"I believe that existence is the product of randomness and chaos rather than the logical structure and order we as humans like to put everything in the universe in"
The universe IS UNBELIEVABLY structered and balanced, math is just our way of 'describing' and figuring out the physics that make up our universe. Everything, EVERYTHING on this planet has a purpose!!
I'm glad you see this the way I do.
There is far too much structure in the universe for it to all be random happenstance.
Math is a universal truth, though. It's the physics that are modeled to match our understanding of the laws that govern the universe.
I agree to an extent, that we are not supposed to KNOW the meaning of our existance, but I don't believe apathy is the answer. It'd seem that at least searching for meaning (whether or not you find any answers) shows care and concern for something greater than yourself.
Thats not what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with pysics, mathmatics, and humanities quest for knowllege, the point is that humanity is limited to its own perceptions of the universe. I am saying that there is a possibility we are all wrong about everything. On the other hand, we may be entirely right and human logic parellels the logic and laws in the universe. I am not posting my personal beliefs, I am merely posting philosophical questions to stimulate thought on the subjet. All i am saying is that it has been mans legacy to question his existance, but thats all it is is questions and theories, we can only believe but we can never truly know.
The human mind can create its own logic, but logic is essentially theory. Purhaps human logic is entirely wrong . The point is humanity can and will never know everything. thats where philosophy and religion comes in. The point is Logic, Religion, Philosophy, Science, are products of the human mind ; they are merely questions, tools in which we use to try to understand out world. The point is nobody knows the answer until the moment we die and face whatever lies after life. I believe that existance is merely a guessing game, nothing is certain, our personal beliefs, perceptions, etc. shape our own views of existance.
Unless a person is utterly confident that NOTHING exists beyond this life...it is at least worth considering Pascal's Wager...
True religion is divinely inspired and not just a product of the human mind. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all come from the same source, they just split off at a couple different points in history. Judaism vs. Islam split on whether Isaac or Ishmael was the chosen son. Christiantiy and Judaism split on whether Jesus was the Messiah. Far eastern religions are effectively all the same, and don't focus on a supreme being, rather they're based on self enlightenment and a transcendental state of mind.
Here's a quick breakdown:
Far eastern religions: it's all up to you to find the path to enlightenment
Islam: follow the rules given by Mohammed
Judaism: follow the rules given by the old covenant
Christianity: acknowledge that it is impossible to lead a law abiding life, and that you need Jesus' sacrifice to atone for your sins (that is, follow the NEW covenant)
Also, I disagree that logic or science are "man made". They both are built on the laws of the universe we live in.
I agree to an extent, that we are not supposed to KNOW the meaning of our existance, but I don't believe apathy is the answer. It'd seem that at least searching for meaning (whether or not you find any answers) shows care and concern for something greater than yourself.
This is along the lines of "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son"
Apathy is rarely the answer. I would challenge all of the aetheists and agnostics to at least READ Pascal's wager, and genuinely consider its ramifications.
Also, I disagree that logic or science are "man made". They both are built on the laws of the universe we live in.
Yes, but the universe doesnt go out and say "this is the way it is" it is man who theorizes. It is all perception, we may be entirely right, or wrong but we are limited by the fact that we cannot reason beyond ourselves.
Heres a philosophical question, how do you know what the color blue truely looks like in the universe. Now, if one person is colorblind then they percieve blue differently than a normal person would. Now lets say that human vison isnt true to the actuall apearance of objects in the universe
All I'm saying is the only thing we truly know are ourselves, I'm just trying to stimulate thought as I don't have any defined beliefs either way. I question everything because nothing is truly certain.
I also can read religious text and see the logic in them as well, I have read Genesis, Job, the ancient greeks and romans, Dante, etc. And what do they all have in common, they are beliefs created to beter understand our world. None of them are right or wrong because we cannot truly know. It is all belief.
"I have read Genesis, Job, the ancient greeks and romans, Dante, etc. And what do they all have in common, they are beliefs created to beter understand our world"
Most don't see the Bible as beliefs of individuals but as the inspired word of God written by/through profits.
I view the bible as a piece of literature, a tool for intelectual questioning. Philosophy. Thats is how i view it, I view it as an intelectual pursuit of man to understand his world, not as the word of god. But again, this is my personal view, you don't have to agree. I absolutely respect your views as well.
If a person is color-blind then their perception of that color is meaningless, because they don't see that color.
