On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck <chris_peck...@hotmail.com>wrote: >> >>> there are many words like that which we use without any fuss. >>> >>> The word 'game' is a famous example where different games possess a >>> myriad of properties which are shared by some and not others. In fact there >>> doesn't seem to be a set of properties sufficient to capture the nature of >>> all games. Nevertheless, we use the word without any fuss. >>> >> >> Words with broad meanings are fine. Where they lead to trouble is when >> one asserts the non-existence of all things that belong to very wide >> classes. For example "I don't believe there exists any game that I would >> enjoy". As you point out, this statement applies to an immense set of >> possible objects because so many possible games exist. Without knowing or >> experiencing every possible game, how can such a belief be justified? >> >> >> It's justified by introspection as to what one believes. >> > > One may believe that, but the belief has no justification. Just because > someone dislikes 800 out of the 800 games they have tried is not proof that > they dislike all games. This reminds me of the joke where the physicists > try to prove all odd numbers are prime: > Physicist: "1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 - that's > strange, must be experimental error..., 11 is prime, 13 is prime. It is > proven!" > > > At least it's evidence. > > Do you only believe things that are "proven"? > No. I look for a preponderance of evidence, and have varying degrees of certainty for different propositions. > I'd consider disliking 800 out of 800 games pretty good evidence. > It may seem like good evidence, but its not. For there to be no game you would like, the probability of any randomly chosen game being one you like must be exactly zero. Disliking 800 out of 800 games provides strong evidence that the probability is low, but it doesn't even come close to making a convincing case that the probability is zero. Remember infinite numbers are involved here and next to infinity 800 counts for practically nothing. Consider this example: You examine 10,000 random atoms taken from a sample of seawater and find none of them is an atom of Gold. From this should you conclude there is no gold in seawater? No, because for the level of certainty to exceed 50%, you would need to count at least half of all the atoms in the whole ocean and find no Gold. > > > > Note that it is NOT the same as the assertion, "There is no game that I >> would enjoy." >> > > I can see see some difference between "I don't believe there exists any > game that I would enjoy" and "There is no game that I would enjoy.", but > there are many atheists who will confidently say "God does not exist". But > even if an atheist said "I don't believe in God", it still suffers from > being a horribly ambiguous statement. > > > Many statements are pretty ambiguous without context. > > > > > >> So does an "agameist" simply fail to believe there is a game he would >> enjoy or does an "agameist" assert, as a fact, there is no game he would >> enjoy. >> >> > Either one potentially. I like Bruno's use of "not" and "believe" to > clearly distinguish between these two characterizations. > > >> >> Likewise, when Dawkins says he believes in no Gods, how can he make >> rightfully make such a statement without knowing all possible religions and >> conceptions of God in those religions? >> >> >> The same way he can say believes in no teapots orbiting Jupiter. >> >> > That analogy does not work. There are logical reasons suggesting the > low probability of a teapot orbiting Jupiter. What are the logical reasons > that no God-like entity exists anywhere in reality? > > > Depends on what "God" means. If you allow theologians to define it, it > could mean almost anything. > I think it is rare for two people (even who belong to the same religion) to share an identical conception of God, you don't need to restrict the definition to theologians. > If you take common usage to define it - like all other words > What is the common usage? > - there are both logical and nomological reasons not to believe God exists. > > > That depends on how big reality is. If, for example, arithmetical realism is true, then there exist God like minds with the power to create universes through simulation. > > >> >> >> Isn't it possible, (even suggested by some of our scientific theories), >> that something that is infinite, uncreated, eternal, and responsible for >> your existence exists? >> >> >> Logically possible. Nomologically? >> >> > It is probable. If you put any stock in any of the various scientific > theories that suggest an infinite reality. > > > Infinite space or time don't imply a superhuman being whose approval we > should seek. > Perhaps, but if space is statistically uniform and infinite that is very strong evidence for the physical realization of super-intelligent entities. > > > UDA, mathematical realism, string theory, cosmic inflation, many > worlds. I think you dislike these ideas in part because they shake the > foundation of atheism: it becomes much harder to deny the existence of > objects on the mere basis that we can't see, if one accepts that reality is > as big as these theories suggest. Similarly, you once argued against > fine-tuning on the basis that it would provide ammunition for intelligent > designers. This isn't the ideal way to find correct theories. > > > I argued that fine-tuning counted *against* a supernatural creator. I > don't recall ever arguing against it simply because it supports intelligent > design. > I was not able to find the post in question. From what I recall, it was not your only reason, but you included it as an additional reason why you were opposed to fine tuning. > > > > > >> Isn't it possible that the simulation hypothesis could be true and >> that a hyper-intelligent mind could explore (create?) reality through >> simulation? Such hyper intelligent beings could even "save" other simpler >> beings by copying and pasting them into a reality under its control. >> Isn't it possible that universalism is the correct theory of personal >> identity, and there is in truth only one experiencer, the one soul behind >> all the eyes of all creatures? >> >> >> And it's possible we are the puppets of supernatural demons bent on >> creating the worst of all possible worlds. >> > > But there is no evidence, argument, or justification for this. > > > Sure there is. Look at all the evil and suffering in the world. > It's funny, someone can look at the world and say it is the best of all possible worlds, and someone else can look at it and say it is the worst of all possible worlds. > Life that makes us hope in the face of inevitable death, not only of > ourselves but of everyone and everything we know. > > There are many scientific reasons that you should not view death as an end: four-dimensionalism (of relativity) implies your eternal life, many-worlds and eternal inflation imply your subjective immortality, computationalism implies the capability for you to reincarnate as another being when the simplicity of your brain state falls to a certain minimum level, the technological singularity and simulation argument imply the additional possibility of waking up as an immortal transhuman (or transalien) who can freely explore other worlds, realitites, lives, and