h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah the watchmaker theory. Funnily enough as I have stated many times I'm happy to say that I will take the answers science has and search for the others rather than believe there is a sentiant being who is watching over all his 'children' and letting them kill, rape and torture each other.

You all building your arks yet?

Mel

Hey.. Don't you think that the whole 'You cannot prove that God exists because God existing and having proof of him existing are mutually exclusive concepts' thing, the whole 'without faith I am nothing' thing is a very Douglas Adamsy, lateral thinking way out of a problem. Along comes the 'Smart-Mouthed Caveman' (a hypothetical character I made up as god's 'inventor') and says, 'there is this God guy, and he's very big and scary, and he says you must do this, and not do this', etc, and when another caveperson says 'Prove it!' the SMC says 'I cannot prove it because if there was proof for the thing the thing would not exist'. This strikes me as being very similar to the thing where you cannot know the Question and the Answer at the same time - if you ever knew what the Universe was all about there would be no Universe.

Another thing is Predestination, the idea that God controls everything that happens. This has 'alibi' written all over it. 'Sure, I killed the guy, but due to the predestination theory I can't be held responsible for my actions.' How does that sound? Also the whole thing is kind of depressing (this is the bit where people boo and throw stuff at be and say 'Everything is depressing to you') because it implies that what is going to happen is going to happen and there is nothing that you can do to change it, so you might as well live your dull dreary grey little lives and nothing you do will make any difference, because everything is already decided. I hate that idea. Hate. Loathe. It feels terrible.

In case you were wondering I'm an athiest, but if I wasn't I'd be a witch or an ancient Greek, because their gods are so cool! I write fantasy stuff, and in my world there are proven gods - people have seen them, no faith stuff - and there is a god for every occaision, like a God of Toothpaste or Divine Patron of the Slimy Green Stuff on Rocks. That's fun. In a previous posting, someone described Douglas Adams as a 'devout athiest' which is a phrase I've always found funny. I leave you with a quote:

"If God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like a toasted teacake?" - The Talkie Toaster, Red Dwarf

Hi Mel nice to meet you in more pleasant circumstances.


Hi to all the new guys too

Just beamed down to say that, it has been nearly two years in the making.....







.....attempts to answer many of the questions you all seem interested in.....





....the mother ship is calling you F55607?thread=192835 the begining.....







.....where we're at now F55607?thread=192835&skip=19380&show=20#p5321806

one love

No matter the argument for or against the existence of any supernatural beings, the issue of faith is paramount. Some are placing faith in beings (in particular one Being) existing despite lack of empirical evidence, while others are placing faith in the scientific (empirical) process. Either way, everyone is putting their faith in something.

Why do some of us put faith in something we can't physically quantify? We can argue, as we've seen in this thread, that humanity has an instinctual need to have someone beyond this limited mortal existence to rely on to make sense of the world. We can also say that any idea of "God" is based on a need to believe in someone above the imperfection to which we all, as humans, are prone. Going further, Marx said that religion is "the opiate of the masses," or a great way to take advantage of another's blind faith in a higher being.

Science, on the other hand, has a comfortable feel because it involves only paying attention to that which can be measured. All of the stuff in life that is unexplainable is shelved for later consideration, or just plain ignored. The scientific method, when practiced correctly, adheres to the doctrine of Ockham's razor: the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. Sagan was famous for using this argument to deny the existence of a God. Interestingly, science is often put in the same degree of respect among some that is usually reserved for a God by the religious (Does this mean that everyone is in some degree religious?). Consequently, science is often used the same way religion is: to appease the vast unwashed masses who don't understand its complexities.

No matter the viewpoint one takes, we all "religiously" believe in something. Religion is often guilty of taking a lot of difficult stuff in life for granted (violence, poverty, disease) and shoving responsibility off on some higher being(s). Science can be just as guilty of taking things for granted (statistical aberrations) and trying to oversimplify the observable. Either way, the incredible complexity of our universe in all of its mathematical intricacy is reduced to the simplest approximation to make it easier to grasp with a limited human consciousness.

Both ways of thinking involve the same core concept, as well. In science we maintain objectivity so the experiment is not minimally influenced by the observer, and in religion God is given the same role but this is interpreted as humanity having free will. Is the experimenter really detached from his experiment? Not 100% in almost all cases, but especially not at a quantum level where Heisenberg taught us that any attempt to measure a system changes it. Is God the great experimenter? Are we all just test subjects?

Personally, I'd rather put a benevolent face on this great experimenter than leave him/her coldly objective. Sometimes it seems like the experiment is being influenced by the observer, and it would be nice to think that is no accident. No matter what, I'll put my faith in science AND God, because I really don't see where they fail to complement one another. Each is a means of explaining the complex from its own viewpoint, and in analogy, two simultaneous viewpoints allow for three-dimensional vision. Thus, my believing in both just adds a depth to my understanding of the universe.

