The concept of freedom includes the concept of consequences. If such a being removes consequences, we also break the concept of freedom. We could of course speculate on a universe where this is not logically the case, however our universe seems to operate on cause and effect. I can't of course prove that, but I think you might agree. There is also the idea of conflict. A dualistic view, or a polytheistic view. Even the Christian concept of a devil.
If an infinite god exists, it follows that any definition finite beings come up with will be inadequate, so what you are asking is impossible. Most religions describe god as indefinable in full. Therefore to one such as you the question logically never could be relevant. This does not say much about the existence or non existence of god, but it does say a bit about your point of view. You might still consider it sensible, but I consider it inadequate. on that point we will probably have to agree to disagree.
It is a false dilemma. You assume that the only two options are "hateful god" or "no god". You ignore all other possibilities or variations in between. This is the very definition of "false dilemma". Go look it up if you do not believe me. All this black and white thinking sickens me somewhat. I should never have joined this discussion. I came here for the science and tech news, not the religious debates....
If God exists, then it is obvious that he expects us to believe in him contrary to the available evidence.
Yet all your reasoning falls apart if we do not grant the above. And most religious people don't. Available evidence is subject to interpretation through point of view. Humans do not all share exactly the same experience of reality. And we have some control over our points of view. Therefore, no, we can not grant the above - God if he exists does not necessarily expect people to believe in him contrary to available evidence - religious people have plenty of evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is not critical to their acceptance of it.
If he is omniscient, then he knows what horrors would come out of his creation. But he created everything anyway, despite how many innocents would suffer.
Which do you value more? Freedom or absence of suffering? Perhaps such a being might value one above the other? Trouble with all you strong atheists is you don't seem to realise your arguments aren't really all that convincing. But you like them, so carry on....
However the existence of a God can influence what humans think.
Ah, if only it were that simple. The existence of God may influence what humans think in diverse ways. It is an oversimplification to think that this can easily be used to prove/disprove god(s) existence. One of the central tenants to most religions appears to be some sort of conflict with one side negative the other positive. If true it means there is more than one influence... Perhaps even more than two.
I never said such a God required blind belief. I suppose one variation might. People have different ways of perceiving reality, and human experience is not completely shared. In any case, this is about the existence of (a) god(s), not the character of such a being. Besides how do you even define "evil" then? Who is to say your definition is correct? You? Society? Why do people always want to pull the argument around to this? The whole "argument is for a hateful [etc] god" is a false dilemma.
Well done. I have never desmissed anything in my life, but kudos to you. How is it done exactly? But then I shall dismiss your disagreement, as it is really in the grand scheme of things unimportant to me...
I have my slice of Pi. And I am quite satisfied with 256Mb. I have plans for the little beast that don't require more RAM.... So I am happy. I liked the idea of a cheap limited computer. It makes you frugal with your resources and efficient. But then again if my ZX81 still worked, I'd be playing with that...
What argument? I simply stated two possibilities. One in which there is a God who desires your atheism and one in which there is a God who desires your ability to choose(which is not the same thing). I did not assert anything about the existence of God. In both cases there can exist atheists and (a) god(s). How is he/she correct? GP asserts that a God desiring everyone to believe and atheists are mutually exclusive. I showed one possibility where this is the case. Therefore he or she is incorrect. You could however make a case for the view being probable.
I disagree. The existence or non existence of any God (or indeed most things in general) is not dependent on human viewpoints. Your logic is broken for all deists for example. What if there is a god who chooses not to intervene? In which case he/she/it might be amused by those who believe. Or not care. Even if we allow your first statement, there exist multiple possible variations on the concept of God which would lead someone like you to conclude that the concept was invented even if such a God really existed. It is therefore impossible to conclude from your logic anything about the existence of any god, unless we delve much deeper into probabilities and philosophies. Such questions are never so easily dismissed.
Not necessarily. What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe. It is not so simply dismissed.
