Okay, I'm sure some will see the topic of this title and turn red in the face trying to explain to me how it cannot possibly be logical to believe in God, but oh well... I had a weird thought and just had to put it out there.
So, say you don't believe in God. If God really does exsist, and punishes for not believing in His/Her exsistance while being aware of His/Her possible exsistance, then you're screwed. If atheists are right, and there is no God, then no harm no foul.
However, if you believe in God, and have lead your life accordingly, then it's all cool. Again, if you believe in God and he doesn't exsist, then I highly doubt that it would really matter.
Don't try to read to much of my own personal beliefes from this. I don't believe in God for the fear of Hell, peer preasure, habit, etc. It was just a personal thought I had this morning.
The most logical thing in the world is to believe in God.
If we think about the world, it's complexity and it's harmony we could not conclude that it is only product of chance and random succesion of facts.
When we think with our heart, we also conclude that God exist.
And when we see the spiritual need whe have and the fact that only God can fit this need, we could only conclude that God exist.
It is very illogical to say that God do not exist.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Okay, I'm sure some will see the topic of this title and turn red in the face trying to explain to me how it cannot possibly be logical to believe in God, but oh well... I had a weird thought and just had to put it out there.
So, say you don't believe in God. If God really does exsist, and punishes for not believing in His/Her exsistance while being aware of His/Her possible exsistance, then you're screwed. If atheists are right, and there is no God, then no harm no foul.
However, if you believe in God, and have lead your life accordingly, then it's all cool. Again, if you believe in God and he doesn't exsist, then I highly doubt that it would really matter.
Don't try to read to much of my own personal beliefes from this. I don't believe in God for the fear of Hell, peer preasure, habit, etc. It was just a personal thought I had this morning. |
This is already a well known argument, which if i remember correctly is called Pascal's Wager. 
may God bless you.Just to be annoying:
The wager is a null/void manipulation. If you were going to have a logical reason to believe in God, making the proof contingent on the possibility of something is illogical (in other words, everything is possible, so it's possible that God exists, and therefore it becomes important how you interpret possibilities).
Wanna try something else?
HM
It is far more logical not to believe.
It brakes down to this: there is no evidence for the existence of God but the existence of a God or gods can not be disproven. But think about it this way Imagine a teapot is orbiting the sun, its too small to be detected, you cant prove that it dose not exist but your not going to assume it dose or even consider it. If I said that I saw a 6 foot tall pink rabbit in my living room and gave no evidence for it, you could not disprove it but you will not even consider it to be true.
If the idea of a god didn't exist, if no one believed or even heard of the belief or idea of a deity and some one suddenly said that a god existed and he had no evidence for it. Would you believe it? Would you give it any thought? Would you think "well you can't disprove it so its a good possibility"?
No, no and no. The man would be dismissed as a mad man.
Now lets look at this a different way.
Every thing we unravel, every mystery of the universe and nature that we figure out, from lightening to reproduction to the development of species, all those we discovered to happen by natural processes with out the help of any intelligence. We can look through powerful telescope and see back billions of years, we can look at galaxy's billions of years old. Given those, any god that exists for be ether deistic (creates the universe than walks away and dose nothing to it) or created the universe in such a way as to hide its existence. (Of course this discounts all gods in all religions except deism.) But why dose this creator have to be a god? It doesn't. The creator could have been a bunch of scientists doing an experiment that caused the big bang, out universe could exist in a computer and we are monitored by a alien who created it to monitor us to better understand the development of its civilisation. There are many possibility's that don't involve a god.
Whats more logical a deistic god, a god that hides its existence or some alien, part of an alien species in some other universe that for what ever reason (may be accidentally) created our universe?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
It is far more logical not to believe.
It brakes down to this: there is no evidence for the existence of God but the existence of a God or gods can not be disproven. But think about it this way Imagine a teapot is orbiting the sun, its too small to be detected, you cant prove that it dose not exist but your not going to assume it dose or even consider it. If I said that I saw a 6 foot tall pink rabbit in my living room and gave no evidence for it, you could not disprove it but you will not even consider it to be true.
If the idea of a god didn't exist, if no one believed or even heard of the belief or idea of a deity and some one suddenly said that a god existed and he had no evidence for it. Would you believe it? Would you give it any thought? Would you think "well you can't disprove it so its a good possibility"?
No, no and no. The man would be dismissed as a mad man.
Now lets look at this a different way.
Every thing we unravel, every mystery of the universe and nature that we figure out, from lightening to reproduction to the development of species, all those we discovered to happen by natural processes with out the help of any intelligence. We can look through powerful telescope and see back billions of years, we can look at galaxy's billions of years old. Given those, any god that exists for be ether deistic (creates the universe than walks away and dose nothing to it) or created the universe in such a way as to hide its existence. (Of course this discounts all gods in all religions except deism.) But why dose this creator have to be a god? It doesn't. The creator could have been a bunch of scientists doing an experiment that caused the big bang, out universe could exist in a computer and we are monitored by a alien who created it to monitor us to better understand the development of its civilisation. There are many possibility's that don't involve a god.
Whats more logical a deistic god, a god that hides its existence or some alien, part of an alien species in some other universe that for what ever reason (may be accidentally) created our universe? |
Um, okay. At first I thought you were joking, but apparently not. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not shooting down your theory because of the "insane" idea of aliens. I personally believe in them. The universe is far too large for me to say that there is no such thing as aliens. It's very likely that some where in the universe, other species evolved in much the same manner that we did. Anyway, back to the point.
The main reason I'm shooting your "alien" theory down is because an alien creating the universe is very much less likely than a God. Do you know how much freakin' energy it would take to create an entire universe? Well let's just say it's somewhere around all the energy IN the universe. Not very likely. It would be near impossible to create that kind of energy. Now, if you take someone that has powers exceeding that of the universe, then that would be a bit more likely. Hm, who could have those kinds of powers??? OH! I know! GOD!
There are also theories floating around about the "big bang", the universe expanding and contracting, etc. What caused the "big bang" though? What made the universe before the first time it had the chance to expand and contract? I wonder...So your saying that a god could exist yet aliens from another dimension couldn't? No matter how different the laws of physics are, no matter if they learned go to could even control the laws of physics. No mater if they are billions or even trillions of years more advanced?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| So your saying that a god could exist yet aliens from another dimension couldn't? No matter how different the laws of physics are, no matter if they learned go to could even control the laws of physics. No mater if they are billions or even trillions of years more advanced? |
And again, I said that I BELIEVE ALIENS EXSIST... but you simply cannot harness all of the energy it takes to create a universe... it's impossible... unless you have to be an immortal transending the powers of the universe and you would therefore be considered "God".