Colors are "defined" by the visible light spectrum. I believe blue is between 460 and 485nm.
It's all waves of energy that are reflected off of objects. If the waves are outside of the visible spectrum,
then they're either lower intensity (radio waves and such) or higher intesity (UV up to gamma radiation).
No philosophy necessary on that one, I'm afraid.
If you enjoy philosophy, read the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. He has a lot of good things to say that apply even if you don't think he's your Savior.
Also, like I said...read Pascal's wager. it will make you think.
I view the bible as a piece of literature, a tool for intelectual questioning. Philosophy. Thats is how i view it, I view it as an intelectual pursuit of man to understand his world, not as the word of god. But again, this is my personal view, you don't have to agree. I absolutely respect your views as well.
I'll try to make this not sound like a personal attack...but that view is uneducated.
At the VERY LEAST the Old Testament is a history book, NOT literature. It is the history of the Jewish people up until 400 years before Jesus was born. It contains the blood lines from Adam to Christ. It's actually very important stuff, and quite a bit of the historical elements have been confirmed by archaeology.
Also, the New Testament, is again, AT LEAST the history of Jesus life, and the works of his disciples following his death.
To deny the historical context of the Book is just ignorant.
But, Christians (and Jews) believe that the book was inspired by God, and it's not literature.
If a person is color-blind then their perception of that color is meaningless, because they don't see that color.
Colors are "defined" by the visible light spectrum. I believe blue is between 460 and 485nm. It's all waves of energy that are reflected off of objects. If the waves are outside of the visible spectrum, then they're either lower intensity (radio waves and such) or higher intesity (UV up to gamma radiation).
No philosophy necessary on that one, I'm afraid.
If you enjoy philosophy, read the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. He has a lot of good things to say that apply even if you don't think he's your Savior. Also, like I said...read Pascal's wager. it will make you think.
I have read the new testament, ans i certainly aplaud it for its morals and its intelectually stimulating verses. I've read alot of this stuff, and have concidered it all. I just don't have one defined belief, I listen to them all and take each in concideration.
BTW I was not talking about the scientific aspect of my analgoy I mean it to say that blue is a perception. Yes it is a spectrom of light waves, but what if those wave looked diferently to someone else. Lets say what you see as red is what another sees as blue
The thing that bothers me is that we all live and make decisions based on 'our' own perceptions. There may be one universal truth as to our existance/ math/ science but if our perception of what's true differs from what actually is 'TRUTH' what difference does it make?
I for one am a Christian. I was raised in the church, spending most of my youth there when I wasn't in school. Spending time there taught me how to be a moral human being, but that is not why I believe in intelligent design. Besides the fact that everything in our world and our universe is in place to make life possible on this planet, I believe in God because I have felt Him (No, I don't believe God is male, there just isn't an easier pronoun to use).
Some may say that what I felt was my body reacting to a high emotional state, my brain releasing different chemicals to make me feel a state of euphoria. It was so much more than that. I wish that everyone could go through just 10 seconds of what I did that night. I have never seen the way I saw that night, my skin has never tingled the way it did that night, and I have never had my mind as open to the world around me.
If you read Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth, you would say that I had an evening of complete awareness. Yes I did, and it was God that gave me that experience. I will never question the existence of God again.
The thing that bothers me is that we all live and make decisions based on 'our' own perceptions. There may be one universal truth as to our existance/ math/ science but if our perception of what's true differs from what actually is 'TRUTH' what difference does it make?
Haha, well there IS such a thing as red-green colorblindness, but they aren't reversed...they all look "buttery" from what I've heard.
No, they look the same as each other when they're in unsaturated dull tones. Similar to brown. Depending on the severity (how deficient a person's retina is) some people have trouble even seeing a bright primary red. But most people with red-green deficiency can tell that lush healthy grass is green, and spot a rose growing amidst it.
Also, interestingly, colors with either or red or green as a component also look muddled. Purple, for instance, can look blue or even black depending on the degree and saturation of the red component.
--
I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager from college studies. While I agree that agnostics would certainly be swayed by his arguments, atheists - true atheists such as myself - would see no point in the exercise. Regardless of the "nothing to lose" attitude, someone who believes firmly that god is nonexistant, would see no point in thinking otherwise.
Let's say for instance that you have the option to drink from a mug that has nothing on it, or a mug that has the words "eternal salvation" written on it. Nothing to lose either way, so Pascal would choose the mug that in some unknown way might have a remarkable benefit. I understand his logic, and the mathematics he uses to substantiate his arguemnt - but to me they're both mugs. I'll just use whichever one is convenient and clean.
