Author Topic: Talking To Flat Earth Friends  (Read 10391 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #200 on: May 03, 2018, 01:52:25 PM »

Some things exist, in the real world.  Other things that people have thought of do not exist in the real world, only in our minds.  Things like Religion and Patriotism and Jealousy are in this latter camp, ideas created by people that can dictate our actions but that don't have any physical reality.  The motivating principles behind them only exist, in a physical sense, in the arrangement of our neurons.  The Abrahamic God, like Patriotism, exists in our neurons and nowhere else.  There are no physical atoms or particles in the universe that are part of his body, and there are no electromagnetic waves that constitute his radiation.  He does not occupy a discrete location in space.  He doesn't literally exist outside of our minds, just like Patriotism doesn't literally exist.  That doesn't mean they aren't powerful ideas, but it's important to recognize that they are only ideas.

You've said with certainty that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist anywhere in reality and is only an idea.  So prove it.  I'm not (just) being pedantic here.  You're claiming an absolute but don't have proof of it.  That's not very scientific man.  If you said that to date there's no evidence of an Abrahamic God existing, that's fine . . . but that's not how you're wording it.  If you're making the argument that the Abrahamic God is only an idea and doesn't exist, I want to see the hard evidence you're using to support your conclusion.

Now, before you start yelling about Russell's teapot at me - I'm not arguing that God does or doesn't exist.  I'm agnostic (frankly, don't think it's worth the effort arguing about the unknowable - very naval gazey.)  You're the one making the extraordinary claim here . . . that you have knowledge of the lack of existence of the Abrahamic God (except in people's minds).  The burden of proof lies with you when making that claim.
If there were an Abrahamic God it would be necessary for the humans mentioned in the Bible as having received messages from him to have 1) some means within themselves of receiving those messages and  2) being able to reliably distinguish those messages from self-generated ones.  As neither of these conditions prevails within the human condition, there is no Abrahamic God.

Prove your claim that humans have no means within themselves of receiving messages from an Abrahamic God.
Inputs to the brain are either external and physical through sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell, or internally generated.  If an external input is physical then it is scientifically provable and so not from an Abrahamic God.  If it is internally generated it is not from an external Abrahamic God.

Provide your evidence that the Abrahamic God is incapable of physical contact with a person.

Provide your evidence that the Abrahamic God is incapable of communicating via means currently not measurable.

Scientifically so far, we've yet to see any indication that the Abrahamic God exists.  That's very different from being able to conclusively say that God doesn't exist (which would be a classic case of denying the antecedent)!  It's not OK to be dogmatic in atheism any more than it's OK to be dogmatic in theist belief.  The only scientifically valid answer to the question of whether God exists is "We don't know (but evidence so far points to no)."

EDIT - To put it another way . . . just because you're probably right doesn't excuse piss-poor reasoning and a lack of evidence.  :P
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 02:03:22 PM by GuitarStv »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3132
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #201 on: May 03, 2018, 02:44:33 PM »
Physical contact requires a physical presence in order to create the physical effects.  The Abrahamic God as conceived in the Bible is not a physical presence (except in the presence of His Son, right?).  In fact, the Abrahamic God is ineffable, right?  So the Abrahamic God can't be physical, because the physical is not ineffable.

A means of communication which is not measurable or identifiable cannot produce results which are measurable or identifiable.

Isn't it scientifically valid to say that God as conceived in the Bible is an impossible creation?

It is the nature of belief that it is dogmatic.  Anything less than a dogmatic belief is not belief.  So when you say dogmatic belief is not OK you are saying belief is not OK.

I do rather object to my reasoning being called "piss poor":P  It's difficult to provide logical reasoning against an inherently illogical creation.  In fact the very illogicality of the Abrahamic God should be sufficient proof in itself that it is purely a human creation.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #202 on: May 03, 2018, 03:07:29 PM »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #203 on: May 03, 2018, 05:30:54 PM »
Prove your claim

You've significant mislocated the burden of proof here.  I don't have to prove that magic doesn't exist.

Your argument appears to be that unless I can prove magic isn't real, then we should remain agnostic about whether or not it is. But the world is not magical.  Every single instance in all of recorded history has proved to be (spoiler alert!) Not Magic!  The universe makes sense without magic.  Magic is an unnecessary complication with zero supporting evidence.  You can still believe in it, but you're doing so based solely on faith.

