On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 2:29 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/17/2015 2:12 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:32 AM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Clearly one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, or at least having >> an idea of, what God is. >> > > I would go further and say one cannot disbelieve in God without knowing, > or at least having an idea of what reality is, for unless one claims to > know the extent of reality, how can one suppose to know what it does or > doesn't contain? > > > You can easily know that things with self contradictory properties are not > in reality. > I agree with that. > If something has properties that are inconsistent with observation that is > fairly strong evidence it doesn't exist. > > "Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but > does not want to; or he cannot, and does not want to. If he > wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not > want to, he is wicked. If he neither can, nor wants to, he is > both powerless and wicked. But if God can abolish evil, and wants > to, then how comes evil in the world?'" > --- Epicurus > That's a nice example of an application of rational thought towards the advancement of theology. You've proven that an omnipotent God with the power and desire to prevent any bad thing from happening does not exist. What else might we have been able to prove or disprove if theology had remained open to free inquiry over the past several millennia? > > And then there are things that are consistent with both logic and > observation, but are very unlikely on our best theories of how the world > works, e.g. teapots orbiting Jupiter. Are you "agnostic" about the teapot > orbiting Jupiter? > To disbelieve in a particular thing orbiting Jupiter requires a working theory of our solar system. To disbelieve in a particular thing existing at all (neither in this universe, nor in any other place in reality) requires a working theory of reality. What is yours? > Does "agnostic" just mean "I don't know for certain" or does it mean "I'm > equally disposed to believe or disbelieve." or "I think it's impossible to > decide the question." > That's a good question. I think a definitive answer can be drawn from one's working theory of reality, but I don't know if an answer to that question is decidable or not, though perhaps it's possible to accumulate evidence towards one. So far I think man has made little progress in this endeavor, but Bruno and Tegmark seem to be farther ahead than most towards developing one. Working under those theories, I might say I am more of a "rational theist" in the sense that I can identify at least three things one might call god within those ontologies. However, as to which theory of reality is correct, I might call myself agnostic (even though I might be in the high 90's percentage wise leaning towards it, I could never be certain). > > > >> Personally I don't disbelieve in God, I merely find the idea highly >> unlikely >> > > Why do you find it highly unlikely (what is the conception you are > assuming here?), > > > When I write "God" with caps, I mean a god who is a superpowerful person > and who wants to be worshipped; not some abstract organizing principle or > the set of true propositions. > Subtract "and who wants to be worshiped" then re-answer that question. Why should we suppose that super-powerful minds are not likely to exist in reality? > > also, to what degree do you hold the main idea the everything list is > meant to discuss, to be true (or likely)? > > > I'm evenly divided on that question. > So then would you not also be evenly divided on the existence of "superpoweful people who want to be worshipped" (assuming the two are not mutually exclusive properties and hence not logically impossible) then if every possible universe exists, some are sure to contain "superpoweful people who want to be worshipped". > > > >> and don't find that it contributes anything to discussions such as "why >> is there something rather than nothing?" >> > > But "god" is the supposed answer to that very question. > > > "God" is also supposed to answer the question, "How should humans behave?" > Yes, and the conception of God as the one mind to which we are all a part does provide a foundation for an ethical framework (not unlike the golden rule or karma). > and "Who will save me from death or disaster?" > The conception of God-like entities with the power to computationally simulate worlds and galaxies can "save you" by providing you a computational afterlife. > > The question is not is there an answer or isn't there (of course there > is since we are here), > > > That doesn't follow. Conceivably there is no "reason". > Only in an fundamentally non-deterministic universe, which I personally have great difficulty conceiving. > In the major religions the "reason" is that a supernatural immortal > person willed or caused it. "Reason" referred to what humans mean when > they ask one another for a reason. Physical causes are not reasons in that > sense (although Aristotle thought they were). > > the question is what is the nature, and what are the properties, of > that thing, > > > Now you assume it's a thing or object. Are the equations of quantum field > theory a thing? > Yes, but are they the ultimate explanation for their own existence or not? What part do those equations play in the relation to everything else that may exist? > > that object, that answer to the question of why reality exists. > > > That's easy. If it didn't exist it wouldn't be reality, would it? > That might be true, but it's not an answer to the question of why this reality exists. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