I don't murder, cheat, covet, lie, or any of the other things generally frowned upon by religion. I do this because it's convenient and clean to. I do not, however embrace a savior, or apologize for my sins, or try to improve my karma consciously. I simply do things, and check myself against my own set of morals.
You could say, as far as Pascal's Wager goes, I'm simply not a betting man.
Also we're talking about perception of things, such as light. And close to that discussion, talking about the Bible as a historical text.
History is in the eye of the beholder though, and very often biased. One culture's leader is another's despot. There are certainly facts that are archaeologically verifiable, just as the wavelength of blue is mathematically verifiable. But what it looks like is certainly open to interpretation. Some people simply hate the color blue.
On a related note, images you see from the Hubble need to be color-corrected in order to appear as they would to the naked eye. Even our own technology doesn't perceive and relay images as we, it's creators, do.
My religion is I don't care. I am not interested in accepting nor denying the existence of God or any greater being. I don't consider it meaningful nor relevant to my life or human affairs.
Lieing and cheating are FAR more conveniant and easy than honesty and fair play... If all your decisions were based on what is 'easier' lying and cheating would be the way to go?
No coolpapa because I'm aware of other people who are hurt by lying and cheating. I feel personally responsible when I hurt people, therefore it's convenient for me to step lightly. Just because I'm godless does not by default make me immoral.
edit - and for anyone whose ever been caught in a lie, or caught stealing, they'll know it's far easier to have avoided the whole situation. There's a risk vs reward aspect you're ignoring, interestingly the same one that Blaise Pascal outlines in his Wager.
Dangevin, I hope you don't think I was calling you immoral. I wasn't.
"anyone whose ever been caught in a lie or caught stealing, they'll know it's far easier to have avoided the whole situation"
if they get caught, yes. You don't lie assuming you're going to get caught. You lie because you don't want to deal with the repercussions or consequences of telling the truth, and you lie not considering the consequences repercussions of getting caught in the lie. I. E. it's easier to lie (assuming you don't get caught) than tell the truth.
You don't lie assuming you're going to get caught.
But you do assume the risk. And your interpretation of "easier" I assume has to do with others' reactions to you - i.e. it's easier to tell your wife you're being faithful, than to admit you've cheated. But I'd find it far easier, were this the case, to admit it than to live the lie. But all told, I'd rather just stay faithful to begin with and not be at the crossroads where I'd need to lie in the first place.
Comments
IM ABOUT TO BECOME THIS
<----------
"I believe that existence is the product of randomness and chaos rather than the logical structure and order we as humans like to put everything in the universe in"
The universe IS UNBELIEVABLY structered and balanced, math is just our way of 'describing' and figuring out the physics that make up our universe. Everything, EVERYTHING on this planet has a purpose!!
I'm glad you see this the way I do.
There is far too much structure in the universe for it to all be random happenstance.
Math is a universal truth, though. It's the physics that are modeled to match our understanding of the laws that govern the universe.
Gimmick
I agree to an extent, that we are not supposed to KNOW the meaning of our existance, but I don't believe apathy is the answer. It'd seem that at least searching for meaning (whether or not you find any answers) shows care and concern for something greater than yourself.
The human mind can create its own logic, but logic is essentially theory. Purhaps human logic is entirely wrong . The point is humanity can and will never know everything. thats where philosophy and religion comes in. The point is Logic, Religion, Philosophy, Science, are products of the human mind ; they are merely questions, tools in which we use to try to understand out world. The point is nobody knows the answer until the moment we die and face whatever lies after life. I believe that existance is merely a guessing game, nothing is certain, our personal beliefs, perceptions, etc. shape our own views of existance.
Unless a person is utterly confident that NOTHING exists beyond this life...it is at least worth considering Pascal's Wager...
True religion is divinely inspired and not just a product of the human mind. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all come from the same source, they just split off at a couple different points in history. Judaism vs. Islam split on whether Isaac or Ishmael was the chosen son. Christiantiy and Judaism split on whether Jesus was the Messiah. Far eastern religions are effectively all the same, and don't focus on a supreme being, rather they're based on self enlightenment and a transcendental state of mind.