You appear to be the one making the outrageous claim, not me.  You're the one contravening the entirety of all assembled human knowledge, not me.  So you're the one required to provide extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim, not me.

It's a gross misapplication of the scientific method to claim that every ridiculous idea you can come up with should be accepted as equally plausible until disproven.  That's not how science works.  New ideas must conform to accepted facts, or else have extraordinary evidence to overturn those facts.  If you claim to be a dinosaur, I am unlikely to believe you even before I have physically examined you, and your assertion that I should believe you just because I haven't disproved it is, frankly, stupid.  If you want to claim dino heritage, the entire world will think you a liar until you come forward with proof.  I don't have to do shit just because you're a crazy person.  You do.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #204 on: May 03, 2018, 07:04:48 PM »
Physical contact requires a physical presence in order to create the physical effects.  The Abrahamic God as conceived in the Bible is not a physical presence (except in the presence of His Son, right?).  In fact, the Abrahamic God is ineffable, right?  So the Abrahamic God can't be physical, because the physical is not ineffable.

I mean, if we're going to go full crazy here and accept the bible as record I'll have to defer to someone who has spent way more time than me reading it:  https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1297.cfm

But it would appear pretty clear that the initial assumption of God being ineffable is wrong, he has taken form many times.


A means of communication which is not measurable or identifiable cannot produce results which are measurable or identifiable.

Agreed.  But we can't know if communication will some day be measurable and identifiable.  200 years ago, you would be arguing that radio transmissions are not measurable or identifiable.  Simply lacking the means to measure or identify something is not proof that it doesn't or can't exist.


Isn't it scientifically valid to say that God as conceived in the Bible is an impossible creation?

If you can say God is impossible then we've already conceded that there's no possibility of God existing.  And we have no solid evidence to take that stance.


It is the nature of belief that it is dogmatic.  Anything less than a dogmatic belief is not belief.  So when you say dogmatic belief is not OK you are saying belief is not OK.

No, I don't agree with that at all.  A dogmatic belief is incontrovertibly true. I don't think it's safe to hold such beliefs in life, given the number of times through history that 'incontrovertibly true' beliefs have been proven wrong.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.  If it doesn't, I'll need to adjust my beliefs, not try to believe harder or breakdown as someone truly dogmatic would.


I do rather object to my reasoning being called "piss poor":P  It's difficult to provide logical reasoning against an inherently illogical creation.  In fact the very illogicality of the Abrahamic God should be sufficient proof in itself that it is purely a human creation.

Disproving the existence of God (a fundamentally illogical concept based on everything we currently know) is kinda a complicated problem.  You gave me a logical fallacy and a lack of evidence.  No offense was intended.  I'll agree with you, the setup of the God question may well be unfalsifiable.  That's why I remain agnostic (though really, really heavily leaning towards the 'No God' side - based on pretty much all the evidence in the world).





Prove your claim

You've significant mislocated the burden of proof here.  I don't have to prove that magic doesn't exist.

You do when you make the claim that magic absolutely positively cannot possibly exist.


Your argument appears to be that unless I can prove magic isn't real, then we should remain agnostic about whether or not it is. But the world is not magical.  Every single instance in all of recorded history has proved to be (spoiler alert!) Not Magic!  The universe makes sense without magic.  Magic is an unnecessary complication with zero supporting evidence.  You can still believe in it, but you're doing so based solely on faith.

Agreed completely.


You appear to be the one making the outrageous claim, not me.  You're the one contravening the entirety of all assembled human knowledge, not me.  So you're the one required to provide extraordinary proof of your extraordinary claim, not me.

Nope, I think that magic is bullshit too  . . but I can't prove it.  As such, I have to admit that there's an outside chance of a black swan event occurring and us being overrun with little bastards from Hogwarts.  I can't speak with absolute certainty.  Only Siths deal in absolutes anyway.  :P


It's a gross misapplication of the scientific method to claim that every ridiculous idea you can come up with should be accepted as equally plausible until disproven.  That's not how science works.  New ideas must conform to accepted facts, or else have extraordinary evidence to overturn those facts.  If you claim to be a dinosaur, I am unlikely to believe you even before I have physically examined you, and your assertion that I should believe you just because I haven't disproved it is, frankly, stupid.  If you want to claim dino heritage, the entire world will think you a liar until you come forward with proof.  I don't have to do shit just because you're a crazy person.  You do.