What does it matter whether god does or doesn't exist? I personally dont think that there is any god, and if he/she is he/she can't be all-knowing, all-powerful

But if people want to believe in god, because it gives them comfort then, i dont see a problem, some people dont need god to have a purpose or feel secure, but other people do.

Well said BookWorm, I just wish the evangelicals would feel the same about the atheists

Mel

yeah well, in time they might change their minds. If they dont then thats their problem.

For some reason people associate atheism with satanism or "evil." It's okay to them to have another religion, but not to have one at all is wrong to them, and they think that you have no morals because you have no religion.

yeah thats true, this girl i met, she just couldn't understand how i dont believe in anything. She started asking me all these questions, like "why did u stop believing in god?" and stuff. I got away from her as soon as possible and hae avoided her ever since.

I find its so frustrating i wouldn't go up to a religous person them and ask them why they believe in god.

we can get into patterns, systems and all that stuff but here's my take:
science shows only one way of describing our environment: each layer is built on a simpler layer eg:
molecules are built out of atoms, galaxies are built out of solar systems (and various cohesive forces) etc...

for a complex layer to emerge you need a large, stable, sufficiently complex layer that can host the new phenomenon long enough to stabilise into a system... (systems and layers are interchangeable in this sort of argument)

the weather system on earth requires a stable planetary environment. Life needs a stable weather system (my home brewed science). And on you go to get to man: the most complex, self-organising, self-repeating system...no hand on there's something more complex than that: civilization. Now where does god figure in this argument: you need a sufficiently stable civilization to think of a god there you go we created society and society created god/s.

a few months ago i have experienced a 10" whirlwind for a few minutes whilst driving: it was a perfect column of white dust swirling on a sidewalk on a bright sunny day. Nothing special but I enjoyed it a lot, had to move on though

i myself never believed in a god or something like that.
i don´t see any reason for believing in something that´s fake and that wants ppl to deny their instincts. in my opinion it´s ridiculous having a "god". for me it makes more sense to believe in aliens than to believe in a god, jesus christ, or even in the "holy" bible.
but i think it´s normal that humans need to believe, that makes them probably forget all the madness outside. but having a god means to me to confess that you´re to weak to do it on your own.

"religion- the opium of the people" (karl marx) absolutely correct!

How to answer this question depends upon how it is taken. From a psychological aspect, deities exist to ease the insecurities of mankind. From a theological point of view, deities exist to look after mankind and provide guidance in an uncertain world.

Then there's the scientific aspect of the question. This is of course where it gets sticky. From a strictly Judeo-Christian standpoint, the scientific facts regarding the universe are in conflict with the teachings of the Bible. The Book leaves no room for dinosaurs or billions of years of universal expansion. There are still many people who believe in God (or whatever name one choses to use) that also believe in the Big Bang. Many believe that the universe is too orderly to have come into it's current state without some sort of guiding force above and beyond the laws of physics. Some even believe that not only does God exist, but that it will some day be possible to prove it scientifically. Carl Sagan provided an interesting method for proving the existance of God in his book "Contact." As it turned out, the proof was in the Pi and not the pudding. In the book a computer was given the simple task of computing Pi indefinitely, and creating a printout as it calculated. After doing so for ages, one of the pages suddenly looked nothing like the other pages of seemingly random numbers used to calculate a circle. Instead, the page contained a series of ones and zeros. The ones filled most of the page, except for a few zeros. The pattern of zeros on the page formed a circle. The numbers went back to seeming to have no pattern after that. While the novel is a work of fiction, this sort of thing is the only type of method that will ever come close to proving the existance of God. A message encoded into the very fabric of the universe itself. This is of course assuming that God doesn't decide to be direct and make an announcement. Since it seems as though God prefers to be more subtle these days, this isn't much of an option.

I must say that I just have a hard time putting all of my faith into a book. I know that the Christians will gasp at me for calling the Bible a mere book, but it is that.

the bible is the book of lies.
i studied the bible in the hope to find something that could answer my questions, actually i am still searching.
i mean jesus walking over the water, moses dividing the red ocean.. c´mon do you really believe this ?!

if i should choose between christianity and satanism, i would definitely take satanism. ppl say it´s an anti-culture & and does not give any answers, what to believe or what to do.
but if you look at it objectivily, christianity does not give any kind of answers!!!!
it just wants to keep you afraid of the ungraciousness & ruthlessness of a god, coz when you´re afraid you will let ppl do with you whatever they want.

