What "states" are "available" is merely a matter of perspective. Most actions humans take are designed toward particular outcomes, i.e. they are intended to reduce the number of possible states to those which are desired. This all raises the question of what a "state" is, and begs the question of whether we can even know how many there are.
Many cognitive models might approach this by assuming the crow has a big table of "knowledge" that it can logically manipulate to deduce an answer: "stick can reach food from entrance to log," "I can get stick if I go over there," "I can move stick to entrance of log," => "I can reach food." This paper, however, proposes a much more general and simple model: the crow lives by the rule "I'll do whatever will maximize the number of different world states my world can be in 5 seconds from now."
I think the state-maximizing rule is far more complex than the food-oriented ones. How would the crow know which outcome would maximize its world states? How would the crow keep track of world states? How would the crow imagine future world states? How would the crow have a concept of world states?! What even is a world state? This is all preposterous. It's just artificial models applied to systems no one truly understands. This is a poor alternative to investigating how the crow's brain actually works.
The crow's instinct is to find and eat food. A more interesting and useful question would be of how the crow has instincts in the first place.
This is actually a really interesting comment, but of course, anyone who criticizes atheism or mentions God with a capital G gets modded down. Oh well, at least the moderation system is maximizing future possibilities...oh, wait...
This is applying theories from one field to another in which they do not directly apply. Entropy, whether thermodynamically on a universal scale, or figuratively in a sense of probabilities, is not the process at work in the crow's brain. Rather than trying to understand how it works neurologically, one applies a theoretical, statistical model which ultimately explains nothing. But someone's gotta publish, right?
Doing a task more quickly does not mean an actor is more intelligent--especially a programmed machine which can do no more than its human creators programmed it to.
-1?! This is insightful! All this blathering on about "universes," when we don't even know if more than one exists! This is just theoretical math that proves nothing about anything, but people (especially those who must publish) talk as if it were so.
We're talking past each other. Yes, I claim God exists in a realm outside our own--I declare who exists there. I reason that he must, since the one who created the universe must be greater than it and outside of it. I don't claim to know the nature of that realm or what else exists in it.
Arguing by extension is exactly what you did--that, or you totally missed my point. It seems that your point was that, by saying God exists in another realm, I'm declaring that something exists in it, and therefore declaring "what exists in it." That may be a literal interpretation of what I said, but surely you understand that I meant that I wasn't declaring what else exists in it--I was not declaring the entirety of what exists in it.
So, who am I to say what exists there? Again, I am a finite human being, so I cannot. I can only reason that, since I think the universe was created by an intelligent being, that being must exist on such a higher plane. Then I can only evaluate what is claimed to be his inspired word, and if I believe it to be true, to interpret what it means. Beyond that, I cannot lay any claim to such knowledge. If you do believe the Bible's message is true, that still does not answer all questions we have about this life or the next. Many people lose faith because they are unwilling to accept that God didn't give us all the answers we want. But being finite beings, I don't see how we could handle "all the answers" without being God himself.
I'm simply astonished at the number and magnitude of your presuppositions. You are arguing against popular notions of who God is and what he is like--but what if those popular notions are wrong? What if you are knocking down strawmen and missing the point entirely?
Again... He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else. And he MUST be subject to the conditions inside the universe (i.e. limitations and laws) - or the prayers wouldn't work. Prayers don't work? Not The God. Omni-whatever... But not The God.
Where did you get these ideas? You're arguing as if prayer is supposed to be a magic ritual to control God. That's not prayer--that's animism. Prayer is simply communication. It may include petitions and requests, it may include praise, it may include confession, it may include simple conversation. It is up to God how he responds to prayers.
What does it even mean for prayers to "work"? Does it mean that everyone gets what he prays for? That's not prayer--that's a list for Santa Claus.
Why do you assume that either God must give us whatever we pray for or else he isn't God? What if he answers a prayer with a "no"? Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
Fish(bowl) analogy kinda misses on that whole thing where The God chooses and favors certain people or fish and grants them wishes and requests if they complete certain rituals. Fish would have to be able to make people outside feed it - in essence it would have to be able to CONTROL the people outside the bowl.
Your presuppositions are blinding you, friend. Who says that God chooses and favors certain people? Who says he grants them wishes if they complete rituals? These are popular ideas, but what if they are not accurate? Your idea about the fish controlling people outside the bowl is simply a manifestation of your strawman that God is a puppet pulled by strings of prayer.
What if your ideas about what God is supposed to be are wrong?
Oh... We're going into that territory. Where imaginary is real because it can't be proven, but real is worthless because it is a part of the reality. Riiiiight...