NOTE: You'd have to be immortal in order to accumulate that kind of power without killing yourself. | laurenrox wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | So your saying that a god could exist yet aliens from another dimension couldn't? No matter how different the laws of physics are, no matter if they learned go to could even control the laws of physics. No mater if they are billions or even trillions of years more advanced? |
And again, I said that I BELIEVE ALIENS EXSIST... but you simply cannot harness all of the energy it takes to create a universe... it's impossible... unless you have to be an immortal transending the powers of the universe and you would therefore be considered "God".
NOTE: You'd have to be immortal in order to accumulate that kind of power without killing yourself. |
1. I never said you didn't believe in aliens.
2. Different universe, billion or trillions of years more advanced.
3. What makes you think it would take so much? What makes you such an expert? For all you know all it would take is a black hole and some particles that can be sent into it causing it to expand into a universe. We don't know what it would take or even if its possible, it could be easy and all you need is the right technology. For all we know universes are being created and destroyed all the time from our universe.Hmm, that thought has occured to me too. How-ever, beliefs (as in what you honestly believe in) can't be forced.
I'd consider myself more agnostic than atheist, so if there is a God out there I'd personally believe he'd base judgement on a person's merits... not their servitude to Himself... and if God allowed heaven, viable after-life, etcetera, only to his followers - then I wouldn't be that interested anyway.
Discrimination by denomenation doesn't appeal to me, even if I were on the "right" side.
God isn't an egomaniac who sends people to Hell simply for not believing in Him. Religion doesn't change people, you are either moral or you are not, and believing in God or not doesn't change that. Morality has to do with upbringing, not your intellectual conceptions. God judges your HEART, not your intellect.
| blackheart wrote: |
Hmm, that thought has occured to me too. How-ever, beliefs (as in what you honestly believe in) can't be forced.
I'd consider myself more agnostic than atheist, so if there is a God out there I'd personally believe he'd base judgement on a person's merits... not their servitude to Himself... and if God allowed heaven, viable after-life, etcetera, only to his followers - then I wouldn't be that interested anyway.
Discrimination by denomenation doesn't appeal to me, even if I were on the "right" side. |
The fact is that if you believe that God exist. You will accept that he has some will.
And because he is God, his wills are infaillible and must be done unrelentingly.
And If we think that God is Perfect, we can say that he could not do any injustice.
So that if he exist like it is say, only those following him will be allowed to the heaven. | tkeita wrote: |
The fact is that if you believe that God exist. You will accept that he has some will.
And because he is God, his wills are infaillible and must be done unrelentingly.
And If we think that God is Perfect, we can say that he could not do any injustice.
So that if he exist like it is say, only those following him will be allowed to the heaven. |
Not everyone, nor every religion, believes that a God or deity is infallible... or at all perfect.
I'm not christian, and I do not believe that God - if such a being exists - only allows those following him to be allowed into heaven.
"God" does not neccessarily refer to the Christian interpretation of God. One has to be generic as not everyone here is of the one religion. | Quote: |
laurenrox wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
So your saying that a god could exist yet aliens from another dimension couldn't? No matter how different the laws of physics are, no matter if they learned go to could even control the laws of physics. No mater if they are billions or even trillions of years more advanced?
And again, I said that I BELIEVE ALIENS EXSIST... but you simply cannot harness all of the energy it takes to create a universe... it's impossible... unless you have to be an immortal transending the powers of the universe and you would therefore be considered "God".
NOTE: You'd have to be immortal in order to accumulate that kind of power without killing yourself.
1. I never said you didn't believe in aliens.
2. Different universe, billion or trillions of years more advanced.
3. What makes you think it would take so much? What makes you such an expert? For all you know all it would take is a black hole and some particles that can be sent into it causing it to expand into a universe. We don't know what it would take or even if its possible, it could be easy and all you need is the right technology. For all we know universes are being created and destroyed all the time from our universe. |
1 (point 2 in your arguement) - If there was a different universe billions and trillions of years more advanced, then what/who made them? If that was the case then someone would have to have created that first being. And if that first being was not created by anyone, then that being must be infinate. And last time I checked, an infinate being is considered a trait of a God.
2 (point 3 in your arguement) - I never claimed to be an expert. Its just common sense. Remember a little law that said, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed"? If that physics law is true, then that energy would have had to come from something else, and if it came from an alien, the alien would have to have power/engergy equal or greater than the entire universe. A biological being would not be able to harness that kind of energy because it would do a number of things to them. Namely it would send jolts through your nervous system and kill you. Simple biology.
So, lets just say that these aliens have SOME means (of which we could not possibley comprehend and that breaks the laws of physics) of creating a universe. What created them? What created their universe? Go back to point 1. The answer is there. And if it was the case of the black hole, what created the black hole? Again, if you say aliens, then you're back to the question of "who created the aliens?"...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
| Quote: |
Hmm, that thought has occured to me too. How-ever, beliefs (as in what you honestly believe in) can't be forced.
I'd consider myself more agnostic than atheist, so if there is a God out there I'd personally believe he'd base judgement on a person's merits... not their servitude to Himself... and if God allowed heaven, viable after-life, etcetera, only to his followers - then I wouldn't be that interested anyway.
Discrimination by denomenation doesn't appeal to me, even if I were on the "right" side. |
I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone, I'm just presenting something that I was curious about. If I seem mean or pushy, I'm not trying to come across that way. I'm just trying to explain why I think this in a way that everyone can understand it.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
| Quote: |
Not everyone, nor every religion, believes that a God or deity is infallible... or at all perfect.
I'm not christian, and I do not believe that God - if such a being exists - only allows those following him to be allowed into heaven.
"God" does not neccessarily refer to the Christian interpretation of God. One has to be generic as not everyone here is of the one religion. |
I never claimed that he was infalliable, nor that he was the Christian version of God. Gah, why is it that whenever I talk about God, they think I'm talking about that version of God? I'm saying that IF whatever God punishes you for not believing in him but still having knowledge of his possible exsistance, then you'd be better off to believe in him, right?