The premise is flawed in any case. If there is a God and he is powerful, he could just as well shout in a loud voice from the sky. The program appears designed to detect the presence of a weak god, who is able to influence only small things. If a powerful God refuses to shout from the sky every time some arb asks, why should he then influence the/dev/random pseudo random process? Or the path of one program?
A sane balanced response? On Slashdot? What on earth is the world coming to?
A lot of genuine scholarship both from a religious and non-religious point of view goes into trying to understand the contexts in which these documents were written to try and better grasp the meanings. The cultural barriers are high. Certainly the subject is not as simple as most people think. Which is why a lot of non American Christians seem to think the American fundie bible bashers are quite insane.
You have missed it. I am not pushing an agenda here. I am recommending a book that explores the subject using a fictional setting. The book does not explain everything. I never made that claim. It explores the subject and asks useful questions, which from your responses, you do not appear to have asked. I don't particularly Care if you read the book or not. It doesn't affect me personally. what do you want from me? Must I post the text here verbatim from Gutenberg? I do not understand your position here. You almost seem to be asking if the book agrees with you or not before you read it. If that is the question. the answer is both yes and no. This is not a textbook. It is not comparable to a religious work. It is a work of fiction and nobody ever took it otherwise. The value here is the fact that the author asks "What if we met another sentient species? How would we identify them? And most importantly, where is the line drawn?" You don't have to agree with the book. It is fiction. l could summarise the plot on my galaxy note(which is why this text is a bit badly formatted.) Or, You could go read the book. Honestly, which makes more sense?
When people get to this point, I always refer them to H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy (free off Gutenberg) for an interesting take on what makes a sentient being and where the line actually is. Cats are almost certainly not sentient nor conscious in the same way people are. I reckon the book should be required reading for anyone who argues about this. Not because of the conclusions it draws, but because of the questions it asks.
I'd be interested in hearing a definition of science (the philosophy behind it, not the process), that is not circular and does not tread on territory covered by religion. After all, the process of religion is easily defined. As is the process of science. The processes of the two do not really conflict or cover the same ground. The philosophies do. And philosophy, for the most part, is not provable except within its own framework, and therefore both processes serve to "prove" their underlying philosophies in a circular manner.
All definitions are ultimately circular in nature or depend on things that are. Do you have a definition of science(not the process of science, but the philosophy behind it) that is not circular in nature? If so, I'd be interested in hearing it. Being circular doesn't disprove the conclusion. It merely fails to prove the conclusion, which is a different thing entirely. We can only prove things within our frameworks. We can not prove the frameworks themselves. But we can, on balance of probability come to some working conclusions. The fact that others conclude differently only proves they work within a different framework. GP is incorrect. Science and religion do intersect, and in places even conflict. But it is a problem. Of philosophy, not evidence.
I may be unique, but I am single (wait, this is/., so not so unique) with disposable income and now I'll be more inclined to buy. This may affect piracy rates, but to decrease them...:)
Then, why are you complaining the device is too simple? It is a general purpose RISC system. It is in fact fairly complex, and with a little imagination can do some fairly complex stuff (gpu binary blob aside). I honestly don't see your point.
I tried to do something very stupid which sounded very clever with the memory manager, which is why I gave up. I wasn't interested in reinventing the wheel, I wanted something different. It proved to be a dead end, and a lot more difficult than I thought. C would have been easier and more optimized. I still develop low level systems(just not operating systems), so, yes, very much my kind of insane.
Ever try to write an OS? In assembler? I did. Got as far as memory management before I gave up. I had a text graphics driver and all too. The device may be simple. Programming it and what can be done with it is not. All you need is imagination. And move them to a C compiler fast. Assembly gets hectic too quickly. Sure minuet did it, but those guys are certifiably insane. My kind of insane, but insane nevertheless...
Durban is actually quite far south. They have a nice warm ocean current, but if you go a bit north you find snow in the mountains in winter. They tend to be a bit obnoxious about their amazing climate to the rest of South Africa, and I have to admit, it is a nice climate.