I think you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say God is real because he is unprovable. If that were my argument, then the Tooth Fairy would be equally real.
My argument is not that statistics are worthless--it's that they are irrelevant to metaphysical questions. One cannot statistically prove or disprove God's existence. One may interpret a result either way--it does not prove anything. The whole point of there being a supernatural creator and an afterlife is that he is supernatural, and that the afterlife is an afterlife. Who are you to say that something of this universe, like statistics or any kind of math, would apply? If God exists, and if there is an afterlife, they are by definition outside your realm of understanding.
Now, if you'd actually opened your mind for a moment and gave it a thought or two, you'd realize that statistics which is mathematics is nothing more than the code of the universe, and that any "external" actor or creator which interacts with the universe is in fact a part of it - as they are both in the same universe.
I'm not claiming that God does not or cannot interact with our universe--quite the opposite. But what does it mean to be a "part of it"? I argue that a being who created the universe and its rules is by definition not limited to them.
Bowl and the fish and those outside it are still SOMEWHERE ELSE TOGETHER.
That's an interesting idea. I haven't heard that before. I can see how one could interpret it that way, but I disagree--or, at least, I don't think it's so simple. To me, arrogance is thinking more highly of oneself than one ought. You may argue that by thinking we're important enough to merit an afterlife, we are thinking too highly of ourselves. Well, I can't prove otherwise--it's a matter of opinion. I wonder, though, if you have been influenced by anti-humanity rhetoric, the kind that says that we are evil while "nature" is good, that we are an unnatural blight that will be reabsorbed and corrected by the planet.
Anyway, if there is no afterlife, then I suppose one could say that we are arrogant to think that we are important or valuable. But if there is an afterlife, then it doesn't matter what you think: it just is. And if there is, then we really are valuable and important to some extent. Personally, I can comprehend just fine the idea that we would simply cease to exist. I don't agree with it, but I can comprehend it just fine. It would be a mistake to assume that anyone who believes in an afterlife is incapable of considering the alternative.
I simply encourage you to be aware of the "lenses" through which you see, to correct for them when thinking so as to not be unduly influenced or restricted by them. There is no more important question in life than that of God's existence--that is, if he is real, nothing is more important. There are no greater stakes.
You're not just talking about the limitations of reason, you're rejecting it. There's a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of God and the perceived world. This isn't a case of somebody taking reason too far, but trying to apply it at all to a very obvious issue.
I don't understand you at all. I'm not rejecting reason. I'm simply saying that there are some questions which we cannot answer by simply thinking and speculating. We cannot prove whether there is an afterlife; we cannot prove there is a spiritual realm.
Who cares what the "usual descriptions of God" are? What if the usual descriptions are wrong? A theory or belief is not correct because of how popular it is.
You know what? You're right: there is a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of God and the perceived world. Therefore there are two possibilities: either the usual descriptions of God are wrong, or our perception of the world is wrong--or perhaps some of both.
You believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent because you were told so. You're then willing to abandon reason in favor of believing what you were told, based on authority. Instead, you're willing to say that those properties don't mean what they say, or that SIDS is some sort of spiritual blessing, anything to avoid just facing the contradiction and acknowledging it. If you can't do that, then you can't think effectively about religion, and are doomed to wilful gullibility.
I'm a bit astonished at the depth and breadth of your assumptions about me. You think you know what I believe, why I believe it, what I've been taught, but you don't actually know any of those things. And you accuse me of rejecting reason. The irony...
I don't know what you're reading. I didn't say that SIDS or any other kind of sickness, suffering, or death is a spiritual blessing. If you want to get theological (which, if God is real, is a field just as important as science), the reason suffering exists is a very tough question. The basic answer is that we live in a fallen world. Sin exists. And God has chosen to give us free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong. Why exactly he allows our bodies to degrade and get diseases, I cannot say, other than that, when sin entered the world, it changed many things. And why that changed things, I can't say, either. I don't have all the answers, because God hasn't told us all the answers.
The fallacy that many people operate under, perhaps including yourself, is that we must have all the answers to all our questions, or else God is either a liar or a fake. This is not logical. Just because we do not understand or agree with something does not change whether it is true.
If you think God doesn't exist, that's your decision. I can't prove to you that he does. What may be evidence of his existence to me may seem to you to disprove his existence. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Or if you think God does exist, but you think that because suffering exists, he's evil and not worth listening to, that's also your decision. But if this is the case, I challenge you to humble yourself and reevaluate your beliefs. Yes, it's hard to understand how a God who's claimed to be benevolent allows suffering to exist. But again, just because we don't understand or agree with something does not mean it is false, nor does it mean that God is evil because he allows it. If God really is God, then his understanding is so far beyond our own, that it's ludicrous to put ourselves in his place and pass judgment on his choices.
