|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 26, 2024 20:32:22 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it.
If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument.
Second... Wait, first is more than enough. Why would I need a second?
Anyway, I find the idea , peddled by most religions that people will be severely punished ( after death) unless they adhere to a set of dictates, including rituals (basically songs, dances and story telling), miscellaneous oaths and promises... not only stupid but repugnant and degrading as well.
So that's why.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Apr 27, 2024 21:46:36 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it. If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument. Second... Wait, first is more than enough. Why would I need a second? Anyway, I find the idea , peddled by most religions that people will be severely punished ( after death) unless they adhere to a set of dictates, including rituals (basically songs, dances and story telling), miscellaneous oaths and promises... not only stupid but repugnant and degrading as well. So that's why. Bertrand Russell summed it up nicely in his essay that has the same title as your post. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 28, 2024 10:09:57 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it. If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument. Second... Wait, first is more than enough. Why would I need a second? Anyway, I find the idea , peddled by most religions that people will be severely punished ( after death) unless they adhere to a set of dictates, including rituals (basically songs, dances and story telling), miscellaneous oaths and promises... not only stupid but repugnant and degrading as well. So that's why. Bertrand Russell summed it up nicely in his essay that has the same title as your post. I've now read his essay and, although most of it are arguments that I am very familiar with, it's very nicely presented and talentuous as well as humorous, so I had a great time reading it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2024 14:13:01 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it. If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument. How do you calculate "likelihood" when there is "only one"? Yes, that is a distasteful idea. Pretty sure it's not just about "adhering to a set of dictates, including rituals (basically songs, dances and story telling), miscellaneous oaths and promises," though, although that is something that is present in every general human experience. We live and move according to narratives handed to us, whether or not we consciously recognize them. One example is waiting in line to pay for groceries...that is an "acted out narrative" that is dependent on a whole series of stories, promises, etc., all nested inside one another. Whether we like it or recognize it, it is true and it's not that difficult to dissect. At some level, when you dissect it, you might conclude that it is repugnant and degrading. As for the "severe punishment," I'm not sure the narrative we've been handed in traditional Christianity reflects the reality that is taught in the Bible (since we're specifically talking about Christianity here. I think it owes more to Greek influence than the Hebrew/Jewish roots of Christian scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 29, 2024 15:00:53 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it. If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument. How do you calculate "likelihood" when there is "only one"? ... Well, for one thing if "there is only one", it's not likelyhood it's certainty... Also whether it's about one or a million is irrelevant. You might calculate the likelihood of the world ending tomorrow (most likely by getting hit by a big ass asteroid) yet there is only one Earth... The likelihood I am talking about is about comparative complexity. If for example a monkey types an entire book on a typewriter it is much more likely to be random letters than "Cyrano de Bergerac". I hope you're not disputing that. In nature, the likelihood of a mind like ours with its extraordinary potential for invention and discovery is much smaller than that of a mind of a lizard, or even less the "mind" of a fly. Even a fly is capable of reacting in a complex fashion to a situation, yet it's extremely simple when compared to ours. Our minds can discover small pieces of a whole that is called science over a very long period of time but with astonishing results. Who would have predicted a hundred plus years ago that someday there would be millions of smartphones around the world when people didn't even know that you could record a sound? Now imagine a mind that could "create" the universe all at once and by itself and the unlikelihood goes through the roof!!! To believe that you've solved the problem of the universe by positing a god is like thinking that you've solved the problem of universal gravitation by saying that it is done by invisible elves. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2024 15:34:08 GMT
How do you calculate "likelihood" when there is "only one"? ... Well, for one thing if "there is only one", it's not likelyhood it's certainty... Also whether it's about one or a million is irrelevant. You might calculate the likelihood of the world ending tomorrow (most likely by getting hit by a big ass asteroid) yet there is only one Earth... The likelihood I am talking about is about comparative complexity. If for example a monkey types an entire book on a typewriter it is much more likely to be random letters than "Cyrano de Bergerac". I hope you're not disputing that. In nature, the likelihood of a mind like ours with its extraordinary potential for invention and discovery is much smaller than that of a mind of a lizard, or even less the "mind" of a fly. Even a fly is capable of reacting in a complex fashion to a situation, yet it's extremely simple when compared to ours. Our minds can discover small pieces of a whole that is called science over a very long period of time but with astonishing results. Who would have predicted a hundred plus years ago that someday there would be millions of smartphones around the world when people didn't even know that you could record a sound? Now imagine a mind that could "create" the universe all at once and by itself and the unlikelihood goes through the roof!!! To believe that you've solved the problem of the universe by positing a god is like thinking that you've solved the problem of universal gravitation by saying that it is done by invisible elves. You're counting on a "bottom up" understanding of the universe...everything starts simple and becomes more complex. There is strong evidence of "top down" influence as well. With a "bottom up" presupposition, you automatically rule out the "top down." But we don't suggest that millions of smartphones self-organized into existence. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 29, 2024 16:42:30 GMT
Well, for one thing if "there is only one", it's not likelyhood it's certainty... Also whether it's about one or a million is irrelevant. You might calculate the likelihood of the world ending tomorrow (most likely by getting hit by a big ass asteroid) yet there is only one Earth... The likelihood I am talking about is about comparative complexity. If for example a monkey types an entire book on a typewriter it is much more likely to be random letters than "Cyrano de Bergerac". I hope you're not disputing that. In nature, the likelihood of a mind like ours with its extraordinary potential for invention and discovery is much smaller than that of a mind of a lizard, or even less the "mind" of a fly. Even a fly is capable of reacting in a complex fashion to a situation, yet it's extremely simple when compared to ours. Our minds can discover small pieces of a whole that is called science over a very long period of time but with astonishing results. Who would have predicted a hundred plus years ago that someday there would be millions of smartphones around the world when people didn't even know that you could record a sound? Now imagine a mind that could "create" the universe all at once and by itself and the unlikelihood goes through the roof!!! To believe that you've solved the problem of the universe by positing a god is like thinking that you've solved the problem of universal gravitation by saying that it is done by invisible elves. You're counting on a "bottom up" understanding of the universe...everything starts simple and becomes more complex. There is strong evidence of "top down" influence as well. With a "bottom up" presupposition, you automatically rule out the "top down." But we don't suggest that millions of smartphones self-organized into existence. I don't think you understand what I am talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 29, 2024 17:41:41 GMT
You're counting on a "bottom up" understanding of the universe...everything starts simple and becomes more complex. There is strong evidence of "top down" influence as well. With a "bottom up" presupposition, you automatically rule out the "top down." But we don't suggest that millions of smartphones self-organized into existence. I don't think you understand what I am talking about. I think I do. “More complex” is less likely (Occam’s Razor, and all). |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 29, 2024 18:40:13 GMT
I don't think you understand what I am talking about. I think I do. “More complex” is less likely (Occam’s Razor, and all). Sort of... But close enough. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on May 3, 2024 21:24:40 GMT
First, I don't think that the universe (or the multiverse or whatever) no matter how complex and "unlikely to exist by itself" is nowhere near as complex and unlikely as a... Let's call it a thing... that would have deliberately created it. If we were to compare unlikelihoods here it would be like the mathematical first order of infinity compared to the second order as defined by Cantor's diagonal argument. Second... Wait, first is more than enough. Why would I need a second? Anyway, I find the idea , peddled by most religions that people will be severely punished ( after death) unless they adhere to a set of dictates, including rituals (basically songs, dances and story telling), miscellaneous oaths and promises... not only stupid but repugnant and degrading as well. So that's why. Doesn't sound like you are against Christianity, but Faith itself. Freon |
|
