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

Oooh boy - it's like Christmas come early.



"How do I know that there's something responsible for my existence? I just KNOW, that's all.

Just the same that you apparently KNOW that there isn't."
~Warner




Oh Warner you do make me smile, then weep, but I remember the smiling more.

Sanctified Common Sense says: Bugger having to convince anyone of anything with reason or evidence or anything of that elitist cr*p - I'm going to bloomin' well assert my conclusion baldly and without remorse or recourse to anything else.

You have it all wrong.

None of us here have the audacity to know God doesn't exist, we have some rather serious concerns that he does not and would like to see some evidence please.

Twits going around bleating "I just KNOW it and that good enough for me"

Shall be derided and summarily mocked, rather like this.

Paine on Revelation and Prophets:

'Revelation is a communication of something which the person to whom that thing is revealed did not know before. For if I have done a thing, or seen it done, it needs no revelation to tell me I have done it, or seen it, nor to enable me to tell it, or to write it.

Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth, of which man himself is the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal parts of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God.

When Samson ran off with the gate-posts of Gaza, if he ever did so (and whether he did or not is nothing to us), or when he visited his Delilah, or caught his foxes, or did any thing else, what has revelation to do with these things? If they were facts, he could tell them himself, or his secretary, if he kept one, could write them, if they were worth either telling or writing; and if they were fictions, revelation could not make them true; and whether true or not, we are neither the better nor the wiser for knowing them. . . .

There is not, throughout the whole book called the Bible, any word that describes to us what we call a poet, nor any word that describes what we call poetry. The case is, that the word prophet, to which latter times have affixed a new idea, was the Bible word for poet, and the word prophesying meant the art of making poetry. It also meant the art of playing poetry to a tune upon any instrument of music.

We read of prophesying with pipes, tabrets, and horns- of prophesying with harps, with psalteries, with cymbals, and with every other instrument of music then in fashion. Were we now to speak of prophesying with a fiddle, or with a pipe and tabor, the expression would have no meaning or would appear ridiculous, and to some people contemptuous, because we have changed the meaning of the word.

We are told of Saul being among the prophets, and also that he prophesied; but we are not told what they prophesied, nor what he prophesied. The case is, there was nothing to tell; for these prophets were a company of musicians and poets, and Saul joined in the concert, and this was called prophesying.

The account given of this affair in the book called Samuel is, that Saul met a company of prophets; a whole company of them! coming down with a psaltery, a tabret, a pipe and a harp, and that they prophesied, and that he prophesied with them. But it appears afterward, that Saul prophesied badly; that is, he performed his part badly; for it is said, that an "evil spirit from God"* came upon Saul, and he prophesied.'

from 'Age of Reason'

'None of us here have the audacity to know God doesn't exist'

Well, I think some of us might casually say that we 'know' God doesn't exist in the same sense that we 'know' that leprechauns don't exist, which is that there's no convincing evidence of such beings' existence and so we proceed about our lives with the tentative assumption that they don't exist.

This sense of 'know' is something very different from warner's sense of 'know' which seems to be something like 'I proceed on the assumption that this being exists although there is no convincing evidence and because I can't imagine my own existence without some sort of god in the picture.'

Also, until there is a clear definition of what is meant by the word 'god', how can anyone make a firm statement about such a things existence or non-existence?

Hi Warner,

>>> I realise it's not what *you* think of as 'proper religion'
>I wonder why .. because it's all made up maybe?
[And so Gif says: well that's what we say about your stuff]

Yes! Yes! You're finally getting it!

>[ Or how do you know that there's a god at all? ]
>How do I know that there's something responsible for my existence?
>I just KNOW, that's all

Ah, looks like you're only half-way there. You 'just know' that your scriptures are true. Buddhists and Hindus 'just know' that their scriptures and beliefs are true.

Now... can you tell me why your 'just knowing' is more valid than theirs?

Once you have solved this koan you will have achieved true enlightenment

Gif

"This sense of 'know' is something very different from warner's sense of 'know' which seems to be something like 'I proceed on the assumption that this being exists although there is no convincing evidence and because I can't imagine my own existence without some sort of god in the picture.'"

"Also, until there is a clear definition of what is meant by the word 'god', how can anyone make a firm statement about such a things existence or non-existence?"




Well yes but now you unpacking my gentle mockery with serious point-making observations which I fully accept and agree with but totally skated around for the sake of wit and brevity.

>> You 'just know' that your scriptures are true. Buddhists and Hindus 'just know' that their scriptures and beliefs are true.

Yes, and as I say you 'just know' that "there's probably no god" ..

Pity for some .. they don't have any certain direction
[other than worldly, that is, which must surely finish]

YOU know what you know .. and it might not be the same as what you are saying
[ the same goes for me, of course .. but I wonder why I should claim 'I know there's a god' when I *really* think that there probably isn't ]

If you see what I mean

Annnnny way ..

There are Jews, Christians and Muslims saying practically the same thing:
Jesus, the Son of Mary is coming back as Messiah (Christ)!
. . .
Fascinating!
Bye for now.

Hi Gif,

< You 'just know' that your scriptures are true. Buddhists and Hindus 'just know' that their scriptures and beliefs are true.
Now... can you tell me why your 'just knowing' is more valid than theirs? >

I believe that this is called the Argument from Narcissism.

