by themselves then they must have done something to get there

I don't see any of this following, and the terms are too vague. There are so many possibilities. The gods may have their own gods, or whatever. I don't really care, and only apply myself to things that relate to my own experience.

are you still banging on about this Barnes? it's almost like you believe in something!

Religion?
Yes (theological answer)

I'm a scientist though, so show me proof.

are you still banging on about this Barnes? it's almost like you believe in something!

although I'm universally sceptical, I believe in loads of things 🙂

I certainly believe you are a pain in the arse, but I like your style!

Whatever you find there should be the principle that govern the metaphysical and beyond. Anything that is out of that context is simply not plausible.

Plausible? We're back to that common sense thing again, which doesn't apply.

By the way, you may like to consider the fact that the words 'metaphysical' and 'supernatural' are oxymorons…

Religion offers the solace of certainty, but the arrogance is beyond a joke

You're being pretty cock sure on the subject of religion tho mate…!

(btw you're quite wrong above – you clearly don't know the subject very well. Every hear the phrase 'God moves in mysterious ways' ?)

I find it difficult, impossible even to see past the absurd, arrogant, self-centred conceit implicit in 'religion'. Of the millions of species that have ever lived, that H. sapiens have the idea that they are in any way special or chosen is only because of a brain wiring that makes such thoughts both likely, and evolutionarily self-serving.

Anthropic reasoning works well both ways. If there were a God, and he did create one species in his own image capable of thought and whatnot, then they'd be the ones thinking about these questions. IE us.

but we all know that's it's not really true don't we,

That sounds a lot like conceit there mate 🙂

What was the question – I think I might have gone off on a bit tangent?

Yeah you were preaching a bit there. Oops! 🙂

Lots of irony in the last couple of days' posts 🙂

molgrips – Member

Chew: "Whatever you find there should be the principle that govern the metaphysical and beyond. Anything that is out of that context is simply not plausible."

Plausible? We're back to that common sense thing again, which doesn't apply.

By the way, you may like to consider the fact that the words 'metaphysical' and 'supernatural' are oxymorons…

It's not common sense since the vast majority, who have faith in creation, cannot comprehend it nor see how it works instead prefer to leave out it of their own thinking by relying on others to conjure something up.

On the other hand, although science follow some of the basic principles of finding the cause and effect (investigating the relationship between one to the other … whatever they are etc), they have forgotten or they cannot see the application of such principles to greater whole as they have indulged too much on their narrow experiments whatever they are.

I do not discount the notion of metaphysic but I find it not plausible to have a creator. 🙂

simonfbarnes – Member

but not all things we perceive are real

Then you need to ask yourself this question. Is it important or necessary to know and what does it do for me in my present life?

I don't see any of this following, and the terms are too vague. There are so many possibilities. The gods may have their own gods, or whatever. I don't really care, and only apply myself to things that relate to my own experience.

Yes, there are many possibilities but yet they follow the same principle without which they would be impossible. Like you said "The gods may have their own gods, or whatever." which is the result of cause and effect. i.e. without the previous gods, there would not be present gods etc.

The same principle apples to all of us. Your experience is based on your previous action(s) – can be a single action or multiple actions. i.e. if you sow the seed you harvest the reward good or bad and there is no escaping that.

🙂

Then you need to ask yourself this question. Is it important or necessary to know and what does it do for me in my present life?

isn't that for you to ask and answer ? I know nothing about your preferences.

just because we hypothesise cause and effect in our experience, that doesn't mandate its application in all conceivable situations

simonfbarnes – Member

isn't that for you to ask and answer ? I know nothing about your preferences.

Replace the word "me" by "you".

just because we hypothesise cause and effect in our experience, that doesn't mandate its application in all conceivable situations

Like I said it is applicable to ALL. You need not take my word for it but investigate them yourself then ask yourself if it is possible to have a result without action?

Like I said it is applicable to ALL

but how do you know ? You cannot make it so just by bolding it.

You need not take my word for it but investigate them yourself then ask yourself if it is possible to have a result without action?

if I were to investigate it, how would I know if it applied in other contexts ? It's simple enough to imagine others where it didn't, and impossible to prove they don't exist. In any case, I don't know how you would investigate C and E, we kind of take it for granted in the here and now, making it a circular argument

simonfbarnes – Member
but how do you know ? You cannot make it so just by bolding it.