Here's a quick breakdown:
Far eastern religions: it's all up to you to find the path to enlightenment
Islam: follow the rules given by Mohammed
Judaism: follow the rules given by the old covenant
Christianity: acknowledge that it is impossible to lead a law abiding life, and that you need Jesus' sacrifice to atone for your sins (that is, follow the NEW covenant)
Also, I disagree that logic or science are "man made". They both are built on the laws of the universe we live in.
but there is not really a possibility to wrong about EVERYTHING...
Have a little appreciation for all the hard work that's come before our generation,
and understand, at least, that math is not based on some paradigm (like science).
It works because it's governed by the universe.
The sciences are based on observation, and as paradigms change we have new science.
Kind of like the difference between Archimedes' and Newton's versions of physics.
Or Copernicus and Galileo's versions of astronomy.
But math doesnt work that way...it's pretty damn definitive.
Gimmick
I agree to an extent, that we are not supposed to KNOW the meaning of our existance, but I don't believe apathy is the answer. It'd seem that at least searching for meaning (whether or not you find any answers) shows care and concern for something greater than yourself.
This is along the lines of "fat drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son"
Apathy is rarely the answer. I would challenge all of the aetheists and agnostics to at least READ Pascal's wager, and genuinely consider its ramifications.
Also, I disagree that logic or science are "man made". They both are built on the laws of the universe we live in.
Yes, but the universe doesnt go out and say "this is the way it is" it is man who theorizes. It is all perception, we may be entirely right, or wrong but we are limited by the fact that we cannot reason beyond ourselves.
Heres a philosophical question, how do you know what the color blue truely looks like in the universe. Now, if one person is colorblind then they percieve blue differently than a normal person would. Now lets say that human vison isnt true to the actuall apearance of objects in the universe
All I'm saying is the only thing we truly know are ourselves, I'm just trying to stimulate thought as I don't have any defined beliefs either way. I question everything because nothing is truly certain.
I also can read religious text and see the logic in them as well, I have read Genesis, Job, the ancient greeks and romans, Dante, etc. And what do they all have in common, they are beliefs created to beter understand our world. None of them are right or wrong because we cannot truly know. It is all belief.
Most don't see the Bible as beliefs of individuals but as the inspired word of God written by/through profits.
Colors are "defined" by the visible light spectrum. I believe blue is between 460 and 485nm.
It's all waves of energy that are reflected off of objects. If the waves are outside of the visible spectrum,
then they're either lower intensity (radio waves and such) or higher intesity (UV up to gamma radiation).
No philosophy necessary on that one, I'm afraid.
If you enjoy philosophy, read the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. He has a lot of good things to say that apply even if you don't think he's your Savior.
Also, like I said...read Pascal's wager. it will make you think.
I view the bible as a piece of literature, a tool for intelectual questioning. Philosophy. Thats is how i view it, I view it as an intelectual pursuit of man to understand his world, not as the word of god. But again, this is my personal view, you don't have to agree. I absolutely respect your views as well.
I'll try to make this not sound like a personal attack...but that view is uneducated.
At the VERY LEAST the Old Testament is a history book, NOT literature. It is the history of the Jewish people up until 400 years before Jesus was born. It contains the blood lines from Adam to Christ. It's actually very important stuff, and quite a bit of the historical elements have been confirmed by archaeology.
Also, the New Testament, is again, AT LEAST the history of Jesus life, and the works of his disciples following his death.
To deny the historical context of the Book is just ignorant.
But, Christians (and Jews) believe that the book was inspired by God, and it's not literature.
If a person is color-blind then their perception of that color is meaningless, because they don't see that color.
Colors are "defined" by the visible light spectrum. I believe blue is between 460 and 485nm.
It's all waves of energy that are reflected off of objects. If the waves are outside of the visible spectrum,
then they're either lower intensity (radio waves and such) or higher intesity (UV up to gamma radiation).
No philosophy necessary on that one, I'm afraid.
If you enjoy philosophy, read the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. He has a lot of good things to say that apply even if you don't think he's your Savior.
Also, like I said...read Pascal's wager. it will make you think.
I have read the new testament, ans i certainly aplaud it for its morals and its intelectually stimulating verses. I've read alot of this stuff, and have concidered it all. I just don't have one defined belief, I listen to them all and take each in concideration.
BTW I was not talking about the scientific aspect of my analgoy I mean it to say that blue is a perception. Yes it is a spectrom of light waves, but what if those wave looked diferently to someone else. Lets say what you see as red is what another sees as blue
This is some great discussion BTW
You're right that people CAN perceive the physical world differently than others.
