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.