While the Bible is often refered to as the Word of God, it wasn't actually written by God. It was written by men. To be more specific, it was written by men several thousand years ago in another language. In that time languages have changed, translations have been performed, re-translations, and so forth. Then there is the problem of politics. Throughout most of recorded history, the majority of people who could read and write were the clergy and the ruling class. They were also the only ones with the resources to create books. This sort of power is easily abused, and humans are highly succeptable to corruption. If a king decided that it would be advantageous to keep the Christian slaves in line, he could influence the church to make an addition to the Bible ordering them to obey their masters. Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as you would to Christ. This verse sounds like the word of man, not the word of God. The Bible is so old that it's impossible to determine what the original text contained. The Old Testament is so ancient that it had likely already been altered countless times by the time the New Testament was written. There is still a great deal of good in the Bible. One must simply keep in mind the possibility that what is written in your copy of the Bible might need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I think the term "Managerial Chinese Whispers" sums up how the Bible has been altered over the years

Mel

God in the religious sense of the word was a creation of mankind. It was created to relieve the fear we acquired through our inability to understand all of the workings of the physical world. I do not have any inclination towards any religious organisation but that does not mean I blindly ignore the possiblity of a higher power, after all life comes from life. The world and all of its diverse living things did not just materialise from nothing, it must have been spewed forth from some living thing, or at least from something (i.e. gasses). There is a qoute, not sure by who, but it goes:
"I believe in God. Only I spell it Nature."

<>

That's where I am at too, entropysucks, and like you, I feel that believing in both is a way of adding depth. Thank you for your expression of it!

Just another number:
that does not mean I blindly ignore the possiblity of a higher power, after all life comes from life. The world and all of its diverse living things did not just materialise from nothing, it must have been spewed forth from some living thing,

If you are open to possiblities on one line how does it end up that three lines on you're telling us life *must* have come from life.

What is life though?

A volcano generates heat, exhlaes gases and uses up oxygen. when it is no longer active we will even refer to it as "dead". How is life distinct from any other chemical reactions that go on in the universe?

You must in my opinion have at least some evidence for any theory, if I told you my big toenail on the left foot was the Queens aunty would you believe me or even entertain it as a possibility? Show me a shred of evidence for the existence of the bigG that does not rely on heresay and I will consider it.

You and I can however get hold of a Newtons cradle and see for ourselves how inertia works. We can split light with a prism and consider for ourselves whether it is infact white light being split into its constituent wavelengths or the sign of the bigGs covenant with Noah?



Razz, why satanism

The idea of satan is merely a corruption of pan and other pagan licentious gods, turned into a christian bogey man to try and keep us from doing some of the more fun things in life. If you really want to investigate human potential understand your own humanity and celebrate both the thinking and animal side of human nature, why not humanism or even budhism. Satanism is more about to chritstianity more than a serious philosophy.



Entropysucks,

you are wrong not everyone is agnostic. I accept the possiblity of a bigG but also accept the possibility of a universe without a bigG. Thing is I give about as much credence to the idea of a bigG as I do to the possiblity of my left big toe nail being the Queen's aunty.
one love. Occams Razor:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OccamsRazor

Im an atheist I accept the evidence of the existence and developemnt of the universe by the completely random laws and works of nature.

I feel that there is much to life that defies being pigeonholed by the scientific method. This has not prevented me from pursuing a career in Physics, though. Human logic has its limits, and sometimes we have to just take the leap of faith to move on.

I agree in a sense, although "deifes" suggests an anthropromorphic ability and even desire of the universe to resist understanding by humans. True there is much we dont understand but at one time we did not understand how 100ft tall trees could get water from the ground to their top leaves without using a pump. We did not understand how brds flew and now we fly. We did not understand that the earth circled the sun, but now we know how to land people on the moon.

There may be limits to what any one person can comprehend but how do you know that as a whole there will be any limits to what humanity can do?

Taking a leap of faith is all well and good. However faith and dogma tend to go hand in hand if everyone had had faith in the idea of the sun orbiting the Earth then Armstrong would never have made his "one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind"

Papering over the gaps in our knowledge with its one of the bigg's mysteries is as lazy and foolish as medieaval cartographers who wrote here be to cover any unexplored or charted areas.

one love

blickybadger
i think you may of misunderstood the point I was making. I DO NOT belive in a higher power as set out in religious doctrine, i.e. a god. I do not have a specific entity in thought as I don't belive there is any theory that has enough evidence to gain my full backing. I belive that IF the big bang theory was the source of all life then that, in effect, is my god. I guess instead of higher power I should of used the term creative force. I give no credit to any religious doctrine because I believe all religion to be a form of control. I view organised religions as propaganda machines, I see them as tools which evil people use to justify the murder of innocent people.
I belive in a creative force, but a god, an all-seeing, all-powerful, being, a heaven and a hell, that, my friend, I will not place my faith in- because to me it just sounds like some fanciful story.