Some would say that if one is forced to love someone, he doesn't really love the person at all. The same could be said about God: if he forced us to love him, would it really be love? And if we are free to choose whether to love, we must also be free to choose our other actions and beliefs.
So maybe you think God is not actually good. But maybe you're just putting God in a box
I don't pretend to know what God's realm (whether you want to call it eternity, heaven, the spiritual world, etc) is like. I don't claim to be able to describe it or understand it in human terms.
Note that my comment did not declare what exists in such a realm. It was, instead, simply asserting that a being which created our universe must be greater than our universe, and therefore beyond our comprehension.
If you are arguing that by extension I am declaring what exists in such a realm, I would argue that, since we can't even understand the nature of our universe or of human consciousness, it would be unreasonable for me to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in such a realm. Who am I to say what exists there, much less to say what the concept of existence would be in such a realm?
No, you're either misunderstanding me or are limited by your own presuppositions.
I never said that God exists only outside of our universe. If he created our universe, then it makes sense that he should be able to interact with it at-will.
The point is that his nature of being is not of our universe. If he created everything--all matter and energy and laws of nature--then how could we possibly propose to comprehend him, his nature, his existence? How could he explain to us how he created the universe? Why would he be limited by that which he created?
So, again, you are presupposing that God can only exist within one realm. What if he can exist in one and also exist in or interact with another? What if you're wrong? And given our finiteness and inability to comprehend the nature of reality or of other realities, how could we reasonably say what God's limitations are? It does not follow.
Finally, your last statement is telling. "What is he good for anyway?" Well, whether he is good or useful to you depends on what you want. If you want things like worldly wealth or knowledge, power or popularity--if you want things he may not give you--then you probably won't find him to be good for much. If your interest in God is limited to what you will get out of him, you will be disappointed. This is, of course, a very selfish, short-sighted view of life. On the other hand, if you seek truth, whatever that truth may be, if you admit your limitations and are willing to humble yourself, then you may find that he answers many questions--at least, the questions he has chosen to answer.
The problem with many people is that they insist on God meeting their demands, answering their questions, doing what they want or what they think he should do. This is creating God in one's own image and with one's own limitations. But if anyone knew what truly should be done, he would be God. Genesis 3 even alludes to this when God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." But our knowledge is imperfect by nature, so we are not God.
This is why I am so enthusiastic about FOSS. Software is best when it is owned not by one person but by the community. It's like a garden in which caretakers come and go, but the garden lives on. And it's not necessary for everyone to make their own, or new, gardens--the community garden is big enough for everyone. At the same time, anyone is free to cut a stem and plant it in either their own garden or another part of the community garden, to graft one plant onto another at-will.
The point is that most software issues are already solved problems. It's a waste to write one file-syncing app after another for one platform after another when rsync and unison (and even git) are pretty much done. It's a waste to make 50 kitchen timer apps, leaving users to spend hours hunting and trying to find one that best does the job, when a few apps could be maintained by communities, meeting everyone's needs for the foreseeable future, being adapted to new platforms with minimal effort, not requiring users to repurchase, rediscover, or reevaluate basic functionality over and over again.
Is it not ok to suggest that some of these basic functions should just be done, period, and that no one deserves to or needs to make a constant revenue stream off reinventing the wheel again and again? It's almost like the arguments about old media and copyright: does an "artist" really deserve to make royalties forever because he made one recording? Many think so, but I don't.
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else. You seem to be confusing a "God" with a mere "Creator" or "Experimenter".
You are either confused or misunderstanding me. I do not propose that God exists solely outside of our universe, unable to interact with it. I propose that he exists outside the limitations of and nature of the physical universe as we know it. Having created the universe, he can interact with it however he chooses. Yet existing outside of it, he is not subject to its limitations and laws, and is therefore not subject to our finite comprehension.
An analogy--imperfect, of course--is that of a fish in a fishbowl. It exists within the limitations of its fishbowl, its universe. It can see a vague, blurry glimpse outside of it, but it cannot participate in it. Those outside the fishbowl can reach into the fishbowl, but they do not exist merely inside the fishbowl, and are not limited to it. (This implies, of course, a lid on the bowl preventing the fish from jumping out of it; since we are unable to leave our universe at will, it is reasonable.)
Also, statistics is just mathematics. I.e. A study and use of a set of rules that work across the entire universe the same way. Universal language and all that... Humans or Vulcans or Thinking Mushrooms of Jenny 867-5309 - statistics would work for all of them the same way.