I don't believe that every ridiculous idea is equally plausible until disproved, and have not made that claim.  I've mentioned multiple times that there's no (zero) evidence supporting the existence of God.  But we do not currently have the ability to say with certainty that God doesn't exist . . . just that this is the most likely case.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 07:09:46 PM by GuitarStv »

Forever Wednesday

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #205 on: May 06, 2018, 05:01:03 AM »
I don't believe that every ridiculous idea is equally plausible until disproved, and have not made that claim.  I've mentioned multiple times that there's no (zero) evidence supporting the existence of God.  But we do not currently have the ability to say with certainty that God doesn't exist . . . just that this is the most likely case.

I generally agree with your stance here as an agnostic-athiest. A lack of empirical evidence is not enough to refute a claim at the extreme level, such as if we are all hallucinating, the Universe is a simulation, or God is crafty and configured things to seem as though he never existed in order to test our faith.

However, if something is logically impossible it requires no evidence to refute. For example, the statement "George is a married Bachelor" can never be true. In the context of religion things are more woolly, but one can argue quite convincingly that many of the claims made about the Christian God are logically incompatible with one another too. For instance, "God is benevolent and created hell" and "God is all powerful and needed to rest on the 7th day" are logically incoherent and so can never describe something that exists.

So my personal position is that I am agnostic-athiest as to the existence of a generic creator God (i.e. that the observable Universe was created by a conscious agent), but am willing to claim with complete certainty that the Christian God is non-existent.


PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #206 on: May 06, 2018, 05:42:23 AM »
However, if something is logically impossible it requires no evidence to refute. For example, the statement "George is a married Bachelor" can never be true. In the context of religion things are more woolly, but one can argue quite convincingly that many of the claims made about the Christian God are logically incompatible with one another too. For instance, "God is benevolent and created hell" and "God is all powerful and needed to rest on the 7th day" are logically incoherent and so can never describe something that exists.
"God is benevolent and created hell" - A benevolent father would, I imagine, on occasion have to punish his child if said child misbehaves.
"God is all powerful and needed to rest on the 7th day" - Does the bible say God needed to rest or does it say merely that God did rest on the 7th day? (I honestly can't remember but I'm pretty sure it's the latter)
Quote from: Forever Wednesday
So my personal position is that I am agnostic-athiest as to the existence of a generic creator God (i.e. that the observable Universe was created by a conscious agent), but am willing to claim with complete certainty that the Christian God is non-existent.
You may be certain but you still have no actual evidence.

For the record I am also agnostic on the question regarding God in general.  I'll happily admit I believe that the Christian version of God as described in the bible does not exist.  It is still just a belief though.

Forever Wednesday

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #207 on: May 06, 2018, 06:50:03 AM »
"God is benevolent and created hell" - A benevolent father would, I imagine, on occasion have to punish his child if said child misbehaves.

Sure thing. But for eternity, and with hellfire?

Quote
"God is all powerful and needed to rest on the 7th day" - Does the bible say God needed to rest or does it say merely that God did rest on the 7th day? (I honestly can't remember but I'm pretty sure it's the latter)

Why would you rest if you didn't need to?

Or, put another way: Resting implies recovering energy. To recover energy, you must have lost some. Therefore your power is non-infinite.

Quote
You may be certain but you still have no actual evidence.

The gist of what I'm saying is that evidence is not required to refute something if it's logically incoherent. I don't need to know any empirical facts whatsoever to claim that the model of God presented here is impossible, and that one doesn't necessarily need to take the soft position of agnostic-atheism.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 06:53:52 AM by Forever Wednesday »

BookLoverL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: England
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #208 on: May 06, 2018, 08:38:04 AM »
Why would you rest if you didn't need to?

Why would you rest if you didn't need to? Why would you look at art if you didn't need to? Why would you do anything other than officially sanctioned work if you didn't need to?

Perhaps God thought it would be fun.

(I'm not a Christian - I'm actually a polytheist, sort of. But if there are contradictions in the Bible, I don't think this is one of them.)
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 09:27:40 AM by BookLoverL »
In pursuit of the freedom to make my own responsibilities.
Blogging at https://deathtocomplacency.com

e34bb098

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #209 on: May 06, 2018, 09:25:33 AM »
Not religious myself, but the Hebrew word is more along the lines of disengaging or withdrawing, not “resting.” Chabad.org (a Jewish translation) translates it as “abstained”.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 09:27:34 AM by e34bb098 »

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #210 on: May 06, 2018, 03:24:23 PM »
The gist of what I'm saying is that evidence is not required to refute something if it's logically incoherent.
I see the gist you are getting at.  However, it is easily arguable that the examples you have given are not logically incoherent.