My Knowing is superior to all others knowing because it's mine. The ONE TRUE GOD has singled me out for this special privilege.

Also, he gave me humility.

'There are Jews, Christians and Muslims saying practically the same thing:
Jesus, the Son of Mary is coming back as Messiah (Christ)!'

And there are (the majority of) Jews, (some) Christians and (the majority of) Muslims saying practically the same other thing:

Jesus, the Son of Mary, is not coming back as Messiah!



Of course, reality is not determined by a democratic vote.


warner, when you come back from your latest leave taking, I'd be interested in learning why you think the supposedly shared opinion of a minority of Jews and Muslims and some quantity of Christians is more valid than the contrary opinion of the vast majority of Jews and Muslims and a small minority of Christians (if that is, in fact, what you are meaning)?

I just caught that, anhaga! (before unsubbing)

Yes, you are right about the majority of Jews not recognising Jesus as the Messiah .. and also acknowledge rightly that most Christians "know" that the Messiah will return ..

But when it comes to Muslims, you are WRONG!

>>>Sunni Muslims are the largest group in Islam, comprising the vast bulk of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, hence the title Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jam&#257;‘ah (people of the principle and majority). In Arabic, as-Sunnah literally means "principle" or "path". The Qur'an and the Sunnah (the example of Muhammad's life) as recorded in hadith are the primary foundations of Sunni doctrine<<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Denominations

There are several hadiths that inform us that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him) said that Jesus was returning (effectively as Messiah).

"before unsubbing"



You're legs off.

No it isn't.

Come Patsy.

Oh I see. Runnin' away, eh? The Black Knight is never defeated. Come back here and fight. I'll bite yer legs off.

I stand corrected, warner.

Thank you for expanding my knowledge.

'According to Islamic texts, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather he was raised alive up to heaven. The Qur’an states that he will return to Earth near the day of judgment to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl ("the false messiah", also known as the Antichrist) along with Imam Mahdi.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

I've not looked at this thread in 18 months, but the title made me think of this:
http://www.irreligion.org/2010/09/15/caution-the-pope-is-coming/

So, I figured I'd share.

That's all.

>> I think I'll start regularly posting here Islam inspired suicide attacks much as before I itemised British soldiers killed by Taliban. <<

Effers, someone has beaten you to it: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ Sadly, most of it goes unreported in the western press.

RF

Hi Warner,

>as I say you 'just know' that "there's probably no god" ..

Ah no, you haven't got it at all then. I don't 'just know' that God probably does not exist; I come to that conclusion by means I can easily and clearly explain, that are the same means that have proven reliable when making other judgements about the external world - observation; inductive reasoning; logical, rational thought; and so on.

Whereas 'just knowing' things has an extremely poor record of accuracy, wouldn't you say?

Gif

Gif,
>> I don't 'just know' that God probably does not exist; I come to that conclusion by means I can easily and clearly explain, that are the same means that have proven reliable when making other judgements about the external world

Then you're either very confused or being dishonest ..
You can not know either way whether God exists or not from emperical knowledge, such as scientific analysis .. God is by definition not visible, not material
ie. spiritual, abstract concept like "the mind" ( wherever it may originate! )

eg. leprechauns and flying teapots are just diversionary philosophical diversions which don't tell us one way or the other

- - -
So you don't "just know" anything then, Gif .. not even whether *you* exist or not?

>> 'just knowing' things has an extremely poor record of accuracy, wouldn't you say?

You mean that you doubt *your* existence, as your "just knowing" is unreliable?

Dont' you "just know" when you're in pain? Don't you "just know" when you're feeling good? Doesn't a policeman with experience have a "nose"? Doesn't he "just know" when somebody's guilty, and have a good track record of being right?

>>You mean that you doubt *your* existence, as your "just knowing" is unreliable?<<


The simplicity of simple appearance. Argument Circa the 17th Century. Descartes would be so proud.


>>Dont' you "just know" when you're in pain? Don't you "just know" when you're feeling good? Doesn't a policeman with experience have a "nose"? Doesn't he "just know" when somebody's guilty, and have a good track record of being right?<<

No, no, and NO! several times over.

Pain is a sensation generated in the brain and can be experienced even when there is no physical reason. See "Hand Therapy and Phantom limbs"
http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html

Similarly, feeling good - is a bit loosely defined - oxygen deprivation can induce states of euphoria during Hypoxia. Presumably you're not going to be great at assessing accurately this feeling of well being when you are drowning? Yet you want us to accept at face value that one can know accurately that 'feeling good' is always plainly obvious and true.


Intuiting an accurate result relies on the functional workings of human brains, which can be variously disorder, biased, forgetful subject to fallacies of reasoning. The reason we never convict someone based on some copper's say so - and surely you must realise this - is that would be the MOST unreliable way of assuring the guilty and responsible receive just punishment and are distinguished from the innocent.

Accuracy and parsimony are served by evidence.

What fantasy world are you living in Warner, 'cos it aint reality like the rest of us know it.

clive,
your last post is so incoherent to me, that I have no reply..
Go on .. crow how you got rid of me so easily