Slashdot Mirror
The concept of freedom includes the concept of consequences. If such a being removes consequences, we also break the concept of freedom. We could of course speculate on a universe where this is not logically the case, however our universe seems to operate on cause and effect. I can't of course prove that, but I think you might agree. There is also the idea of conflict. A dualistic view, or a polytheistic view. Even the Christian concept of a devil.
If an infinite god exists, it follows that any definition finite beings come up with will be inadequate, so what you are asking is impossible. Most religions describe god as indefinable in full. Therefore to one such as you the question logically never could be relevant. This does not say much about the existence or non existence of god, but it does say a bit about your point of view. You might still consider it sensible, but I consider it inadequate. on that point we will probably have to agree to disagree.
It is a false dilemma. You assume that the only two options are "hateful god" or "no god". You ignore all other possibilities or variations in between. This is the very definition of "false dilemma". Go look it up if you do not believe me. All this black and white thinking sickens me somewhat. I should never have joined this discussion. I came here for the science and tech news, not the religious debates....
And all possible input combinations...?
If God exists, then it is obvious that he expects us to believe in him contrary to the available evidence.
Yet all your reasoning falls apart if we do not grant the above. And most religious people don't. Available evidence is subject to interpretation through point of view. Humans do not all share exactly the same experience of reality. And we have some control over our points of view. Therefore, no, we can not grant the above - God if he exists does not necessarily expect people to believe in him contrary to available evidence - religious people have plenty of evidence. Your acceptance of that evidence is not critical to their acceptance of it.
If he is omniscient, then he knows what horrors would come out of his creation. But he created everything anyway, despite how many innocents would suffer.
Which do you value more? Freedom or absence of suffering? Perhaps such a being might value one above the other? Trouble with all you strong atheists is you don't seem to realise your arguments aren't really all that convincing. But you like them, so carry on....
However the existence of a God can influence what humans think.
Ah, if only it were that simple. The existence of God may influence what humans think in diverse ways. It is an oversimplification to think that this can easily be used to prove/disprove god(s) existence. One of the central tenants to most religions appears to be some sort of conflict with one side negative the other positive. If true it means there is more than one influence... Perhaps even more than two.
I never said such a God required blind belief. I suppose one variation might. People have different ways of perceiving reality, and human experience is not completely shared. In any case, this is about the existence of (a) god(s), not the character of such a being. Besides how do you even define "evil" then? Who is to say your definition is correct? You? Society? Why do people always want to pull the argument around to this? The whole "argument is for a hateful [etc] god" is a false dilemma.
Well done. I have never desmissed anything in my life, but kudos to you. How is it done exactly? But then I shall dismiss your disagreement, as it is really in the grand scheme of things unimportant to me...
I have my slice of Pi. And I am quite satisfied with 256Mb. I have plans for the little beast that don't require more RAM.... So I am happy. I liked the idea of a cheap limited computer. It makes you frugal with your resources and efficient. But then again if my ZX81 still worked, I'd be playing with that...
What argument? I simply stated two possibilities. One in which there is a God who desires your atheism and one in which there is a God who desires your ability to choose(which is not the same thing). I did not assert anything about the existence of God. In both cases there can exist atheists and (a) god(s). How is he/she correct? GP asserts that a God desiring everyone to believe and atheists are mutually exclusive. I showed one possibility where this is the case. Therefore he or she is incorrect. You could however make a case for the view being probable.
I disagree. The existence or non existence of any God (or indeed most things in general) is not dependent on human viewpoints. Your logic is broken for all deists for example. What if there is a god who chooses not to intervene? In which case he/she/it might be amused by those who believe. Or not care. Even if we allow your first statement, there exist multiple possible variations on the concept of God which would lead someone like you to conclude that the concept was invented even if such a God really existed. It is therefore impossible to conclude from your logic anything about the existence of any god, unless we delve much deeper into probabilities and philosophies. Such questions are never so easily dismissed.
Not necessarily. What if the omnipotent God desired humans to be free to make a choice, to interpret the world as they would? Some sects of Christianity would argue that there is an omnipotent God who does not desire all humans(only some) to believe. It is not so simply dismissed.
