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

The flashing sign is just the universe, as you know, so why do you say you haven't seen it? You have, as you said in your post. You just don't think of it as anything from god. Why not? Is it, in fact, all the negative views of religious freaks that makes you abhor the idea so? Would you let these freaks control your personal view of god, if you believed in a master knowledge?

And yes, what I said does imply all knowing all controlling. The all-controlling part is just what I said, "the all encompassing laws of physics, logic, and anything else." therefore this 'god' word describes that which controls the universe. You needn't think of it like a human controlling the universe. We can all see that there is a level of control to the universe. All knowing... if a computer is programmed with {x} data and instructions, then the set of programmer, hardware, and program are "all-knowing" when it comes to {x}.

well, obviously that gobmint grant was itself immaterial, unlike you, whose posts themselves are evidence of existence.

Iluvatar.

I'll begin at the end. Okay, you use 'god' to describe the 'controlling' laws of the universe. I don't understand whence you derive agency or 'knowing', all or otherwise, so I don't understand why you'd choose the term 'god'.


As for my experience of what you describe as a 'flashing sign' proclaiming god's existence: Okay, I've seen the sign; but it says 'why the hell are you talking about "god", you dolt?' No, it is not, in fact, all the negative views of religious freaks, etc. As I've said elsewhere, as a child, I always though 'what a nifty world' and then was flabbergasted in High School when I actually encountered people who 'believed in God'. I hadn't, until that moment, realized that anyone born after about 1850 actually *believed* that stuff. My perceptions of the universe as a child were not coloured at all by what you term 'freaks': I didn't realize as a child that such things were around me. No. I was born into a material world, I experienced a material world as a child and it made sense without any requirement of either the term or the idea 'god'.

Then I met the freaks, when I was about fifteen, who said they didn't believe in dinosaurs 'because they aren't in the Bible' and I thought and . What the hell world are these people living in?!!'

I've never stopped asking that question.

Spot on, anhagra. So our only problem, if you excuse my English...where are we, and if yes, how many?

Who the hell doesn't believe in dinosaurs??? You must be making this up to make the religious people sound worse wherever you are from. say,
"No. I was born into a material world, I experienced a material world as a child and it made sense without any requirement of either the term or the idea 'god'."
So what? So a material world makes sense. Eventually a child grows up and starts wondering how things work, how to organize information, how to describe a wonderfully working universe. Scientists do just that, only they stop at describing what they see happen, rather than trying to think about why, how, etc. I guess that is more a philosophers job? Idk, The 2 disciplines are quite interconnected.

Iluvatar:

a) disbelief in dinosaurs.

the specific individual to whom I referred was named Marie Ryan. She was a swimmer in my High School in about 1978. I shared a number of classes with her. Believe me or don't.

b) I took philosophy in High School right around the time I was startled by Marie's confession. Your description of what happens after a child grows up is exactly what I remember of my childhood. Did I have no childhood? or have I not grown up? Now I'm old. I have trained in both the humanities and the sciences. I'm quite happy to try to try to figure out how things work, to try to describe things, and to ask 'why'. Strangely, in the context of your suggestions, the answer to that last question remains for me to this day 'Why not?' (I hereby acknowledge Philip Jose Farmer and Bingo, the Giant Cockroach.)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be arguing not much other than 'the world is cool, therefore, God.' I don't see any particular logic in that. Nor do I find it at all satisfying. Rather, it strikes me as simply giving up (in a bit of a childish way, actually.)

All I was meaning to point out is that it doesn't necessarily mean much to say as a child it made sense. A lot of things make sense to children without much further thought. What is the nature of the universe? Why not call it god? This would be the same god as christians have minus the personal human-like part.

>>We can all see that there is a level of control to the universe.<<


Because we have an evolutionary capacity to infer agency, such that we seem to observe patterns or intentionality in the phenomenal universe,
does not mean any of those perceived patterns actually exist outside of our imagination, nor that there is necessarily a controlling intelligence or sentient agent.

Similarly, that the universe appears to behave in a consistent manner, according to physical laws, does not require there to be an external 'law-giver', or motivating entity.

If patterns occur in our imagination, and our imagination occurs in the universe, then patterns must therefore occur in the universe

<>

so by your reasoning there realy are canals on mars??????