Statistics does not prove anything about metaphysics. Statistics cannot reach outside the universe within which it was devised. You're still not grasping the fundamental issue here.
And tossing around terms and phrases doesn't prove anything.
You don't know what "they" are thinking, yet you know that what they are thinking cannot be true. This is a non sequitur; each statement disproves the other. Are you really so lacking in the ability to think clearly?
And yet I can easily deduce you think it's a "him", thereby making you a pretty serious moron.
You are blinded by your presuppositions:
1. You are assuming that God is not male. What if he is? 2. You are assuming that God even has gender. What if he doesn't? 3. You are assuming that my use of the word "him"--which has historically been used as not only the male pronoun but in gender-unspecific contexts--is even relevant. What if I don't mean what you think I mean?
For a finale, you retreat to name-calling. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
1+1 does equal 42...if you divide those 2 into 21 parts each. Sure, I left out the "* 21", but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But seriously, what is your point here?
Mathematical axioms, like our views of omni-fillintheblank, are unprovable assumptions. But so far they look like a good bet.
This is illogical: mathematical axioms and concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are completely unrelated--you can't get any more apples-and-oranges than this. Mathematics we can attempt to prove, and philosophy we can muse on, but omnipotence and omniscience are concepts which, if they exist in any form of being, are wholly beyond our comprehension. Mathematical principles "looking like a good bet" say nothing about the validity of one's opinions about metaphysics. This is another case of projecting ideas in one field onto another, completely unrelated one, and it is fundamentally irrational.
But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans.
You argue for a universe of progressively diminishing complexity. That pretty much throws evolution (as we understand it) out the window, since according to your definitions, new life forms must be more limited than their ancestors. By your logic, we "devolved" from gods.
No, you misunderstand me, or you conflate two separate matters. If we assume for a moment that God created the universe we see, and also that evolution is a real process that exists in our world, then they are two separate processes; God creating from nothingness is completely orthogonal to a self-sustaining biological process within the universe which does not create from nothingness but alters what already exists. The former creates matter and energy and the nature of existence out of nothingness, while the latter only "creates" in the context of our perception of biological traits; all it really does is rearrange matter which already exists.
Also, evolution is a biological issue, while God's creating the universe is far beyond the scope of simply biology, rather being about the nature of time and existence as we know it. This is a case of a presupposition about one matter being projected upon other, unrelated matters.
So while biological evolution might lead to more complex organisms--for whatever definition of complexity--such organisms are not being consciously created in a purposeful manner. On the other hand, God creating the universe is a purposeful action, with deliberate choices being made.
It could be likened to the difference between our inability to control genetic transfer in human reproduction vs. our ability to create machines, computers, and A.I. The former is a natural process out of our control, while the latter is an artifical construct of our deliberate choice; and we cannot--at least, it has yet to be demonstrated that we can--create sentient beings with abilities of reasoning and understanding superior to our own.
But let me point out something significant you said: that it would throw out evolution as we know it. Indeed, if you assume that we do understand completely and accurately what we call evolution, that could be a problem for this reasoning. On the other hand, if you admit that we may not fully or accurately understand that which we think we do, then you must admit the possibility that we are wrong, and that our wrong presuppositions are leading us to wrong conclusions.
And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God.
So what you're saying is that God is no true Scotsman?
P.S. Your views on god are very Abrahamic. You assume a number of attributes of god (omniscience, omnipotence, [omni?]benevolence) that are neither necessary nor likely. Is an understanding of Thor really beyond our reach?
I'm assuming that the universe was created deliberately. If so, whoever did it must exist outside the universe and be far beyond our comprehension--this is a necessary inference. If you don't assume that the universe was created deliberately, then it isn't necessary to assume that a creator exists, and you can imagine any kind of advanced lifeform you wish which exists within our universe and call it a "god."
But I think it's silly to use Thor as an example; he's a comic book character and an awful movie character.
Slashdot Mirror
But by publishing it in the wrong journal, they subjected it to ridicule and dismissal, reducing the number of possible future states.
What's in a state, anyway? that which we call a state from any other perspective would seem as ludicrous...
Indeed.
Way to go Slashdot: mod down those whom you disagree with. Who's the bigot now? Censorship sucks.
What "states" are "available" is merely a matter of perspective. Most actions humans take are designed toward particular outcomes, i.e. they are intended to reduce the number of possible states to those which are desired. This all raises the question of what a "state" is, and begs the question of whether we can even know how many there are.
