Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you're an optimistic. If we're lucky the moon would make a good dump site.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as we know, the Solar System is ours to grow into, and we'll progress beyond. I'm optimistic about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you're an optimistic. If we're lucky the moon would make a good dump site.

[/ QUOTE ]

And not unjustly so, given history's lessons. Dark Ages-Renaissance correlation.

But I agree that the current geopol/enviroment problems make this a dire era in some ways. There'll always be trash and I'm sure we'll fill a few craters or use it as energy (incineration's easy to do with letting the pollutants escape into vacuum, for instance)...

Keith Richards and the cockroach, basically. I tend to think the next renaissance, although the evolution of man is more complex than it was in the middle ages... Would be into space.

I make no predictions, only speculations. This species has that ability, there just hasn't been the motivation to expand outward yet. There's still an awful lot of planet to fill.

But make no mistake, space is the next logical step for man.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
But make no mistake, space is the next logical step for man.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly hope so, because:

1. Space is cool.
2. We didn't watch all that scifi just so our descendants could live in extra big skyscrapers.
3. Exploration!

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But #2 introduces a bunch of "unnecessary elements." To accept #2, one needs to accept the belief in microscopic organisms, accept that they can be transmitted from person to person, and accept that they can cause illness. That makes it "inferior" by your proposed criteria to the answer that does not involve introducing unnecessary elements...or perhaps there is a flaw with your criteria?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many unnecessary elements does it introduce? 2 or 3, maybe 5? God has to be at least a couple hundred, right? I mean, even the most simple God, we know he at LEAST intervenes in our health, so he has to have some magical powers, he has to have an interest in the human race, in you specifically, disease has to be within his purview, even if he isnt omnipotent, thats just a quick list I came up with off the top of my head. Surely this is more unnecessary and complicated than a bunch of crazy little monsters running around in my blood stream right?

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this, he would just dispute that while infinitely complex and complicated, it is nonetheless NECESSARY, and so doesnt fail Occam's test. You are saying the opposite, that it passes Occam's test through its simplicity. This seems way wrong.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that God gives no answers, it's more that He answers questions that in turn lead to related questions. The questions are essentially shifted. The difficult questions about how the universe began can be answered more easily by accepting the existence of God, but that then leads to similarly difficult questions about how God came to exist. I don't purport to think that accepting the existence of God is a completely comfortable way to answer these questions, but I feel it's a little more comfortable than the alternative. I don't mean to imply that I have solved the dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question isn't so much "why does the universe exist" its "why is there something rather than nothing." We just call it the universe because we think that might be everything. God doesnt answer this question in ANY way, and it doesnt pose another question, it poses the exact same question. Why does something exist rather than nothing? God. Ok, why does God exist rather than nothing? Its the exact same question.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's for certain is that we probably agree that the plausibility of a final god of sorts is illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The plausability of a final god of sorts is as logical as it gets. The fact is that man is not intelligent enough to disprove God. It might also be true that the constraints of physics may never allow even the most intelligent physical creature that one can imagine the abilty to disprove the existence of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Man isnt smart enough to be able to disprove an infinite number of things. And it isnt just man! Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven.

This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the concept of a final God is illogical and unnecessary

[/ QUOTE ]

Unneccesary for who? For what? Even if the concept of God is illogical show me how that proves there is no God. Which, I'm sure you understand, is much more important than the logic of there being a God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me this isnt leading to Pascal...?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Like I said, because you're so logical mickey, I'm very surprised you don't subscribe to Occam's Razor.

It's clear that plugging in a god to answer one question creates many more problematic questions. I'm sure you see that, but for some reason it's out of your comfort zone I guess.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So you believe that you are smart enough to make this claim and prove it?

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even NotReady would admit this, he would just dispute that while infinitely complex and complicated, it is nonetheless NECESSARY, and so doesnt fail Occam's test. You are saying the opposite, that it passes Occam's test through its simplicity. This seems way wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's arguing against Occam's criterion in general.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[/ QUOTE ]

There aren't. There are plenty who say it's unreasonable to believe in God. This is a very different claim.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
There aren't. There are plenty who say it's unreasonable to believe in God. This is a very different claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are very few people who emphatically deny the existence of God.

If you believe people are making the claim that God doesn't exist, then you are misinterpreting.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe people are making the claim that God doesn't exist, then you are misinterpreting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So all of these folks that respond that they are atheists are in reality misrepresenting themselves and their belief. Atheists emphatically deny the existence of God.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists emphatically deny the existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we don't. I point you to the dozens of threads already on the topic, or you can google it, or see refutations by atheist thinkers and organization, or hell, try the wiki.

