Do you believe in God?

[flamingjimmy 10]

I know, those nutters are the spanner in the works.

 

As I told you before, though, in this country with no interference from the US I'd give it 2 generations, 3 max before theism is considered largely irrelevant. Again, as I've told you in the past, I base this on my observations of trends amongst teenagers over the last 20 years but, have a look for yourself. Go and have a look at the poll results above. What do you think they would have shown 50 years ago? 110? 200?

 

Just because religiosity is on the decline in this country right now does not mean it will continue to be so at the same rate for the next 2 or 3 generations. We can hope though.

 

You're making the same mistake that those people who think this country will be overrun by Muslims by projecting birth rates forward make.

[Lockjaw 11]

Just because religiosity is on the decline in this country right now does not mean it will continue to be so at the same rate for the next 2 or 3 generations. We can hope though.

 

You're making the same mistake that those people who think this country will be overrun by Muslims by projecting birth rates forward make.

 

Possibly. The observed trend may well go anywhere, as janie says.

[RootsBooster 24]

My point is there is no difference between functional and actual gods. If they have the qualities we have ascribed to gods (awesome power, prophesy, mastery of time, space and matter) then they qualify, unless you stipulate that in order to fit the description of "god" a thing must not exist.

I don't agree that just because we might perceive them to match the description of a god, that it would actually MAKE them a god, see the Dynamo comparison.

Obviously it's a figure of speech, meaning a thing is what it is .

It's a metaphor for inductive reasoning, which, if you used it, would mean that Dynamo really can walk unsupported on water.

- your analogy presupposed that we know the man walking on water is attempting to deceive us

Sadly there are people who don't know this and believe that he really can walk on water

 

 

That's simple. In the set of all sentient beings in the multiverse (or simply universe) the subset of beings that are not exceeded in capability or understanding is very small. Similarly the subset of beings that are exceeded in capability and understanding by all other sentient beings is very small. By far the largest set is that of sentient beings for whom there are greater and lesser sentiences. Thus the probability that we belong to that group is very, very high indeed, close to 100%.

 

So at one end we have proteans, zooplankton etc, and at the other end we have ultrabeings.

 

Humans are to zooplankton as ultrabeings are to humans.

 

How does an amoeba or a zooplankton relate to a human? Are our capabilities and understanding measurable to them?

Firstly, I'm not sure that zooplankton and proteans are actually sentient. Your fair assumption that gods exist appears to rely upon;

 

A) The ultrabeings at the top of the scale being so superior that it is immeasurable, which would also rely on...

 

B) Us being so far down the scale that we wouldn't be able to measure the difference

 

C) The ultrabeings matching the definition(s) of whichever god(s) we are talking about. There may exist immeasurably superior ultrabeings, but if they can't fire lightning bolts, they're not Zeus for a start

 

D) I was going to say that the number of sentient beings would have to be large enough, but it really doesn't matter if there are a only 2 or 50 billion sentient species, if one is immeasurably superior to the other, that's it.

 

 

 

Assumptions relying on other assumptions, possible but not probable, in my opinion.

Edited April 10, 2013 by RootsBooster

[Phanerothyme 12]

Phanerothyme, thank you for laying out your argument so neatly, I hope you don't mind if I just skip to that bit, as we seem to've got a bit muddled in the analogies and such.

Agreed !

 

 

3. I don't think that's true.

My reasoning here is based on observation. Life is everywhere. Life has evolved to live in cooling towers and nuclear reactors. Life has evolved to live in superheated water kilometers below the surface. Life is what the universe does to resist (but not defeat) entropy. Even if we work on the assumption that liquid water is essential to life (which is a slightly parochial assumption, but it is based on observations), then everywhere there is liquid water in the universe, we can expect life to exist.

5. I don't think that's true either.

OK, well I accept it's arguable. Evolution also happens in response to environmental pressures, as well as random mutations. But again, based on observations, we have seen the evolution of eukaryotic organisms develop into more or less every creature on the planet.

6. Unicellular eukaryotes can't even fathom their own existence, they don't have brains, so I don't think that's very fair.

Fair point, but I would counter with this - Unless humans have a special kind of consciousness different to all other animals, whether it's "inspired" or it's simply a nervous system that has reached a critical level of complexity to ignite self awareness (both pretty implausible IMO) then consciousness exists as a continuum from the simplest to the most complex organisms. Our experience of consciousness naturally prejudices us towards thinking we are 'special', but based on observation, I don't believe we are.

Even if I accept no. 3 I still don't think your argument follows.

 

I would add this, Unicellular eukaryotes have been evolving just as long as we have, by what measure are we more advanced than them?

 

Evolution doesn't have a destination, it's not at all guaranteed that things get smarter and 'more advanced' or whatever.

 

Sometimes things evolve in what seem to me pretty silly directions, like for example things like Dodos losing the ability to fly.

 

Your argument requires that evolution works in a direction, be it towards super intelligence or whatever, and at the same rate, neither of which I think is founded.

All good points. Evolution does work in a direction - the propagation of the species, but you're right to say it doesn't adhere to notions of "progress". However, our extraordinary evolutionary success is based in the adaptation of intelligence over physiology and I can't think of any reasons why this would not be the case for other species in other ecosystems.