Many cognitive models might approach this by assuming the crow has a big table of "knowledge" that it can logically manipulate to deduce an answer: "stick can reach food from entrance to log," "I can get stick if I go over there," "I can move stick to entrance of log," => "I can reach food." This paper, however, proposes a much more general and simple model: the crow lives by the rule "I'll do whatever will maximize the number of different world states my world can be in 5 seconds from now."
I think the state-maximizing rule is far more complex than the food-oriented ones. How would the crow know which outcome would maximize its world states? How would the crow keep track of world states? How would the crow imagine future world states? How would the crow have a concept of world states?! What even is a world state? This is all preposterous. It's just artificial models applied to systems no one truly understands. This is a poor alternative to investigating how the crow's brain actually works.
The crow's instinct is to find and eat food. A more interesting and useful question would be of how the crow has instincts in the first place.
This is actually a really interesting comment, but of course, anyone who criticizes atheism or mentions God with a capital G gets modded down. Oh well, at least the moderation system is maximizing future possibilities...oh, wait...
This is applying theories from one field to another in which they do not directly apply. Entropy, whether thermodynamically on a universal scale, or figuratively in a sense of probabilities, is not the process at work in the crow's brain. Rather than trying to understand how it works neurologically, one applies a theoretical, statistical model which ultimately explains nothing. But someone's gotta publish, right?
That depends on the horde; are you thinking of zombies, or...?
Doing a task more quickly does not mean an actor is more intelligent--especially a programmed machine which can do no more than its human creators programmed it to.
Well done, sir.
-1?! This is insightful! All this blathering on about "universes," when we don't even know if more than one exists! This is just theoretical math that proves nothing about anything, but people (especially those who must publish) talk as if it were so.
Are those 1,655,085 children more important than those 2,487,992 non-children? Do people stop mattering when they turn 18?
Adam Savage: "Well there's your problem!"
We're talking past each other. Yes, I claim God exists in a realm outside our own--I declare who exists there. I reason that he must, since the one who created the universe must be greater than it and outside of it. I don't claim to know the nature of that realm or what else exists in it.
Arguing by extension is exactly what you did--that, or you totally missed my point. It seems that your point was that, by saying God exists in another realm, I'm declaring that something exists in it, and therefore declaring "what exists in it." That may be a literal interpretation of what I said, but surely you understand that I meant that I wasn't declaring what else exists in it--I was not declaring the entirety of what exists in it.
So, who am I to say what exists there? Again, I am a finite human being, so I cannot. I can only reason that, since I think the universe was created by an intelligent being, that being must exist on such a higher plane. Then I can only evaluate what is claimed to be his inspired word, and if I believe it to be true, to interpret what it means. Beyond that, I cannot lay any claim to such knowledge. If you do believe the Bible's message is true, that still does not answer all questions we have about this life or the next. Many people lose faith because they are unwilling to accept that God didn't give us all the answers we want. But being finite beings, I don't see how we could handle "all the answers" without being God himself.
I'm simply astonished at the number and magnitude of your presuppositions. You are arguing against popular notions of who God is and what he is like--but what if those popular notions are wrong? What if you are knocking down strawmen and missing the point entirely?
Again...
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else.
And he MUST be subject to the conditions inside the universe (i.e. limitations and laws) - or the prayers wouldn't work.
Prayers don't work? Not The God. Omni-whatever... But not The God.
Where did you get these ideas? You're arguing as if prayer is supposed to be a magic ritual to control God. That's not prayer--that's animism. Prayer is simply communication. It may include petitions and requests, it may include praise, it may include confession, it may include simple conversation. It is up to God how he responds to prayers.
What does it even mean for prayers to "work"? Does it mean that everyone gets what he prays for? That's not prayer--that's a list for Santa Claus.
Why do you assume that either God must give us whatever we pray for or else he isn't God? What if he answers a prayer with a "no"? Who are you to say what God is supposed to do? That is simply creating God in your own image, putting him in a box of your own design. If God created the universe, if he created matter and energy and natural laws, how could he be bound by your ideas?
Fish(bowl) analogy kinda misses on that whole thing where The God chooses and favors certain people or fish and grants them wishes and requests if they complete certain rituals.
Fish would have to be able to make people outside feed it - in essence it would have to be able to CONTROL the people outside the bowl.
Your presuppositions are blinding you, friend. Who says that God chooses and favors certain people? Who says he grants them wishes if they complete rituals? These are popular ideas, but what if they are not accurate? Your idea about the fish controlling people outside the bowl is simply a manifestation of your strawman that God is a puppet pulled by strings of prayer.