You're the one who's misrepresenting.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

[/ QUOTE ]

Disbelief in the existence of God isn't the same as belief in the nonexistence of God. Few atheists outright deny the existence of God - this has been true since people started describing themselves as atheists, it's nothing new.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

So pedantic.

There are degrees of atheism/agnosticism, just as there are different degrees of Christian belief.

Christianity has divides, different faiths, slightly different rules to follow and is not a static thing.

The same is true of atheism. There is no hard and fast black and white about it. You'll find some atheists disagree about certain points.

Shades of gray.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is seriously an excellent litmus test, IMO. If you cant grasp the inherent flaw in talking about disproving God, you probably need some work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most certainly do understand the problem with talking about disproving God. So why is it that there are so many that emphaticaly claim that there is no God?

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing is smart enough to disprove an infinite number of things because they cannot be disproven

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So you believe that you are smart enough to make this claim and prove it?

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, God could. Thats it. You'd have to be infinite, and even then, I'm not sure how the math works out. Can an infinite being test an infinite number of cases?

And you misunderstand. When people say there is no God, they mean there is absolutely no reason to suspect there is a God. Same as when people say there are no ghosts or that we didnt cuddle last night.

You dont think we might have cuddled last night do you?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

Come on give me a break. We now have atheists that do not deny the existence of god. Wow!

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Where'd you find that definition? I'd say its more aptly "lack of a belief in God." Especially since theism is defined as having a belief in God, only makes sense that a-theism should be the lack of that belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is comical to me how these debates go though. You have an incorrect definition of what atheism is and what atheists believe, we point this out to you and explain what we actually believe, and you tell us we are lying. LOL. I mean, I get it, if you dont persist in misrepresenting our beliefs, its MUCH easier to find fault with them.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]
So something complex came from something simple? UH OH!

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, ok. So the fact that you are discussing this with two atheists who are flat out contradicting everything you are saying has no impact on your ability to assert what atheists believe hmmm? Talk about hubris.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
disbelieve - 1. The act of not believing.

2. Actively denying a statement, opinion or perception.

I have heard this argument of yours before. The "weak" vs the strong" atheist usually acompanies the explanation. Disbelieving is denying plain and simple. Some guy making claims about how they don't mean the same thing doesnt change the fact that when you ask an atheist if there is a God or if God exists or if they believe in God, they say "no". They deny there is a God. They do not say I don't know. Disbelief is the same as denying when an atheist speaks of God.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

So you post two definitions, the first one being the one atheists use, but you say we have to use the second one because... Oh yeah, there is no "because."

Anyhow, you find me a group of atheists who agree with your claim. Go on, get out there and find them. Since all the "popular" atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett), all the atheists organizations, and all the regular atheist posters on this forum agree with my view, I'm not too concerned with your claims of expertise on the matter.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally? I think there probably are gods of some kind. However, I think it's impossible for human beings to learn anything about them, and therefore I proceed based on the practical assumption that they don't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the "atheist" label, belief is important. While I consider the probability of a god or gods existing to be relatively high, I do not believe in God. This is a strange position, and I'd have to get into a massive tangle of semantics and philosophy to justify it, but the fact that I don't believe in God makes me an atheist (even though I think it's likely that there is a god).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

I have to run, I'll get to this.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

God is sort of the ultimate complex thing. Even NotReady would admit this,


[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. Read about the theological doctrine of God's simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is equivocation. When philosophers and theologians say "simple", they mean: "undifferentiated; undivided." Thus the "I" of the Self is simple, even though phenomenally the "I" refers to consciousness. And consciousness is an incredibly complex phenomenon---ask any linguist, neuroscientist, psychologist, cognitive scientist, AI researcher, etc.

I think Plantinga equivocated precisely like this in his review of God Delusion that NR posted a while back. Very embarrassing, just the absolute worst sort of pedantry.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think this is a rational position? What makes you think the probability of a god or gods existing is relatively high?

[/ QUOTE ]

Short answer: no. I think it's rationally consistent, but not logically demonstrable. It's arbitrary and intuitive to a large degree.

I'm combining my "sense of God" and the chance that it's valid, our sheer lack of knowledge about the universe (and the potential for god that exists as a result of that), the chance of a physical being reaching a level of power akin to godhood, the cluster of claims that are vast in scope but unfalsfiable, and the "odds-and-ends" arguments that aren't individually convincing but collectively deserve some consideration (the usual suspects go here - ontological argument, teleological argument, etc).

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

Makes sense to me - I'm just surprised it does to you. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]