The premise is flawed in any case. If there is a God and he is powerful, he could just as well shout in a loud voice from the sky. The program appears designed to detect the presence of a weak god, who is able to influence only small things. If a powerful God refuses to shout from the sky every time some arb asks, why should he then influence the /dev/random pseudo random process? Or the path of one program?
A sane balanced response? On Slashdot? What on earth is the world coming to?
A lot of genuine scholarship both from a religious and non-religious point of view goes into trying to understand the contexts in which these documents were written to try and better grasp the meanings. The cultural barriers are high. Certainly the subject is not as simple as most people think. Which is why a lot of non American Christians seem to think the American fundie bible bashers are quite insane.
You have missed it. I am not pushing an agenda here. I am recommending a book that explores the subject using a fictional setting. The book does not explain everything. I never made that claim. It explores the subject and asks useful questions, which from your responses, you do not appear to have asked. I don't particularly Care if you read the book or not. It doesn't affect me personally. what do you want from me? Must I post the text here verbatim from Gutenberg? I do not understand your position here. You almost seem to be asking if the book agrees with you or not before you read it. If that is the question. the answer is both yes and no. This is not a textbook. It is not comparable to a religious work. It is a work of fiction and nobody ever took it otherwise. The value here is the fact that the author asks "What if we met another sentient species? How would we identify them? And most importantly, where is the line drawn?" You don't have to agree with the book. It is fiction. l could summarise the plot on my galaxy note(which is why this text is a bit badly formatted.) Or, You could go read the book. Honestly, which makes more sense?
When people get to this point, I always refer them to H. Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy (free off Gutenberg) for an interesting take on what makes a sentient being and where the line actually is. Cats are almost certainly not sentient nor conscious in the same way people are. I reckon the book should be required reading for anyone who argues about this. Not because of the conclusions it draws, but because of the questions it asks.
I don't like fish. But I'd eat a sea kitten.
I'd be interested in hearing a definition of science (the philosophy behind it, not the process), that is not circular and does not tread on territory covered by religion. After all, the process of religion is easily defined. As is the process of science. The processes of the two do not really conflict or cover the same ground. The philosophies do. And philosophy, for the most part, is not provable except within its own framework, and therefore both processes serve to "prove" their underlying philosophies in a circular manner.
All definitions are ultimately circular in nature or depend on things that are. Do you have a definition of science(not the process of science, but the philosophy behind it) that is not circular in nature? If so, I'd be interested in hearing it. Being circular doesn't disprove the conclusion. It merely fails to prove the conclusion, which is a different thing entirely. We can only prove things within our frameworks. We can not prove the frameworks themselves. But we can, on balance of probability come to some working conclusions. The fact that others conclude differently only proves they work within a different framework. GP is incorrect. Science and religion do intersect, and in places even conflict. But it is a problem. Of philosophy, not evidence.
I may be unique, but I am single (wait, this is /., so not so unique) with disposable income and now I'll be more inclined to buy. This may affect piracy rates, but to decrease them... :)
Oh, wait, you're not op? Ignore my other post then...
Then, why are you complaining the device is too simple? It is a general purpose RISC system. It is in fact fairly complex, and with a little imagination can do some fairly complex stuff (gpu binary blob aside). I honestly don't see your point.
I tried to do something very stupid which sounded very clever with the memory manager, which is why I gave up. I wasn't interested in reinventing the wheel, I wanted something different. It proved to be a dead end, and a lot more difficult than I thought. C would have been easier and more optimized. I still develop low level systems(just not operating systems), so, yes, very much my kind of insane.
Ever try to write an OS? In assembler? I did. Got as far as memory management before I gave up. I had a text graphics driver and all too. The device may be simple. Programming it and what can be done with it is not. All you need is imagination. And move them to a C compiler fast. Assembly gets hectic too quickly. Sure minuet did it, but those guys are certifiably insane. My kind of insane, but insane nevertheless...
Durban is actually quite far south. They have a nice warm ocean current, but if you go a bit north you find snow in the mountains in winter. They tend to be a bit obnoxious about their amazing climate to the rest of South Africa, and I have to admit, it is a nice climate.