Can you not observe it yourself? Can you not put some efforts into observing? After all you are in charge of your own learning and understanding. It might take time, a very long time but eventually you will know.

So if you observe events carefully you will find that there will always be a cause and effect or at least the conditions that might or will enable future actions. It will never cease. For example, in a very brute simplistic sense as a person your thoughts turn into action and action create result and the result will have implication on you or others.

Or if you are a scientist your knowledge(condition/thought) enables/encourages you to do experiments(action) which leads to +ve/-ve outcome (result) that will have impact (implication) on your/all/society etc depending on your initial thought & action.

The sequence is there so you need to decide how you want to sequence to continue that's all. You are in charge of your own direction.

if I were to investigate it, how would I know if it applied in other contexts ? It's simple enough to imagine others where it didn't, and impossible to prove they don't exist. In any case, I don't know how you would investigate C and E, we kind of take it for granted in the here and now, making it a circular argument

Simple answer. Try it. No point reading and learning while not even try or dare to give it a go. You simply need to observe how things unfold with the chain reaction but obviously there will be distraction (many conditions) when your are doing your observation of events.

Yes, we have taken things for granted or simply being distracted by all that surrounds us. We are entering the forest but see no firewood. Yes, you see circular argument here because you have not started to observe the events yourself. Once you have done so you will move on to another set of questions but we all start from somewhere.

🙂

It's not common sense since the vast majority, who have faith in creation who read popular science, cannot comprehend it nor see how it works instead prefer to leave out it of their own thinking by relying on others to conjure something up.

Fixed that for ya 🙂

Seriously though, surely you can see the massive irony in what you're saying?

Can you not observe it yourself? Can you not put some efforts into observing?

of course, but I don't assume my observations apply to every possible universe 🙂 Or for that matter that they reliably reflect the one I'm in…

As a general principle, I don't bother to argue with people with religious beliefs, as their judgement is so obviously so fundamentally flawed to begin with, and so many believe that atheism is inconsistent with living within a moral framework, it's like arguing with people who believe that the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese,dogs are good,black pudding isn't technically a vegetable etc.

Thank you and goodnight.

Simple answer. Try it. No point reading and learning while not even try or dare to give it a go.

and I'm saying one cannot use one's assumptions to investigate their own validity

I don't bother to argue with people with religious beliefs

well, we seem to have strayed into epistemological backwaters, with chewkw getting all stampy foot over my rejection of universal unconditional cause and effect, which isn't particularly religious….

simonfbarnes – Member

of course, but I don't assume my observations apply to every possible universe Or for that matter that they reliably reflect the one I'm in…

Well, it's up to you as to what you intend to observe really and I think trying to understand the universe perhaps is a bit far fetch for all our tiny minds at the moment but personal situation could be a good starting point. Just don't dwell on it too long.

simonfbarnes – Member

and I'm saying one cannot use one's assumptions to investigate their own validity

Nobody is going to judge you on your assumptions or validity (no creator btw) you have to make up your mind whether to reject or to accept what you observe but before coming to a conclusion perhaps it is best to keep an open minded approach to your reasoning that's all. That's only a start before you find out more yourself.

well, we seem to have strayed into epistemological backwaters, with chewkw getting all stampy foot over my rejection of universal unconditional cause and effect, which isn't particularly religious….

Stampy foot? LOL! You are accountable for yourself and nobody else so my views make no different to others if they do not investigate matters themselves. (note: the notion of creator is NOT plausible as that goes against my understanding)

What I am saying is to investigate matter a bit more that's all and hopefully you will find something useful. Aristotle, although a great philosopher, looks at things differently and his is the part of the foundation for all Western thinking which continues until today but is he right? That's the question.

🙂

jahwomble – Member

As a general principle, I don't bother to argue with people with religious beliefs, as their judgement is so obviously so fundamentally flawed to begin with, and so many believe that atheism is inconsistent with living within a moral framework, it's like arguing with people who believe that the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese,dogs are good,black pudding isn't technically a vegetable etc.

Thank you and goodnight.

The argument for a creator is flawed as that goes against the principle of cause & effect while atheism could do with more investigation. IMO both are extreme in their views if not careful.

Goodnight? The night is still young. 😆

The argument for a creator is flawed as that goes against the principle of cause & effect

but couldn't exactly the same argument be equally levelled at any other entity or universe ?