What if your ideas about what God is supposed to be are wrong?
Oh... We're going into that territory.
Where imaginary is real because it can't be proven, but real is worthless because it is a part of the reality. Riiiiight...
I think you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say God is real because he is unprovable. If that were my argument, then the Tooth Fairy would be equally real.
My argument is not that statistics are worthless--it's that they are irrelevant to metaphysical questions. One cannot statistically prove or disprove God's existence. One may interpret a result either way--it does not prove anything. The whole point of there being a supernatural creator and an afterlife is that he is supernatural, and that the afterlife is an afterlife. Who are you to say that something of this universe, like statistics or any kind of math, would apply? If God exists, and if there is an afterlife, they are by definition outside your realm of understanding.
Now, if you'd actually opened your mind for a moment and gave it a thought or two, you'd realize that statistics which is mathematics is nothing more than the code of the universe, and that any "external" actor or creator which interacts with the universe is in fact a part of it - as they are both in the same universe.
I'm not claiming that God does not or cannot interact with our universe--quite the opposite. But what does it mean to be a "part of it"? I argue that a being who created the universe and its rules is by definition not limited to them.
Bowl and the fish and those outside it are still SOMEWHERE ELSE TOGETHER.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this.
That's an interesting idea. I haven't heard that before. I can see how one could interpret it that way, but I disagree--or, at least, I don't think it's so simple. To me, arrogance is thinking more highly of oneself than one ought. You may argue that by thinking we're important enough to merit an afterlife, we are thinking too highly of ourselves. Well, I can't prove otherwise--it's a matter of opinion. I wonder, though, if you have been influenced by anti-humanity rhetoric, the kind that says that we are evil while "nature" is good, that we are an unnatural blight that will be reabsorbed and corrected by the planet.
Anyway, if there is no afterlife, then I suppose one could say that we are arrogant to think that we are important or valuable. But if there is an afterlife, then it doesn't matter what you think: it just is. And if there is, then we really are valuable and important to some extent. Personally, I can comprehend just fine the idea that we would simply cease to exist. I don't agree with it, but I can comprehend it just fine. It would be a mistake to assume that anyone who believes in an afterlife is incapable of considering the alternative.
I simply encourage you to be aware of the "lenses" through which you see, to correct for them when thinking so as to not be unduly influenced or restricted by them. There is no more important question in life than that of God's existence--that is, if he is real, nothing is more important. There are no greater stakes.
You're absolutely right: our teachings, learnings, and intuitions about God are most definitely limited. Were they not, we would be gods ourselves.
I didn't claim otherwise, so I don't see how that is a problem.
Of course my believing in something doesn't make it true--God is not Santa Claus.
You're not just talking about the limitations of reason, you're rejecting it. There's a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of God and the perceived world. This isn't a case of somebody taking reason too far, but trying to apply it at all to a very obvious issue.
I don't understand you at all. I'm not rejecting reason. I'm simply saying that there are some questions which we cannot answer by simply thinking and speculating. We cannot prove whether there is an afterlife; we cannot prove there is a spiritual realm.
Who cares what the "usual descriptions of God" are? What if the usual descriptions are wrong? A theory or belief is not correct because of how popular it is.
You know what? You're right: there is a real contradiction between the usual descriptions of God and the perceived world. Therefore there are two possibilities: either the usual descriptions of God are wrong, or our perception of the world is wrong--or perhaps some of both.
You believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent because you were told so. You're then willing to abandon reason in favor of believing what you were told, based on authority. Instead, you're willing to say that those properties don't mean what they say, or that SIDS is some sort of spiritual blessing, anything to avoid just facing the contradiction and acknowledging it. If you can't do that, then you can't think effectively about religion, and are doomed to wilful gullibility.
I'm a bit astonished at the depth and breadth of your assumptions about me. You think you know what I believe, why I believe it, what I've been taught, but you don't actually know any of those things. And you accuse me of rejecting reason. The irony...
I don't know what you're reading. I didn't say that SIDS or any other kind of sickness, suffering, or death is a spiritual blessing. If you want to get theological (which, if God is real, is a field just as important as science), the reason suffering exists is a very tough question. The basic answer is that we live in a fallen world. Sin exists. And God has chosen to give us free will, the ability to choose between right and wrong. Why exactly he allows our bodies to degrade and get diseases, I cannot say, other than that, when sin entered the world, it changed many things. And why that changed things, I can't say, either. I don't have all the answers, because God hasn't told us all the answers.
The fallacy that many people operate under, perhaps including yourself, is that we must have all the answers to all our questions, or else God is either a liar or a fake. This is not logical. Just because we do not understand or agree with something does not change whether it is true.