But that wouldn't change the fact that you can MEASURE the wavelength of light.
It's a physical property defined by the universe that we reside in.
The sciences that are ACTUALLY all just made up are paleantology and anthropology.
They can make some interesting observations, but can't generally execute the
scientific method...hence making it NOT real science.
coolpapachiv -- I think you meant "prophets" in your earlier post.
No I was refering to $ money
coolpapachiv -- I think you meant "prophets" in your earlier post.
No I was refering to $ money
LOL
I for one am a Christian. I was raised in the church, spending most of my youth there when I wasn't in school. Spending time there taught me how to be a moral human being, but that is not why I believe in intelligent design. Besides the fact that everything in our world and our universe is in place to make life possible on this planet, I believe in God because I have felt Him (No, I don't believe God is male, there just isn't an easier pronoun to use).
Some may say that what I felt was my body reacting to a high emotional state, my brain releasing different chemicals to make me feel a state of euphoria. It was so much more than that. I wish that everyone could go through just 10 seconds of what I did that night. I have never seen the way I saw that night, my skin has never tingled the way it did that night, and I have never had my mind as open to the world around me.
If you read Eckhart Tolle's book, A New Earth, you would say that I had an evening of complete awareness. Yes I did, and it was God that gave me that experience. I will never question the existence of God again.
The thing that bothers me is that we all live and make decisions based on 'our' own perceptions. There may be one universal truth as to our existance/ math/ science but if our perception of what's true differs from what actually is 'TRUTH' what difference does it make?
The difference is that we'd all be wrong.
Haha, well there IS such a thing as red-green colorblindness, but they aren't reversed...they all look "buttery" from what I've heard.
No, they look the same as each other when they're in unsaturated dull tones. Similar to brown. Depending on the severity (how deficient a person's retina is) some people have trouble even seeing a bright primary red. But most people with red-green deficiency can tell that lush healthy grass is green, and spot a rose growing amidst it.
Also, interestingly, colors with either or red or green as a component also look muddled. Purple, for instance, can look blue or even black depending on the degree and saturation of the red component.
--
I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager from college studies. While I agree that agnostics would certainly be swayed by his arguments, atheists - true atheists such as myself - would see no point in the exercise. Regardless of the "nothing to lose" attitude, someone who believes firmly that god is nonexistant, would see no point in thinking otherwise.
Let's say for instance that you have the option to drink from a mug that has nothing on it, or a mug that has the words "eternal salvation" written on it. Nothing to lose either way, so Pascal would choose the mug that in some unknown way might have a remarkable benefit. I understand his logic, and the mathematics he uses to substantiate his arguemnt - but to me they're both mugs. I'll just use whichever one is convenient and clean.
I don't murder, cheat, covet, lie, or any of the other things generally frowned upon by religion. I do this because it's convenient and clean to. I do not, however embrace a savior, or apologize for my sins, or try to improve my karma consciously. I simply do things, and check myself against my own set of morals.
You could say, as far as Pascal's Wager goes, I'm simply not a betting man.
History is in the eye of the beholder though, and very often biased. One culture's leader is another's despot. There are certainly facts that are archaeologically verifiable, just as the wavelength of blue is mathematically verifiable. But what it looks like is certainly open to interpretation. Some people simply hate the color blue.
On a related note, images you see from the Hubble need to be color-corrected in order to appear as they would to the naked eye. Even our own technology doesn't perceive and relay images as we, it's creators, do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
edit - and for anyone whose ever been caught in a lie, or caught stealing, they'll know it's far easier to have avoided the whole situation. There's a risk vs reward aspect you're ignoring, interestingly the same one that Blaise Pascal outlines in his Wager.
"anyone whose ever been caught in a lie or caught stealing, they'll know it's far easier to have avoided the whole situation"
if they get caught, yes. You don't lie assuming you're going to get caught. You lie because you don't want to deal with the repercussions or consequences of telling the truth, and you lie not considering the consequences repercussions of getting caught in the lie. I. E. it's easier to lie (assuming you don't get caught) than tell the truth.
You don't lie assuming you're going to get caught.
But you do assume the risk. And your interpretation of "easier" I assume has to do with others' reactions to you - i.e. it's easier to tell your wife you're being faithful, than to admit you've cheated. But I'd find it far easier, were this the case, to admit it than to live the lie. But all told, I'd rather just stay faithful to begin with and not be at the crossroads where I'd need to lie in the first place.