(I personally don't believe that he punishes people for not being aware of him, as long as you're morally upright. Like I said, it was just a thought I had, and has nothing to do with my personal beliefes)... | laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | laurenrox wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:
So your saying that a god could exist yet aliens from another dimension couldn't? No matter how different the laws of physics are, no matter if they learned go to could even control the laws of physics. No mater if they are billions or even trillions of years more advanced?
And again, I said that I BELIEVE ALIENS EXSIST... but you simply cannot harness all of the energy it takes to create a universe... it's impossible... unless you have to be an immortal transending the powers of the universe and you would therefore be considered "God".
NOTE: You'd have to be immortal in order to accumulate that kind of power without killing yourself.
1. I never said you didn't believe in aliens.
2. Different universe, billion or trillions of years more advanced.
3. What makes you think it would take so much? What makes you such an expert? For all you know all it would take is a black hole and some particles that can be sent into it causing it to expand into a universe. We don't know what it would take or even if its possible, it could be easy and all you need is the right technology. For all we know universes are being created and destroyed all the time from our universe. |
1 (point 2 in your arguement) - If there was a different universe billions and trillions of years more advanced, then what/who made them? If that was the case then someone would have to have created that first being. And if that first being was not created by anyone, then that being must be infinate. And last time I checked, an infinate being is considered a trait of a God.
2 (point 3 in your arguement) - I never claimed to be an expert. Its just common sense. Remember a little law that said, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed"? If that physics law is true, then that energy would have had to come from something else, and if it came from an alien, the alien would have to have power/engergy equal or greater than the entire universe. A biological being would not be able to harness that kind of energy because it would do a number of things to them. Namely it would send jolts through your nervous system and kill you. Simple biology.
So, lets just say that these aliens have SOME means (of which we could not possibley comprehend and that breaks the laws of physics) of creating a universe. What created them? What created their universe? Go back to point 1. The answer is there. And if it was the case of the black hole, what created the black hole? Again, if you say aliens, then you're back to the question of "who created the aliens?"... |
First, were talking about another universe, where the laws of physics could be very different, very,very different.
Second, At the beginning of civilisation, no one could have imagined what we can do now, not even there gods could have done what we can do hell in the 60s and 70s people idea of the 90s up to now was very different than what happened. We don't know what will be in the future.
Thirdly, I can ask the same question about God. Where did he come from? Who made him? Theists like to answer "we always existed" well that opens up eternity up as a possibility. If God could be eternal than a universe can be eternal, never beaning or ending and the big bang is just some natural thing that happened every one in a while. | tkeita wrote: |
| So that if he exist like it is say, only those following him will be allowed to the heaven. |
Ah yes, but what does it mean to follow My will? To believe in Me? No, but only to do My will. My will is to follow a gentle sweet lady, too do the bidding of Love, that is all I ask of You as My companion in Godliness.I think lots of people use words like logical and sensible interchangeably. While I think in the case given, it might be considered sensible or safer to "believe", I'm not sure is logic is involved there.
And, to me the most important thing is that a belief doesn't have to be logical. It is a belief. You can't prove it is true, but you believe it is. There is a quote from the movie "Secondhand Lions" that I love.
| Quote: |
Hub: Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in. |
| Quote: |
First, were talking about another universe, where the laws of physics could be very different, very,very different.
Second, At the beginning of civilisation, no one could have imagined what we can do now, not even there gods could have done what we can do hell in the 60s and 70s people idea of the 90s up to now was very different than what happened. We don't know what will be in the future.
Thirdly, I can ask the same question about God. Where did he come from? Who made him? Theists like to answer "we always existed" well that opens up eternity up as a possibility. If God could be eternal than a universe can be eternal, never beaning or ending and the big bang is just some natural thing that happened every one in a while. |
Aliens cannot be eternal because they are biological... God however, is not and therefore He can be eternal... As for the black hole issue, that can't have always been there either. It had to be caused by something.Did you read anything I said?
buuut human logic does not appeal to an inhuman God. we dont know half of what an all-knowing being would know so who are we to defy existance when existance hasn't completely made sense in the first place.
@laurenrox
In my first post I never meant to criticise you or your post, just replied with my thoughts on the issue.
Also, I know you never talked about those aspects of God, as I wasn't replying to you, I was reply to tkeita... who I quoted in that second post 
. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Did you read anything I said? |
Yes I did. The question is, have you read anything that I've said? The theories you presented are flawed. A black hole cannot be eternal, much like aliens cannot be eternal. However, if God is eternal then he does not need to be created because, guess what, HE'S ETERNAL. He is not matter, gravity, biological, whatever.
As for your theory of another universe having different laws of physics, that's not very likely either. Things like gravity, matter, etc would have the same applied physics. If neither exsisted, then there wouldn't be a universe in the first place.
I have also pointed out that if for some weird reason (that is in no way logical at all) that another universe exsisted with different laws of physics and with biological beings that figured out how to make other universes, then how did that universe come into exsistance? Hmmm... ANOTHER universe with different laws of physics and intellegent beings that can create universes created the OTHER universe with weird laws of physics with intellecutal beings that created our universe? See where I'm going with this? It would just be a constant cycle with no end.
With all due respect, I think you really haven't thought this through. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Yes I did. The question is, have you read anything that I've said? The theories you presented are flawed. A black hole cannot be eternal, much like aliens cannot be eternal. However, if God is eternal then he does not need to be created because, guess what, HE'S ETERNAL. He is not matter, gravity, biological, whatever. |
So the answer is no, you didn't read what I said.
What I said was your question ("who created there (the alien scientists that created our universe) universe") can be applied to god ("where did God come from?") the only answer theists give is God is eternal (which out beginning) but that opens eternity up as a possibility and its just as logical the the universe itself is eternal, has no beginning thus no cause, it always existed.
In other words, if theists say God is eternal than I can say the universe is eternal (and we know the universe exists while there is no evidence for God).
| Quote: |
| As for your theory of another universe having different laws of physics, that's not very likely either. Things like gravity, matter, etc would have the same applied physics. If neither exsisted, then there wouldn't be a universe in the first place. |
Thery? Its a hypathedical argumint.
Thats a prety big statmint. Whats that based on?
| Quote: |
| I have also pointed out that if for some weird reason (that is in no way logical at all) that another universe exsisted with different laws of physics and with biological beings that figured out how to make other universes, then how did that universe come into exsistance? Hmmm... ANOTHER universe with different laws of physics and intellegent beings that can create universes created the OTHER universe with weird laws of physics with intellecutal beings that created our universe? See where I'm going with this? It would just be a constant cycle with no end. |
Where did I say biological. What makes you think it would be responsible as life by us? Your not grasping the full concept here.