If you think God doesn't exist, that's your decision. I can't prove to you that he does. What may be evidence of his existence to me may seem to you to disprove his existence. It's all a matter of interpretation.
Or if you think God does exist, but you think that because suffering exists, he's evil and not worth listening to, that's also your decision. But if this is the case, I challenge you to humble yourself and reevaluate your beliefs. Yes, it's hard to understand how a God who's claimed to be benevolent allows suffering to exist. But again, just because we don't understand or agree with something does not mean it is false, nor does it mean that God is evil because he allows it. If God really is God, then his understanding is so far beyond our own, that it's ludicrous to put ourselves in his place and pass judgment on his choices.
Some would say that if one is forced to love someone, he doesn't really love the person at all. The same could be said about God: if he forced us to love him, would it really be love? And if we are free to choose whether to love, we must also be free to choose our other actions and beliefs.
So maybe you think God is not actually good. But maybe you're just putting God in a box
I don't pretend to know what God's realm (whether you want to call it eternity, heaven, the spiritual world, etc) is like. I don't claim to be able to describe it or understand it in human terms.
Note that my comment did not declare what exists in such a realm. It was, instead, simply asserting that a being which created our universe must be greater than our universe, and therefore beyond our comprehension.
If you are arguing that by extension I am declaring what exists in such a realm, I would argue that, since we can't even understand the nature of our universe or of human consciousness, it would be unreasonable for me to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in such a realm. Who am I to say what exists there, much less to say what the concept of existence would be in such a realm?
No, you're either misunderstanding me or are limited by your own presuppositions.
I never said that God exists only outside of our universe. If he created our universe, then it makes sense that he should be able to interact with it at-will.
The point is that his nature of being is not of our universe. If he created everything--all matter and energy and laws of nature--then how could we possibly propose to comprehend him, his nature, his existence? How could he explain to us how he created the universe? Why would he be limited by that which he created?
So, again, you are presupposing that God can only exist within one realm. What if he can exist in one and also exist in or interact with another? What if you're wrong? And given our finiteness and inability to comprehend the nature of reality or of other realities, how could we reasonably say what God's limitations are? It does not follow.
Finally, your last statement is telling. "What is he good for anyway?" Well, whether he is good or useful to you depends on what you want. If you want things like worldly wealth or knowledge, power or popularity--if you want things he may not give you--then you probably won't find him to be good for much. If your interest in God is limited to what you will get out of him, you will be disappointed. This is, of course, a very selfish, short-sighted view of life. On the other hand, if you seek truth, whatever that truth may be, if you admit your limitations and are willing to humble yourself, then you may find that he answers many questions--at least, the questions he has chosen to answer.
The problem with many people is that they insist on God meeting their demands, answering their questions, doing what they want or what they think he should do. This is creating God in one's own image and with one's own limitations. But if anyone knew what truly should be done, he would be God. Genesis 3 even alludes to this when God says, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." But our knowledge is imperfect by nature, so we are not God.
This is why I am so enthusiastic about FOSS. Software is best when it is owned not by one person but by the community. It's like a garden in which caretakers come and go, but the garden lives on. And it's not necessary for everyone to make their own, or new, gardens--the community garden is big enough for everyone. At the same time, anyone is free to cut a stem and plant it in either their own garden or another part of the community garden, to graft one plant onto another at-will.
The point is that most software issues are already solved problems. It's a waste to write one file-syncing app after another for one platform after another when rsync and unison (and even git) are pretty much done. It's a waste to make 50 kitchen timer apps, leaving users to spend hours hunting and trying to find one that best does the job, when a few apps could be maintained by communities, meeting everyone's needs for the foreseeable future, being adapted to new platforms with minimal effort, not requiring users to repurchase, rediscover, or reevaluate basic functionality over and over again.
Is it not ok to suggest that some of these basic functions should just be done, period, and that no one deserves to or needs to make a constant revenue stream off reinventing the wheel again and again? It's almost like the arguments about old media and copyright: does an "artist" really deserve to make royalties forever because he made one recording? Many think so, but I don't.
He is inside all of us and everything else in the universe, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni- everything else.
You seem to be confusing a "God" with a mere "Creator" or "Experimenter".
You are either confused or misunderstanding me. I do not propose that God exists solely outside of our universe, unable to interact with it. I propose that he exists outside the limitations of and nature of the physical universe as we know it. Having created the universe, he can interact with it however he chooses. Yet existing outside of it, he is not subject to its limitations and laws, and is therefore not subject to our finite comprehension.