A father could give a very severe punishment to a child and still be benevolent.  There are many reasons one would rest without needing to.  Why not simply to enjoy reveling in one's own creation for a bit?

2Birds1Stone

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3981
  • Age: 31
  • Location: New York
  • Peter Gibbons
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #211 on: May 06, 2018, 06:51:43 PM »
The earth is a giant triangle.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #212 on: May 06, 2018, 07:06:35 PM »
The earth is a giant triangle.

Like a pyramid?  Because in that case, I'm going to need specifics.


powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #213 on: May 07, 2018, 12:01:40 AM »
For all these ridiculous claims that ignore basic science or the fantastical ones that birth religion the only solution is the same. Ask them about the process by which they determine what is true. Keep it simple, how do they understand what their checking account balance is? How do they determine if their kid did or did not steal the cookie? etc, etc. Ask them why they don't apply that same method to other areas. Point out ways  the fallacies of their thinking . When the inevitably give you the "faith/feeling" response tell them you have faith they can fly off a tall building and should go prove it.
I was going to write a much longer response, but have been working hard on not wasting my time with this kind of idiot. So forget everything and tell them being willfully ignorant in the age of information is a waste of a life, go find better people to hang out with.
Also , tell them a guy you "know" on the internet has seen the earths curvature with his own 2 eyes

Forever Wednesday

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #214 on: May 07, 2018, 05:26:38 AM »
I see the gist you are getting at.

OK great, that's all I really wanted to highlight.

Regarding "rest", I suppose here it's a semantic issue. I'm taking it to be synonymous with "recuperate" which implies an initial loss of power. However, I do think this is a narrow definition and "rest" could be taken to mean different things, so it's a poor example on my part.

Quote
A father could give a very severe punishment to a child and still be benevolent.

I don't disagree that there may be cases where a very severe punishment is justifiable. But we are talking here about hellfire for eternity. Do you not see a contradiction in terms here when we use "benevolent"?

Suppose that my kid commits an atrocious crime. Say he shoots up his school. Do you think I am benevolent when I pour gasoline on him and light the match?

Suppose next that he commits no notable crime and simply doesn't accept that I'm his dad. And further suppose that I also rig things so that I somehow keep him on life support and burn him indefinitely (I'm an all powerful dad, I can do this). Is this more, or less, benevolent?

To tie back into the Flat Earth discussion... a lot of comparisons have been drawn between Flat Earthers and fundamentalist Christians /Muslims / etc. Although both are equally disengaged with reality, I have more sympathy for the religious here because scare stories of hell are absent from the Flat Earth model (as far as I know...).

Khaetra

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #215 on: May 07, 2018, 05:37:16 AM »
For all these ridiculous claims that ignore basic science or the fantastical ones that birth religion the only solution is the same. Ask them about the process by which they determine what is true. Keep it simple, how do they understand what their checking account balance is? How do they determine if their kid did or did not steal the cookie? etc, etc. Ask them why they don't apply that same method to other areas. Point out ways  the fallacies of their thinking . When the inevitably give you the "faith/feeling" response tell them you have faith they can fly off a tall building and should go prove it.
I was going to write a much longer response, but have been working hard on not wasting my time with this kind of idiot. So forget everything and tell them being willfully ignorant in the age of information is a waste of a life, go find better people to hang out with.
Also , tell them a guy you "know" on the internet has seen the earths curvature with his own 2 eyes

+1

Flat earth?  I don't have the time (nor would I want to spend it) to deal with such nonsense.  If someone is that ignorant of knowledge and facts then I would find new friends.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #216 on: May 07, 2018, 07:39:27 AM »
I don't believe that every ridiculous idea is equally plausible until disproved, and have not made that claim.  I've mentioned multiple times that there's no (zero) evidence supporting the existence of God.  But we do not currently have the ability to say with certainty that God doesn't exist . . . just that this is the most likely case.

I generally agree with your stance here as an agnostic-athiest. A lack of empirical evidence is not enough to refute a claim at the extreme level, such as if we are all hallucinating, the Universe is a simulation, or God is crafty and configured things to seem as though he never existed in order to test our faith.