Ooh its an endless cycle. So what.
| Quote: |
| With all due respect, I think you really haven't thought this through. |
No, you haven't, you haven't thought about it at all and you haven't even read what I was saying and making baseless statements. | Quote: |
So the answer is no, you didn't read what I said.
What I said was your question ("who created there (the alien scientists that created our universe) universe") can be applied to god ("where did God come from?") the only answer theists give is God is eternal (which out beginning) but that opens eternity up as a possibility and its just as logical the the universe itself is eternal, has no beginning thus no cause, it always existed.
In other words, if theists say God is eternal than I can say the universe is eternal (and we know the universe exists while there is no evidence for God). |
Yes I have read what you've said AND I've answered all of your "questions" several times. The universe CANNOT be eternal because it's made up of matter and matter has to come from somewhere. God, however, is not made of matter, and therefore CAN be eternal. Now who's not paying attention? Let me answer that for you. YOU.
| Quote: |
Thery? Its a hypathedical argumint.
Thats a prety big statmint. Whats that based on? |
A) Learn how to spell.
B) It's common sense, not hypothetical. Matter is matter and it's what it is no matter where it is. Same with gravity.
C) This is purely based on common sense when talking about this particular subject because there is no more evidence for an "alternate universe" than there is for God. Actually, I believe there to be more evidence of God than of an alternate universe. Such as a good portion of the population of Earth all believing in some sort of God(s) back before any of them had any kind of contact to exchange ideas on the matter.
| Quote: |
Where did I say biological. What makes you think it would be responsible as life by us? Your not grasping the full concept here.
Ooh its an endless cycle. So what. |
I think you're having a bit of an "intake of information" problem here. If you're talking about INTELLIGENT beings from another universe then they have to be biological because a) if they're not biological or matter, that would give them the trait of essence which would make them eternal, and a GOD. And b) They can't be BASIC matter (atoms, protons, whatever) because these do not have any sort of will to think.
The endless cycle wouldn't work out because you'd have to constantly have one universe creating another. With any kind of matter or biological being, that's not possible because neither are eternal. You would have to start somewhere with it, which I think is what you're having trouble understanding.
Here, I'll even make a flow chart for you...
<<, >> means going back, forward eternally
<, > means going back, forward by a step
Let's try and remember that a universe cannot be eternal because matter cannot be eternal. And let's also remember that matter cannot be eternal because the energy that made the matter had to come from somewhere, because if you recall "engergy cannot be created or destroyed."
Universe > Universe > Universe > Universe > Universe, etc.
<< God (cont. with the universes) > Universe > Universe > Universe, etc.
See? The "one universe creating another" idea has to end somewhere because, guess what? THE UNIVERSE ISN'T ETERNAL.
| Quote: |
| No, you haven't, you haven't thought about it at all and you haven't even read what I was saying and making baseless statements. |
First of all, you mean baseless statements like this?
| Quote: |
if theists say God is eternal than I can say the universe is eternal (and we know the universe exists while there is no evidence for God).
|
Second of all, try to pay attention to what I'm saying this time and don't get mad at me just because you can't understand it.Okay, so we’ve got two main contentions:
1.) that God created the universe (laurenrox)
2.) that it’s possible aliens created the universe (the conspirator), and/or that it is eternal
And as far as I can see, both are equally valid, and equally plausible.
@ laurenrox
You contradict yourself, you claim that it is possible for one entity (God) to exist eternally, but impossible for anything else to do the same.
All-though mind boggling, there is no actual reason beyond religious beliefs why a black hole (and the universe) could not be eternal, and as such it is perfectly valid to believe that that could be the case.
You are basing your judgements on the assumption that God exists, and the assumptions as to what God consists.
That is what the conspirator meant by his being able to use the same logic as to the universe being eternal. If you theorise it’s logical that God “does not need to be created because he’s eternal”, then he can apply the same logic to the universe.
Also, the laws of gravity, matter (physics in general), are in fact all theories. Even the structure of the atom is a theory. And as theories – although commonly treated as fact – are subject to mis-interpretations, changes, and even being wrong in the first place.
As such, there’s no reason why the existence of other universes could be considered illogical. And if matter can exist, then why not something completely different? There could be something out there non-existant here, out there somewhere else... built differently, or on something other than matter, that interacts beyond the laws of physics.
And although I don’t entirely buy into the idea of aliens creating us from another universe, the idea of a God doing so doesn’t appeal to me any more.
If there is a god, why would he exist alone… is it not possible there are other entities like him that exist in what-ever his context may be? Perhaps you could consider the realm in which he (theoretically) exists another universe… as if he does exist then there is a “somewhere” even if it isn’t tangible by our definitions. Hence as the conspirator would like to believe, another universe not built on matter or physics, where it is possible that entities can be eternal… just like God.
But yes, I’ll end my post here, as my point is beginning to amble . Hope my two cents was worth a read,
I don’t expect lauren’s opinion to change as it’s based on faith – something not disprovable, nor provable – or the conspirator (as he’s obviously set into something he’s thought on a lot). I just hope you kids can understand that in each others contradicting stances.
And PS - it is neither more or less logical to believe in God as not to, and neither stance is illogical.
Last edited by blackheart on Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total [quote="laurenrox"]
So, say you don't believe in God. If God really does exsist, and punishes for not believing in His/Her exsistance while being aware of His/Her possible exsistance, then you're screwed. If atheists are right, and there is no God, then no harm no foul.
However, if you believe in God, and have lead your life accordingly, then it's all cool. Again, if you believe in God and he doesn't exsist, then I highly doubt that it would really matter.
quote]
If God exist n are the ever loving god... When would he/she get the idea to punish anyone? Suck on that!
| Quote: |
You contradict yourself, you claim that it is possible for one entity (God) to exist eternally, but impossible for anything else to do the same.