Because I see faces in clouds does not mean clouds have faces.

Taff, there are. "Canali" just translates as "furrows". That old Italian on his looking glass just didn´t expect dafties to invent little green Welshmen.

We don't call the universe god because words are commonly used to communicate an idea. Calling the universe god is antithetical to that.

Universe is nothing like the god of the bible. It is mindless, indifferent, without a spirit or direction or goal. The universe does care if you exist, let alone what you do with your existence. The universe does not favour the Jews or the Gentiles.

The universe is simple that which is.


Someone invoked logic. To reach a valid conclusion using logic one must start from sound premises.

Sorry, been tied up a bit with the history of climbing in the
Canadian Rockies. Now, I;ll have to try to move
Tibullus away from the keyboard (the kid has the main computer, watching youtube) . . . .

right: Iluvatar:

for me, it makes sense *as and adult with a good deal of experience and an unusually wide variety of training* and, looking back, the child that I was was absolutely correct. 'Why not call it God?' Well, apart from the obvious 'why not call it Vishnu, Thor, bleeding Apollo, or a hyperintelligent shade of the colour blue': *Why call 'it' anything?* 'it' isn't anything, as far as I can see, and I can see a bloody long way in the third trimester of my alloted span from the bleeding summits of the tremendously ethereal Canadian Rockies with a farting load of theology, poetry, philosophy, science, mathematics and art, in a poopload of languages and media under my belt.

I'm sorry, but I'm not a child. I put away childish things quite a few decades ago, particularly in the realm of theology.


'Why not call it god' indeed? To think that someone who can type can actually pose that question.

<<'Why not call it god' indeed? To think that someone who can type can actually pose that question.>>>

WARNER????????????

Zagreb, post 120. -

"This is, to be blunt, completely false. The question of "god" is like a box that someone says has an apple in it. If asked "do you believe there is an apple in this box?" the only completely rational answer is "I don't know because I've not opened the box" which is clearly not "absurd"."

It is however a non sequitur.
Also, the question of the existence of god is completely unlike and apple in a box, in that is not a extraordinary claim.
A truly rational and honest answer to the question of the apple in a box could be either "yes, I believe there is an apple in the box, but I do not know there to be apple in the box."
Or "no, I do not believe there is an apple in the box, but I do not claim to know there is no apple in the box".
Because the claim is not outrageous it is reasonable to take either of these positions.
Someone who has taken time to consider the question of the existence of gods has little excuse call themselves agnostic, as if it were position on belief, rather than is known or knowable. Even less to make slander against those who honest which position they have taken.

"It's possible to follow a scientific inquiry that determines the unlikelihood of the apple being in the box for various reasons and an explanation of why people might think (or want to think) the apple is in there and for someone to declare the likelihood so small that their own position is to assume that it isn't. However, until the box is opened (ie until we actually understand the universe and its creation in their entirety) then we can't say with 100% certainty whether the apple is in there or not."

That's more akin is agnostic atheism than the particular kind of smug agnosticism I railed agaist that refuses to acknowledge that can one ever make determination of probabilities.

"Agnosticism isn't people who "can't decide" or who "aren't honest about what they think" they're simply taking scepticism to its logical conclusion."

It is the logical conclusion of scepticism in response to what we can reasonably say we know.

"Your argument is more pertinent with regards to religion (which isn't the same as the "god question" despite people wrongly assuming it is) the question of "is there a god" is not the same as "is Christ the son of God who died for our sins?"."

I know religion exists. I am willing to say I know that the gods (sic) described in the bible do not exist. I am however an agnostic atheist in regard to "gods" as there are myriad ways to describe a god.

Agnosticism is not rational, sceptical or logical stance on the question of belief, because to think that applies to belief is an unsound premise. An abuse of the term.

for Jack

>Agnosticism is not rational, sceptical or logical stance on the question of belief, because to think that applies to belief is an unsound premise. An abuse of the term. <

"A" "gnostic" => "not" "believing". Learn a bit of what you´re spouting about, even if it´s just language.

Sorry, Pit, you're out of you're depth:

"A" "gnostic" => "not" *KNOWING*.

Back to the Greek classes for you.

~