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

OK warner, I put it to you; from your religious perspective, what IS the point in mankind being in the universe at all?

F

>>what IS the point in mankind being in the universe<<

A short answer would be to thrive, become wise and successful.
Individualy, communally, nationally and globally.
And of course, for ever.

I believe this can't be done without some Divine guidance, as we HAVE got
'free will' and can follow Divine guidance or not. There is an ultimate
reason for this, which can be compared to examinations in academia.

>There are some people with a new religion, in this thread.
It's called Dawkism ?<

I've got I've got to come back on your last two posts Warner:

The religious just believe they're not making it up.

The religious just pretend they're not making it up.

Obviously you prefer one formulation over the other so what to your mind (and in your own words) is the difference?


------------------------

Despite contradicting yourself by saying you agreed with Anhaga's statement n 14519 which included "Of course there's no inherent point" and then in your immediate following post in reply to what is the point you concede you think there IS an inherent point.

Obviously these both can't be right so please clarify that but I'll not be so unkind as to harangue you over that, I merely point out the contradiction in positions.

No, I'm more interested this idea that growth, wisdom and success (on a variety of scales) is the POINT of humanities existence.

Sounds to me similar to the eudaimon of Aristotle's philosophy, where the greatest moral good consisted in "human flourishing" it seems to me, that humanity to grow (in number) achieve great wisdom (through science) and be very successful (through technology) and yet be utterly miserable.

Isn't that something that's missing from your definition?

I don't really see what so bad about admitting that there is no fundamental meaning to the universe. On a long enough time-scale this planet's had it anyway.

to grow

should be

could grow


Not quite sure how that went awry, but anyway....

warner, do you really think that cut-and pasted apologetic cliches, cherry-picked scripture quotes, and repeated assertions lacking even vestigial proofs or rational arguments whatsoever, taken singly or in any combination, even resembles valid debate?

Yes Clive, we can all be ironic

But to answer the serious part, about 'human flourishing', if as you say,
it doesn't matter whether there is any fundamental reason for mankind and
the universe, then the most obvious direction for anyone to go in, is to live for the
present and seek immediate pleasure, which probably includes needing money.

That doesn't sound very 'wise' to me, in my experience, after spending 25 years as a believer.

errrr.... no. ...and um... no.


Firstly both my questions were serious ones, thank you.

And a lack of inherent meaning does not necessary imply any kind of hedonism. Where on earth do you get that idea?

....spending 25 years as a believer?

Ah yes. How silly of me.

Taliesin,

I sincerely apologise, if you find my style of communication and debate
'difficult and frustrating' or lacking imagination. I try not to repeat the same quote,
over and over, but I personally don't find it
unacceptable; if you quote me what some great scientists have to contribute, say,
to a debate about religion and science, it's .

In fact, I don't see enough of such considerations in a thread such as this, and feel it's a bit narrow,
repeating the same argument over and over. Such as no proof, no proof. I think Einstein or other great scientists
would not bother to continue communicating with someone who continually
derided his 'new theory', because of non-understanding or political reason etc ..

Just to say, for example, Darwin's "made God redundant" is lacking in imagination,
and other great scientists, such as Einstein, would not agree.

Yeah man don't you just worship those *great scientists*

>> Of course there's no inherent point (mankind being in the universe)<<

Clive, if you're happy with that, it's your choice.
I believe there is an inherent point in mankind being in the universe!

Effers,

ha ! I'm interested in History and Psychology, too !

warner, two questions. Why did god plant fossils, visible signs of evolution, astronomical evidence of an incredibly old universe and logical, repeatable proofs of evolution and then contradict them with the old testament? Why is there such a dramatic and contradictory difference between the old and new testament?

Just asking.

And if it's *god the unknowable* please don't bother to answer.

Apologies are not required. I am not offended, but I am really curious:

From my perspective, your 'style' of debate resembles nothing more than simple proselytizing


In even a non-formal debate, such as this has the potential to be, it is incumbent upon the side making the positive claim to at least attempt to clearly state premises, followed by the arguments which support them.

My position is one of non-belief in god, as opposed to yours, which appears to be one of belief in god. Therefore it is your responsibility to first provide an acceptable definition, and then the arguments in support thereof

For example, the statement, 'god exists' is a premise. But at this level the word, 'god' lacks meaningful content, and at least minimal definition is required before the debate may continue. Is that not reasonable?

So, for example, let's firstly assume this 'god' is a sentient being. We can agree about the definition of sentience, to the extent that it means an intelligent, self-aware agent, that can, and does, act upon the natural world. This requires that the effects of this entity can, at least potentially, be independently, and unmistakably observed, by other sentient beings -- namely ourselves.

Note this definition is a 'working' one, unlike, for example, the countless, and functionally useless 'names of god' labelling, which offers nothing more than additional content-less words, devoid of meaning.

Whether you or I agree, at this stage in the discussion, do you not at least see the difference between this 'style', and the apparently fruitless bickering that results when the premises of the discussion remain undefined?

Can we not at least attempt to find a common ground?

Clive,

>>is to live for the present and seek immediate pleasure, which probably includes needing money.<<

I haven't 'put that' very well at all ! Everybody needs money. If we look at 'the masses',
we see a growing interest in the national lottery, for example, as belief in God in UK society has decreased.
ie. A move towards materialism.

Of course, this does not apply to everyone who does not believe in God.
In fact, on h2g2, I should think there are more people with greater than average IQ. ie. they do believe in SOMETHING

*waves* @ zoomer

>>Why did god plant fossils, visible signs of evolution, astronomical evidence of an incredibly old universe and logical,
repeatable proofs of evolution and then contradict them with the old testament?<<

WYSWYG - What you see is what you get. No doubt, not all of our conclusions regards scientific evidence, are right.
The old testament is a collection of books translated into different languages, not necessarily from
original manuscripts, furthermore not all purported to be the word of God. So, some inconsistency is enevitable.
The Gospels are written by different apostles (according to) and, again
have inconsistancy. This doesn't make them 'wrong or lacking in truth'.

The time aspect, which I would imagine is one of the 'damning inconsistancies'
in the eyes of 'evolutionists', is not something that causes me to think that 'evolution' and 'Biblical creation story',
can't both have credulance. Earth was created in 7 days etc.
How long was a day. As Einstein proposed, time is something relative,
and is complex in nature, and mankind probably hasn't got the mind to 'fully grasp'
all its qualities.

Pheew!

"WYSWYG - What you see is what you get." <> WYSIWYG, surely?

"No doubt, not all of our conclusions regards scientific evidence, are right." <> No doubt; but we are pretty confident about most of them and we know which ones require further investigation, unlike:

"The old testament is a collection of books translated into different languages, not necessarily from original manuscripts, furthermore not all purported to be the word of God. So, some inconsistency is enevitable. The Gospels are written by different apostles (according to) and, again have inconsistancy." <> Where simply reading them gives no clue which are meant to be true and which are 'poetic' or metaphorical. Collectively they are obviously both wrong and lacking in truth even if there are some correct and truthful elements.

If the creation stories had restricted themselves to, say, "and god created the world" they might be reasonably plausible but unfortunately they (there are at least two) contradict each other and also they way we know the universe works. Time and relativity notwithstanding.

F