An analogy--imperfect, of course--is that of a fish in a fishbowl. It exists within the limitations of its fishbowl, its universe. It can see a vague, blurry glimpse outside of it, but it cannot participate in it. Those outside the fishbowl can reach into the fishbowl, but they do not exist merely inside the fishbowl, and are not limited to it. (This implies, of course, a lid on the bowl preventing the fish from jumping out of it; since we are unable to leave our universe at will, it is reasonable.)
Also, statistics is just mathematics. I.e. A study and use of a set of rules that work across the entire universe the same way.
Universal language and all that...
Humans or Vulcans or Thinking Mushrooms of Jenny 867-5309 - statistics would work for all of them the same way.
Statistics does not prove anything about metaphysics. Statistics cannot reach outside the universe within which it was devised. You're still not grasping the fundamental issue here.
And tossing around terms and phrases doesn't prove anything.
Your hypocrisy is remarkable.
You don't know what "they" are thinking, yet you know that what they are thinking cannot be true. This is a non sequitur; each statement disproves the other. Are you really so lacking in the ability to think clearly?
And yet I can easily deduce you think it's a "him", thereby making you a pretty serious moron.
You are blinded by your presuppositions:
1. You are assuming that God is not male. What if he is?
2. You are assuming that God even has gender. What if he doesn't?
3. You are assuming that my use of the word "him"--which has historically been used as not only the male pronoun but in gender-unspecific contexts--is even relevant. What if I don't mean what you think I mean?
For a finale, you retreat to name-calling. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
1+1 does equal 42...if you divide those 2 into 21 parts each. Sure, I left out the "* 21", but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But seriously, what is your point here?
Mathematical axioms, like our views of omni-fillintheblank, are unprovable assumptions. But so far they look like a good bet.
This is illogical: mathematical axioms and concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are completely unrelated--you can't get any more apples-and-oranges than this. Mathematics we can attempt to prove, and philosophy we can muse on, but omnipotence and omniscience are concepts which, if they exist in any form of being, are wholly beyond our comprehension. Mathematical principles "looking like a good bet" say nothing about the validity of one's opinions about metaphysics. This is another case of projecting ideas in one field onto another, completely unrelated one, and it is fundamentally irrational.
But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans.
You argue for a universe of progressively diminishing complexity. That pretty much throws evolution (as we understand it) out the window, since according to your definitions, new life forms must be more limited than their ancestors. By your logic, we "devolved" from gods.
No, you misunderstand me, or you conflate two separate matters. If we assume for a moment that God created the universe we see, and also that evolution is a real process that exists in our world, then they are two separate processes; God creating from nothingness is completely orthogonal to a self-sustaining biological process within the universe which does not create from nothingness but alters what already exists. The former creates matter and energy and the nature of existence out of nothingness, while the latter only "creates" in the context of our perception of biological traits; all it really does is rearrange matter which already exists.
Also, evolution is a biological issue, while God's creating the universe is far beyond the scope of simply biology, rather being about the nature of time and existence as we know it. This is a case of a presupposition about one matter being projected upon other, unrelated matters.
So while biological evolution might lead to more complex organisms--for whatever definition of complexity--such organisms are not being consciously created in a purposeful manner. On the other hand, God creating the universe is a purposeful action, with deliberate choices being made.
It could be likened to the difference between our inability to control genetic transfer in human reproduction vs. our ability to create machines, computers, and A.I. The former is a natural process out of our control, while the latter is an artifical construct of our deliberate choice; and we cannot--at least, it has yet to be demonstrated that we can--create sentient beings with abilities of reasoning and understanding superior to our own.
But let me point out something significant you said: that it would throw out evolution as we know it. Indeed, if you assume that we do understand completely and accurately what we call evolution, that could be a problem for this reasoning. On the other hand, if you admit that we may not fully or accurately understand that which we think we do, then you must admit the possibility that we are wrong, and that our wrong presuppositions are leading us to wrong conclusions.
And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God.
So what you're saying is that God is no true Scotsman?
P.S. Your views on god are very Abrahamic. You assume a number of attributes of god (omniscience, omnipotence, [omni?]benevolence) that are neither necessary nor likely. Is an understanding of Thor really beyond our reach?
I'm assuming that the universe was created deliberately. If so, whoever did it must exist outside the universe and be far beyond our comprehension--this is a necessary inference. If you don't assume that the universe was created deliberately, then it isn't necessary to assume that a creator exists, and you can imagine any kind of advanced lifeform you wish which exists within our universe and call it a "god."
But I think it's silly to use Thor as an example; he's a comic book character and an awful movie character.