All-though mind boggling, there is no actual reason beyond religious beliefs why a black hole (and the universe) could not be eternal, and as such it is perfectly valid to believe that that could be the case. |
I'm not contradicting myself because I gave a vaild reason as to why the universe could not be eternal and it had nothing to do with religious beliefes.
| Quote: |
| Let's try and remember that a universe cannot be eternal because matter cannot be eternal. And let's also remember that matter cannot be eternal because the energy that made the matter had to come from somewhere, because if you recall "engergy cannot be created or destroyed." |
Most people think of a God as something being completely outside of matter, atoms, whatever. If God exsisted as matter, then he wouldn't be eternal either.
| Quote: |
You are basing your judgements on the assumption that God exists, and the assumptions as to what God consists.
That is what the conspirator meant by his being able to use the same logic as to the universe being eternal. If you theorise it’s logical that God “does not need to be created because he’s eternal”, then he can apply the same logic to the universe. |
No, I'm not. If that was the case, I'd just say "God exsists and there's nothing you can do about it!" which would be pointless. As for the "assumption" of what God consists of, I just gave a reason as to why I think God consists of something other than matter. And again I've already answered why the universe cannot be eternal and God can.
| Quote: |
| If there is a god, why would he exist alone… is it not possible there are other entities like him that exist in what-ever his context may be? Perhaps you could consider the realm in which he (theoretically) exists another universe… as if he does exist then there is a “somewhere” even if it isn’t tangible by our definitions. Hence as the conspirator would like to believe, another universe not built on matter or physics, where it is possible that entities can be eternal… just like God. |
A) I never claimed that there couldn't be other beings like God.
B) If the case is that there are other entities like God, then guess what? They're a God too. I'm not claiming that there is only one God, but I was using the singal term to get my points across.
And finally...
| Quote: |
| If God exist n are the ever loving god... When would he/she get the idea to punish anyone? Suck on that! |
Is that supposed to mean anything? Your sentence doesn't even make sense, and I can't even understand it. | blackheart wrote: |
Okay, so we’ve got two main contentions:
1.) that God created the universe (laurenrox)
2.) that it’s possible aliens created the universe (the conspirator), and/or that it is eternal
And as far as I can see, both are equally valid, and equally plausible. |
Not necessarily!
First of all, there are far more than two contentions - even in the "two" you listed (the ones you list alone number four: "God created the universe", "aliens created the universe", "the universe is eternal" and "aliens created the universe AND it is eternal" (which you would have to explain to me)).
Second, not all unprovable hypotheses are created equal. For example, just consider the three: "God created the universe", "aliens created the universe" and "the universe is eternal". Both the first and the second contain two unwarranted and unverifiable assumptions: that the universe was "created" (as opposed to always having been or simply coming together by a happy accident of natural laws), and that it was created by something specific (God or aliens). All other things being equal, "the universe is eternal" has the least number of unwarranted and unverifiable assumptions, which makes it much, much more likely to be true. And then the first two assumptions differ only in whether "God" or "aliens" created the universe. We have never observed any gods or aliens, but our current knowledge - scientific and philosophical - makes the latter very, very likely... and the former very, very unlikely.
☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺☺
To answer the question in the topic title ("Is it more logical to believe in God?"): More logical than what? Believing in Dharma? Scientology?
For the record, a belief is not logical or illogical based on the content of the belief. What determines whether a belief is logical or not is the reason for the belief. If you have a logical reason for believing in God, then yes, it's a logical belief.
As for the specific reason outlined in the first post - which others have already observed is just Pascal's wager - that is not a logical reason. In fact, it is the polar opposite of a logical reason for believing in God.
There are plenty of references out there with regards to the numerous things that are wrong with Pascal's wager, so i'm not going to repeat them. Look them up if you care. But to answer the underlying question of this thread - is this a logical reason for believing in God - i should point out that it is not because it is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is a blatant appeal to consequences. The "logic" presents no real evidence for or against the truth of the proposition (that God exists) - in fact, it says that evidence doesn't even matter - it just says that good things will happen to people who believe it and bad things will happen to people that don't, therefore you should believe (in fact, the threat of punishment also makes it an appeal to force).@ Indi
I never stated they were the only two theories, how-ever they were the two points of view in this discussion that had been debating each other, and that I chose to reply to.
I don't buy into either idea, but I don't think one holds itself any more/less valid than the other.
| laurenrox wrote: |
I'm not contradicting myself because I gave a vaild reason as to why the universe could not be eternal and it had nothing to do with religious beliefes.
|
The energy contained within atoms of matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore matter is eternal no matter where is is in the universe. The matter on earth, for instance, moves in a cycle of transformations that is continuous.
If matter cannot be created ir destroyed, then I believe that would suggest that it was never created. In fact, the only method by which you state matter could in fact be created is by divine intervention, thereby meaning you did base your assumption on religious beliefs.
| laurenrox wrote: |
Most people think of a God as something being completely outside of matter, atoms, whatever. If God exsisted as matter, then he wouldn't be eternal either.
|
I never stated that he had to consist of matter, I don't even personally believe there is a God to start with. I only meant to point out that you cannot debunk one theory purely on the basis that you believe there is a God. If you believe a God can exist eternally, then on the same token another should be able to believe that something else can exist eternally. In my opinion - as based on science - matter can be, and quite possibly is, eternal in it's existence, and as such your repeated argument will not change my opinion.
I also theorise that in other universe, there could be different compository elements, etcetera. Why should matter and physics neccessarily be the same? Alternate universes are a theory in itself.
| laurenrox wrote: |
A) I never claimed that there couldn't be other beings like God.
B) If the case is that there are other entities like God, then guess what? They're a God too. I'm not claiming that there is only one God, but I was using the singal term to get my points across.
|
And I never claimed to know for a fact that Gods don't exist, simply that if they do it's quite possible both your theories co-incide. Aliens are extra-terestrial to the earth, as Gods would be in their domain. | blackheart wrote: |
I don't even personally believe there is a God to start with.
|
As if this were not obvious at the outset from all of your circuitous intellectual bull crap.I would say its logical to believe in something, wether its god or something else. And believing in god ofthen has the side affect that your not alone, or so i am told. Personally i dont believe in god as people have mostly come to see him, aldo i believe that there might be something to it but its just beyond me to understand it.
| blackheart wrote: |
@ Indi
I never stated they were the only two theories, how-ever they were the two points of view in this discussion that had been debating each other, and that I chose to reply to. |
i never said that you thought there were only two theories, just that the two "points of view" you listed contained more than two contentions.
| blackheart wrote: |
| I don't buy into either idea, but I don't think one holds itself any more/less valid than the other. |
i don't buy into any of the ideas either, and technically all of them are illogical because all of them violate parsimony. However, if you must choose between them, it's still possible to weigh them against each other. In other words, some are more/less valid than the others.