consciousness itself via simulation, universalism implies that so long as life exists, in any time or any universe, you shall live. > > > > >> >> >> >> Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even >> realizing it has done so. >> >> >> "Rejects" as in "fails to believe" - as any rational person would. >> > > > Rationality does not justify their rejection of these theories. Your > statement above is a perfect example of the atheist assumption that > rationality is always on the side of their dogma. Tell me, what is > irrational about universalism? It is an idea that Erwin Schrodinger, Kurt > Godel, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Dyson, Arnold Zuboff, etc. all independently > arrived upon, and is supported up by many thought experiments on the > subject of personhood and personal identity. > > > I don't think it's irrational. You're putting words in my mouth. > You said any rational person would fail to believe in those ideas. I took that to mean you considered those beliefs to be irrational. > But the purpose of experiments should be to test a theory. What test > might falsify universalism? > > That's a good question. Universalism seems to be the remaining possibility after bodily or psychological continuity theories of personal identity are ruled out. > > > Sorry I forgot the existence of a single mind sounds too much like God, > and therefore must be false and no rational person could ever come to such > a conclusion! > > >> >> >> Various existing religions across the world have described God in >> terms essentially identical to the three examples above. >> >> >> No religion with more than a handful of adherents posits an impersonal >> God. >> > > > The second God I mentioned (the hyper-intelligences that exist as > Jupiter brains/omega point civilizations, AI's with unlimited computing > power in the UD, etc. are not impersonal. They are thinking, conscious > entities. If reality is very big, then these entities are certain to exist. > > > Do you need to seek their approval? > Is it a requirement that every God be something/someone whose approval we need to seek? > If not why regard them as God? > Because they fit many attributes attributed to theistic Gods: ability to create universe, total control over the universe, ability to see everything that happens in the universe, know everything about the universe, ability to save beings that exist in other "universes" outside its control (by providing continuation paths for the computations of their consciousness). If universalism is true, then such a God, being hyper intelligent, would likely believe it is true, and may act accordingly (with good will and love toward all other beings, who it recognizes as self). If you wonder why evil exists, such hyper intelligent beings cannot change what already exists as a consequence of mathematical truth, they cannot interfere with or change what happens in this universe any more than they could set 1 = 2, but they can provide continuation paths for beings that die in this universe. > > > > > >> Of course the apologists for religions have used such terms, because they >> realize much the evidence is against a personal God and so they have sought >> to invent something on which they can hang the word "God". >> > > Atheists would prefer that we forgot about logical realistic Gods and > focus on only the impossible, illogical, inconsistent ones, it makes their > lives a lot easier. > > > Atheists know what God they fail to believe in, the God of theism. That's > why they are a-theists and not a-deists. > > Are you a deist? > > > >> >> What motivation does atheism have to reject these notions of god? It >> seems the only reason is the dogma: "there is no god", and so it was proven >> "anything that even has the appearance of a god is obviously false at the >> start." >> >> >> The atheists I know (including Dawkins and Stenger) are careful to >> define "God" as the god of Abraham as described in the Torah, the Bible, >> the Quran, the god of theism. >> > > > Sounds like further confirmation of Bruno's theory. > > > >> They directly admit that the god of deism is possible - though there is >> no reason to be;o >> >> >> >> Isn't it better to have an unbiased, agnostic, and open mind on >> ontological questions which are no where close to being settled? >> >> >> But if you believe things just because they are possible then you're so >> open minded you're in danger of having your brains fall out. >> >> >> > Don't worry; it hasn't happened to anyone I know. > > >> >> >> >>> >>> And in a way the fact 'God' means different things to different people >>> isn't a problem. If I say someone is an atheist, you can say that this >>> person has some conception of God, whatever it is, and doesn't believe that >>> thing exists. You can say that much at the very least. >>> >> >> In that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any >> definition of some God that person will not believe in. >> >> >> Which is just the converse of dreaming up "possible" gods in order that >> you can claim everyone MUST believe in one of them and so everyone is >> religious. >> > > > It is (some) atheists saying no gods exist. It only takes one counter > example to disprove that proposition. > > >> >> >> The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or >> certain God/gods), or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to >> more general definitions of god. It's a word that seems to carry less than >> 1 bit of information. >> >> I think a far better term (one that perhaps many people really mean >> when they say they are agnostic or atheist) is that they are a "free >> thinker" as in: >> "The philosophical <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy> viewpoint >> that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of >> logic<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic>, >> reason <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason>, and >> empiricism<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism>, >> rather than authority <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority>, >> tradition <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradition>, or other >> dogmas<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma> >> ." >> >> Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific >> attitude, whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas. >> >> >> I agree with the first clause. The second makes me wonder where are >> these "sects of atheism" where are their dogmas promulgated, where do they >> meet, how are they counted? >> > > What I meant is that there are brands of atheism where the adherents > care more about preserving their own belief of "no god" than listing to > what logic, reason, and empiricism say. > > > And then there seems to be everybody else, who are exercised to find > SOMETHING, ANYTHING they can hang the tag "God" on. > > I am only taking the current scientific theories seriously, and seeing where they lead. I've found they do not lead to the simple, materialistic, mundane, atheistic world-view which so many think science implies. > Brent > “People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the > idea for which the word has hitherto stood” > --- Bertrand Russell > "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." --- Hamlet Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.