If you compared a dodo to one of it's ancestors, some unspecified Therapod, it would probably come off pretty badly in terms of intelligence (carnivores tending to be far more intelligent than herbivores), yet it is more evolved.

Again, you're right, and my view is oversimplified, tending to suggest perhaps that evolution is teleological in nature - which it obviously is not. But the evolution of greater understanding and capacity for action, mastery of matter and energy is an observable adaptation that is very, very successful indeed. I would personally need to see some compelling reasons why this should not be the case extraterrestrially.

 

Like I've said from the outset, I'm not trying to build a case for polytheism, or prove that "ultrabeings" exist. But I am asserting that based on observations, I think it's likely the universe is well populated, and we're far from the most or least intelligent or capable species out there, and that just as 4 billion years of evolution has taken us from being unicellular life forms with a flicker of stimulus/response to trillion cell organisms able to control energy and matter, 10 billion years of evolution elsewhere in the universe has taken unicellular lifeforms (or their nearest analog) to even greater capabilities.

 

I've never really articulated my thoughts on this matter along these lines, so I'm enjoying the focused critique.

[RootsBooster 24]

Like I've said from the outset, I'm not trying to build a case for polytheism, or prove that "ultrabeings" exist. But I am asserting that based on observations, I think it's likely the universe is well populated, and we're far from the most or least intelligent or capable species out there, and that just as 4 billion years of evolution has taken us from being unicellular life forms with a flicker of stimulus/response to trillion cell organisms able to control energy and matter, 10 billion years of evolution elsewhere in the universe has taken unicellular lifeforms (or their nearest analog) to even greater capabilities.

 

I've never really articulated my thoughts on this matter along these lines, so I'm enjoying the focused critique.

 

I can agree with that, which is a little different to what you first said

[spilldig 188]

Not as much time it seems as it takes you to respond to a direct question with an equally direct answer.

 

No need for that remark Richard.

 

---------- Post added 10-04-2013 at 15:23 ----------

 

I will have to conclude that you are no more honest than the likes of borderline who blatantly avoids answering questions because he knows, deep down, that he is living a lie.

 

Or this one either.

[PaliRichard 10]

Not as much time it seems as it takes you to respond to a direct question with an equally direct answer.

 

No need for that remark Richard.

 

Well there clearly was as you haven't actually answered a question directly yet.

 

I'm all for politeness and credit where its due, but I'm also not one for pussyfooting about and being polite when people are seemingly avoiding things on purpose.

 

Far too many times people use the politeness of others to their advantage, if you would care to answer the questions I will give you appropriate credit for doing so, if you avoid them I will have no qualms about pointing it out, I'm not being rude (or my intention at least is not rude) but I am being very direct.

 

---------- Post added 11-04-2013 at 15:24 ----------

 

borderline

 

Mr Fisk

 

spilldig

 

You've all gone remarkably quiet.

 

Any chance of some answers please?

 

---------- Post added 12-04-2013 at 17:16 ----------

 

 

borderline

 

Mr Fisk

 

spilldig

 

You've all gone remarkably quiet.

 

Any chance of some answers please?

 

Ahem, come on, at least one of you must have enough convivtion in what you preach to respond.

[Tipstaff 159]

I was born into a family of 'Christians', was baptised and so brought up to 'believe' in God.  I was taught about religion (mostly Christian) in schools, none of them were 'faith schools' and they did not affiliate themselves with any church.  I attended the odd church services for this and that, but was never really interested in 'religion'.

 

As I grew up and left school and started work, I didn't attend any church services (other than family weddings, baptisms and funerals) for many years.

When I met my second wife, her immediate family were involved in church activities and so I became a member.  It was at this stage, that I decided to become a 'confirmed' Christian and was confirmed by a Bishop.

 

My church life began to take on a new meaning to me and I became very involved, to the point of almost considering whether my whole future should be within it.  

 

After many years service within the church and diocese, I fell ill with a serious medical condition and had to slow things down considerably.  A lengthy interregnum and a realisation that my marriage had failed took their toll.  I left both behind.   I don't regret leaving the church that I had served so faithfully and selflessly, that ignored me in my moments of need.

 

However, after a life of service in one way or another, I'm not sure that I believed enough in a God that none of us can see, or hear or ever feel that close to any more even in prayer, to be a comfort or for guidance.

 

 

[Dromedary 166]

This thread has been resurrected after almost 10 years, maybe there is a God after all!

[hauxwell 243]

7 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

This thread has been resurrected after almost 10 years, maybe there is a God after all!

That was funny.

[cuttsie 1,089]

10 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

This thread has been resurrected after almost 10 years, maybe there is a God after all!

What is wrong with bringing old threads back , . 

They are interesting and make up  the lack of input from the trolls who who criticise but contribute nothing to this forum .

[Dromedary 166]

1 hour ago, cuttsie said:

What is wrong with bringing old threads back , . 

Who mentioned there was anything wrong?

 

Quote

They are interesting and make up  the lack of input from the trolls who who criticise but contribute nothing to this forum .

You mean like what you have just done....

Edited December 29, 2022 by Dromedary
did a slinny