You've probably heard of Ockham's Razor, aka the Law of Parsimony, one of the most misunderstood things in all of logic. Ockham's Razor is a way of weighing hypotheses that appear otherwise equal against each other to determine which is "better", or more logical to believe. It can applied to the four hypotheses you describe, and it turns out that they don't all measure up the same. | Quote: |
If matter cannot be created ir destroyed, then I believe that would suggest that it was never created. In fact, the only method by which you state matter could in fact be created is by divine intervention, thereby meaning you did base your assumption on religious beliefs.
|
Understood. I see what you're saying now. But, if that is the case, then it rules out anything creating the universe other than God.
So that leaves us with only two of the options that have been presented. That God(s) created the universe or the universe is eternal. | laurenrox wrote: |
So that leaves us with only two of the options that have been presented. That God(s) created the universe or the universe is eternal. |
Well, it leaves us with two options conceiveable to the human mind. And if God didn't create the universe, then that wouldn't disprove his existence - just the relay of information through men.
I don't think any living person will ever definitely know wether God exists.
| blackheart wrote: |
| The energy contained within atoms of matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore matter is eternal no matter where is is in the universe. The matter on earth, for instance, moves in a cycle of transformations that is continuous. |
In fact the conservation of mass/matter is only an approximation and does not apply in relativistic systems - it is only true of classical systems.
In relativistic systems the mass of a system is less than the sum of the parts - the difference is called the 'mass defect' and is accounted for by the binding energy of the system concerned. There is also the fact that a system can decrease in overall mass by the simple emission of photons which are massless. | Quote: |
And finally...
| Quote: | | If God exist n are the ever loving god... When would he/she get the idea to punish anyone? Suck on that! |
Is that supposed to mean anything? Your sentence doesn't even make sense, and I can't even understand it. |
Again:
Religion tells that God is love at its purest... If that's the case - when would god punish anyone?
So this means in practical that any former dictator in the world are in heaven right now! Because love as it purest forgives ! | spinout wrote: |
Religion tells that God is love at its purest... If that's the case - when would god punish anyone? |
You're assuming that punishment is a sign of hating the child; political correct thinking at its worst (by punishing the child you limit his thinking, as well as causing pain). I think a lot of parents would disagree that punishing a child is bad, and society in general would disagree (unless you like child molesters and murderers running free...).
| Quote: |
| So this means in practical that any former dictator in the world are in heaven right now! Because love as it purest forgives ! |
Um...no.
HMI think if we all thought with our heart, we'd all be dead.
Think of it this way: Atheists (like me) don't believe in God so much, that they find mythical threats (like hellfire) irrelevant. They believe that it is much better to live a life on Earth of Truth, than to pretend they believe in myth because of the Biblical threats of hellfire.
So, according to your idealogy, why doesn't everyone practice every single religion ever made? just to be sure they aren't punished in the after life. (Even though obeying more than one religion is against many religions) | EanofAthenasPrime wrote: |
| I think if we all thought with our heart, we'd all be dead. |
Instincts and the ability to learn(so that tools are available) are what kept the human species alive and on the top, I'd imagine. | HereticMonkey wrote: |
| spinout wrote: |
Religion tells that God is love at its purest... If that's the case - when would god punish anyone? |
You're assuming that punishment is a sign of hating the child; political correct thinking at its worst (by punishing the child you limit his thinking, as well as causing pain). I think a lot of parents would disagree that punishing a child is bad, and society in general would disagree (unless you like child molesters and murderers running free...).
HM |
I was just writing about afterlife punishment... (or inlife punishment) by God.
If God is God, then God don't need any sacrifice!!!!!!!!!!! God is already pleased if God is a God.
If God is God, then God don't punish in afterlife.
By this simple logical phrases the whole religious world collapses - just as this thread!!!!! It's time to dump the holy bible in the trashcan or rewrite it! | spinout wrote: |
If God is God, then God don't need any sacrifice!!!!!!!!!!! God is already pleased if God is a God. |
How do you know that? There have been some times when God was not happy...the incident of The Flood, for example...
| Quote: |
| If God is God, then God don't punish in afterlife. |
What if Hell is the ultimate time-out? And if you were looking for a way to separate those that were essentially irredeemable, what would you do with them?
| Quote: |
| By this simple logical phrases the whole religious world collapses - just as this thread!!!!! It's time to dump the holy bible in the trashcan or rewrite it! |
What logical phrases? And you are aware The Holy Bible (note caps; specific book) has been re-written a few times?
HM | Quote: |
Think of it this way: Atheists (like me) don't believe in God so much, that they find mythical threats (like hellfire) irrelevant. They believe that it is much better to live a life on Earth of Truth, than to pretend they believe in myth because of the Biblical threats of hellfire.
So, according to your idealogy, why doesn't everyone practice every single religion ever made? just to be sure they aren't punished in the after life. (Even though obeying more than one religion is against many religions) |
The problem that I have with atheists is that most seem to think that people believe in God because of fear of "hellfire". And although in some cases that is true, it's not fact for all. For instance, I believe in God because I feel almost as if I'm connected in some sense with something almighty. Think of it as a feeling of someone/something watching over me, and others. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with "hellfire".
My problems with theists would be that they try to give God human qualities (like emotion), when you really can't peg that on Him/Her/It. They try to put human quailties onto something simply because they cannot understand it otherwise. Not to mention the fact that they lay out "laws" for things that aren't bad in the first place. They may have been considered so about 200 years ago, but they're not. Homosexuality is a good example. Do you really think God is going to punish someone for loving another person? Reguardless of race, sex, etc. Um, no. Most theists hold too tightly onto the "black and white" theory of good and bad.
There has to be a balance somewhere in the middle. You can't go around saying to little children, "Oh! You're gonna just sit there and rot in the ground when you die and never even know that you ever exsisted." Well... you COULD, but you'd be an ******. If you want to be logical about everything, fine. Be logical and realize that it's impossible for EVERYTHING a scientific explanation. On that same note, you can't just say, "Obey the Bible because if you don't you'll go to Hell!!!!! *vien throbbing in forehead*" ... Oi... It doesn't really work that way. According to what MOST people believe, God isn't going to send you to hell for saying "******". Savvy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
Again:
Religion tells that God is love at its purest... If that's the case - when would god punish anyone?
So this means in practical that any former dictator in the world are in heaven right now! Because love as it purest forgives ! |
Well, if you would learn some grammar and spelling skills I wouldn't have had to ask you what you meant. >_<... Reguardless...
Now it's obvious that you don't have kids. Just because you punish someone, doesn't mean you don't love 'em. You're teaching them a lesson so they won't do it again. I love my brothers to death but I've still had to smack 'em on the butt when they tried shooting each with rocks and sling shots (boys will be boys).
It's just common sense...Why are theists so obsessed with a creation?
There is no need for a creation, theres no need for a god. There are other possibility's to explain the existence of the universe. The universe could be eternal, never ending and never beginning and the big bang was some natural event that we don't understand yet. The universe could be one universe is a vast (patently infinite) multivercs, countless universes being created and destroyed, coming from other universes. Or some combination of the two.
You don't need a god to explain the existence of the universe (or anything else). And adding a god doesn't explain away existence, you still have to explain the existence of the god which ultimately leads to an eternal god which opens op eternity as an explanation which leads to an eternal universe leaving no need for a god.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Why are theists so obsessed with a creation?
There is no need for a creation, theres no need for a god. There are other possibility's to explain the existence of the universe. The universe could be eternal, never ending and never beginning and the big bang was some natural event that we don't understand yet. The universe could be one universe is a vast (patently infinite) multivercs, countless universes being created and destroyed, coming from other universes. Or some combination of the two.
You don't need a god to explain the existence of the universe (or anything else). And adding a god doesn't explain away existence, you still have to explain the existence of the god which ultimately leads to an eternal god which opens op eternity as an explanation which leads to an eternal universe leaving no need for a god. |
As I recall, we've already established that your theories for the exsistance are no more probable than for a God. Blackheart has already explained (and has in turn brought to my attention) that, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, either the universe is eternal OR that the universe was created by divine intervention. That rules out the "big bang" and your aliens. We have two options left, so if you're going to rule out God, you're going to have to do it by proving why the "eternal universe" theory would be correct in face of a God. | laurenrox wrote: |
| Blackheart has already explained (and has in turn brought to my attention) that, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, either the universe is eternal OR that the universe was created by divine intervention. That rules out the "big bang" and your aliens. |
Mmm, no.
First, energy can neither be created nor destroyed... within this universe. If this universe were created by aliens, obviously those aliens exist outside of this universe (ie, they exist in another) or they would have been created with it, so they're not bound by the physical laws of our universe. And if they don't exist outside of the universe they must be self-causing, which means that the normal rules of the universe already don't apply to them (specifically, causality) and there's no reason to assume that the conservation laws must apply to them when other universal laws don't.
Second, your logic is peculiar. Why do the conservation laws rule out the big bang? The big bang did not create any energy, it just dispersed it.
If you ask where the energy that the big bang dispersed came from, there are several answers. The simplest generalized form of them is that since all of our universal laws begin to have relevance after the big bang - time and space did not exist before it, for example - then whatever laws were relevant before the big bang must not preclude the creation of energy. An easy example is to suppose that before the big bang created time and causality, things could cause themselves, so the energy of the big bang could have been its own cause (you would have to assume that for the god anyway).
| laurenrox wrote: |
| As I recall, we've already established that your theories for the exsistance are no more probable than for a God. |
That's not what i saw. ^_^;
Any hypothesis that introduces an unnecessary new theoretical construct is less probable than one that does not - in many cases, infinitely less probable.
No alien has ever been observed, but many, many other theoretical frameworks that have stood up to rigorous testing and observation predict them. No god has ever been observed, and no theoretical framework predicts that one could exist. You are attempting to create a theoretical framework that predicts the existence of a god right now, but to use that as evidence in the argument would be circular. That means that an alien is infinitely more likely than a god ("several" possible theories trumps "none"), which makes an alien infinitely more likely to be the cause of "creation" than a god.
But again, this is all assuming that you even need to hypothesize the alien. You don't. Every single event that we have ever observed occurring in the universe can be explained by natural laws - and that includes natural laws that we do not yet know. There are a lot of phenomenon for which we do not know the laws, but recognize that they must exist - and usually we have a general idea of the pattern the laws will take. In the case of "creation", why presume that it's different? Why not simply assume that there's another natural law at work there that we are not yet aware of? We can even predict the patterns of that law - it will have to explain where the energy came from, and what triggered the actually "bang" without resorting to time or causality. Why assume an alien, or a god? Neither of those are necessary assumptions. | laurenrox wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | Why are theists so obsessed with a creation?
There is no need for a creation, theres no need for a god. There are other possibility's to explain the existence of the universe. The universe could be eternal, never ending and never beginning and the big bang was some natural event that we don't understand yet. The universe could be one universe is a vast (patently infinite) multivercs, countless universes being created and destroyed, coming from other universes. Or some combination of the two.
You don't need a god to explain the existence of the universe (or anything else). And adding a god doesn't explain away existence, you still have to explain the existence of the god which ultimately leads to an eternal god which opens op eternity as an explanation which leads to an eternal universe leaving no need for a god. |
As I recall, we've already established that your theories for the exsistance are no more probable than for a God. Blackheart has already explained (and has in turn brought to my attention) that, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, either the universe is eternal OR that the universe was created by divine intervention. That rules out the "big bang" and your aliens. We have two options left, so if you're going to rule out God, you're going to have to do it by proving why the "eternal universe" theory would be correct in face of a God. |
No, you didn't disprove anything, all you did was make baseless statements such as "other universes would have the same laws of physics as this one" and "theres more evidence for God than other universes" which is doubly wrong cause there is no evidence for the existence of any god and there is some physics theory's that require extra dimension (such as M-theory). | The Conspirator wrote: |
| No, you didn't disprove anything, all you did was make baseless statements such as "other universes would have the same laws of physics as this one" and "theres more evidence for God than other universes" which is doubly wrong cause there is no evidence for the existence of any god and there is some physics theory's that require extra dimension (such as M-theory). |
(Technically, that would be another dimension within this universe. There is no theory modern physics that requires the existence of other universes. Most theories allow for the existence of other universes, but do not predict or require them. It's a subtle difference:
Allow: means the theory does not say that other universe can't exist, but doesn't mean that they can.
Predict: means the theory says that other universes could exist, but doesn't mean that they must or do.
Require: means the theory says that other universes must exist.
In modern physics, there is no theory that says that other universes can, do or must exist - the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics talks about them, but that interpretation is generally not taken seriously in modern physics.
However, we have observed one universe, and we have no reason to presume that there should only be one universe. Therefore, the existence of other universes is a reasonable assumption. We have never observed a god directly or indirectly, and have never found a valid reason to believe that one must exist.) | Indi wrote: |
Require: means the theory says that other universes must exist.
In modern physics, there is no theory that says that other universes can, do or must exist - the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics talks about them, but that interpretation is generally not taken seriously in modern physics. |
I must take issue here Indi. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI as it is more formally known) first arose from work by Hugh Everett in the 1950's (it actually arose from his PhD thesis 'The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction' (1957)).
It is said by some modern physicists that Everett himself did not fully understand the consequences of his own work in this matter and it is only fairly recently (since the 80s) that a more complete understanding of the consequences & mechanisms involved in MWI have evolved.
I think that is would be accurate to say that MWI is, today, considered mainstream in the same way that the Copenhagen interpretation is and I don't think it can be characterised as a historical aberration or side-track.
My guess is that a large number, perhaps even a majority, of quantum physicists would either support MWI outright or at least acknowledge it as one of the more likely/plausible interpretations of QM.
(Wikki cites polls in the 1990s which seem to indicate support for MWI amongst a majority of leading physicists generally, but I am always wary of citing such poll data without first checking into the methodology, sampling and so on).
(I agree with the rest of your posting btw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation | Indi wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | No, you didn't disprove anything, all you did was make baseless statements such as "other universes would have the same laws of physics as this one" and "theres more evidence for God than other universes" which is doubly wrong cause there is no evidence for the existence of any god and there is some physics theory's that require extra dimension (such as M-theory). |
(Technically, that would be another dimension within this universe. There is no theory modern physics that requires the existence of other universes. Most theories allow for the existence of other universes, but do not predict or require them. It's a subtle difference:
Allow: means the theory does not say that other universe can't exist, but doesn't mean that they can.
Predict: means the theory says that other universes could exist, but doesn't mean that they must or do.
Require: means the theory says that other universes must exist.
In modern physics, there is no theory that says that other universes can, do or must exist - the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics talks about them, but that interpretation is generally not taken seriously in modern physics. |
Very good point.
The point I was trying to make was its not just a science fiction idea. It has some grounding in real physics. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Require: means the theory says that other universes must exist.
In modern physics, there is no theory that says that other universes can, do or must exist - the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics talks about them, but that interpretation is generally not taken seriously in modern physics. |
I must take issue here Indi. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI as it is more formally known) first arose from work by Hugh Everett in the 1950's (it actually arose from his PhD thesis 'The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction' (1957)).
It is said by some modern physicists that Everett himself did not fully understand the consequences of his own work in this matter and it is only fairly recently (since the 80s) that a more complete understanding of the consequences & mechanisms involved in MWI have evolved.
I think that is would be accurate to say that MWI is, today, considered mainstream in the same way that the Copenhagen interpretation is and I don't think it can be characterised as a historical aberration or side-track.
My guess is that a large number, perhaps even a majority, of quantum physicists would either support MWI outright or at least acknowledge it as one of the more likely/plausible interpretations of QM.
(Wikki cites polls in the 1990s which seem to indicate support for MWI amongst a majority of leading physicists generally, but I am always wary of citing such poll data without first checking into the methodology, sampling and so on).
(I agree with the rest of your posting btw)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation |
It is true that informal surveys at quantum mechanics seminars in the 80's and 90's showed MWI generally in second place a bit after Copenhagen, but general surveys conducted across the field do not. (Curiously, the ones conducting those surveys noted that support for MWI was almost entirely limited to those who considered themselves to be string theorists.) Surveys on the physics community at large always showed very little support for MWI, but there is huge support for it amongst non-physicists.
More recent informal surveys have shown that MWI has fallen further out of favour, with the most common gripes being unfalsifiability and lack of parsimony ("simplicity", to use the common term).
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| The point I was trying to make was its not just a science fiction idea. It has some grounding in real physics. |
Oh yes. Of the possibilities mentioned (and avoided so far)...:
- An unknown natural process created the universe.
- The universe is eternal (and perhaps cyclical).
- Aliens created the universe.
- A god created the universe.
... the only one of those possibilities that has absolutely no scientific backing is the last. All others are at least conceivable within the domain of science. No aspect of science has given us any reason to believe that god might exist. That doesn't mean that science says gods do not or cannot exist (or that science could even be right about such a claim), but it does mean that you cannot support a hypothesis with gods using science.
But simply being a possibility doesn't make it a valid assumption. It's possible the Earth is flat, and fairies create optical illusions, and edit our memories and our scientific instrumentation, to fool us. But is that a valid assumption? No. Why not? Because it fails parsimony. Of the possibilities above, only the first two do not fail a parsimony check. | Indi wrote: |
Oh yes. Of the possibilities mentioned (and avoided so far)...:
1. An unknown natural process created the universe.
2. The universe is eternal (and perhaps cyclical).
3. Aliens created the universe.
4. A god created the universe.
... ...only the first two do not fail a parsimony check.
|
I'd love to get in on this conversation but I only have time for a quick, drive-by question regarding parsimony:
Would it be possible to reword 3 and 4 to something like "an unknown entity created the universe"? Would this statement pass the parsimony check? | Indi wrote: |
| It is true that informal surveys at quantum mechanics seminars in the 80's and 90's showed MWI generally in second place a bit after Copenhagen, but general surveys conducted across the field do not. (Curiously, the ones conducting those surveys noted that support for MWI was almost entirely limited to those who considered themselves to be string theorists.) Surveys on the physics community at large always showed very little support for MWI, but there is huge support for it amongst non-physicists. |
I'll see if I can get some hard data on this but I have no reason to suspect you are incorrect (that is one reason that I was reluctant to cite the Wikki surveys - they looked a bit 'self selecting' as far as the sample group but I didn't realise they were all polled at String conventions, and I can see why that might correlate (string theory being on the 'edge' it tends to attract mavericks as well as genii).
| Quote: |
| More recent informal surveys have shown that MWI has fallen further out of favour, with the most common gripes being unfalsifiability and lack of parsimony ("simplicity", to use the common term). |
I have no reason to doubt this - I will try to put together some data on it if I get time later tonight (I can't promise).