However, if something is logically impossible it requires no evidence to refute. For example, the statement "George is a married Bachelor" can never be true. In the context of religion things are more woolly, but one can argue quite convincingly that many of the claims made about the Christian God are logically incompatible with one another too. For instance, "God is benevolent and created hell" and "God is all powerful and needed to rest on the 7th day" are logically incoherent and so can never describe something that exists.

So my personal position is that I am agnostic-athiest as to the existence of a generic creator God (i.e. that the observable Universe was created by a conscious agent), but am willing to claim with complete certainty that the Christian God is non-existent.

An Eastern Orthodox church that I attended didn't actually teach that the hell you're referring to existed.  No fire and brimstone and eternal torture at the hands of demons.  Hell was taught as being the state of denial and hatred of God/good actions, and you're not kept in hell by external/evil beings . . . you are in the same place as everyone else in the afterlife.  It's not God punishing you (God desperately wants you to live a good life), but you're kinda miserable because you hate God, goodness, and love . . . and that's what exists in the afterlife.  The pain that you feel is not torture at the hands of others, it's entirely caused by your frame of mind.  https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

The United Church of Canada also teaches that the popular version of hell doesn't exist.  If you're an evildoer in life, your soul dies.  There's no eternal torture.  That's your punishment for living a terrible life . . . you don't get to live forever in glory with God (again, because of the choices you've made).  https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/is-hell-real

The benevolent God/Hell question isn't necessarily a logical contradiction . . . different branches of Christianity have reasonable answers to the question.  Ergo, I think that your 'logical' attempt at dismissal of the Christian God is premature.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #217 on: May 07, 2018, 08:24:41 AM »
I can confirm as being raised Greek Orthodox (but not practising), the main thing about being a practising orthodox Christian is going through the liturgical calendar, which dictates which parts of the bible that are read, and so some aspects of the Bible are emphasized while others are not, and the idea of "living" the Bible through that calendar (living versus preaching). There's no real emphasis in converting other people, or the idea as long as you accept Jesus Christ the way you live your life doesn't matter. Hell for example is thought of as being alienated from God, not a literal burning in hell. In the same way Revelations is not really discussed nor emphasized. 

It is an interesting question, how do you determine what is "true"? My outlook is that of being a humanist and existentialist. However even if you use the proof of what you have felt, seen, experienced, I have had times during my life, where I have had, what people would call, a sense of the greater. Sometimes it was in Church, sometimes listening to a song, or being in nature, or woken up from a dream. So that is something directly experienced, "sensed". Now I am a scientist, and most likely there will be a point where all my experiences can be explained scientifically. But I guess I also would like to leave the door open a crack, and say that maybe there are some things that will never be fully explained by science. Doesn't mean it's magical, just that there are natural limits to what science and math can describe and explain, and what humans can know. And I think there will always be a natural human curiosity and interest at poking at those corners, "mystery". My most important take away, is that I am amazed at the complexity and livingness and interconnectedness and age of the earth and the universe, and gratitude to be alive and to be aware of it in this time and place. Even if there are not bigfoots and flat earths or possibly a JudeoChristian God, there are still black holes, water bears, continental drift, deep sea vent life, galaxies, magnetism, gravity, and plenty of things to be in awe of.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1577
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #218 on: May 07, 2018, 10:41:33 AM »
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #219 on: May 07, 2018, 11:09:32 AM »
Just give them this picture and move on.
Fixed that for ya below ;-). Just spin earth like a lazy Susan and your good to go. Although the underside of flat earth is always dark. Or is it? 2 suns???? Not that it matters because everyone fell off long ago. Gravity...its just not real.

Why not just rotate the disc version of earth so that the top and bottom are alternately lit.

Or maybe the sun revolves around the earth, rather than the other way around.

So many possibilities... :)

Forever Wednesday

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #220 on: May 08, 2018, 09:29:32 AM »
The benevolent God/Hell question isn't necessarily a logical contradiction . . . different branches of Christianity have reasonable answers to the question.  Ergo, I think that your 'logical' attempt at dismissal of the Christian God is premature.

Yeah, you're correct here. In that particular example I'm referring specifically to branches of Christianity which do believe in eternal torture (I've had evangelical friends who preach this). But this seems like a fringe belief (at least in the UK), so my example cannot be used against the Christian God globally.

Consider that sloppy language on my part: I should have been more specific about the kind of God being targeted here.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #221 on: May 08, 2018, 02:01:37 PM »
I should have been more specific about the kind of God being targeted here.

Lol.  That's a good one. 

Let's all make fun of the ridiculous magical fairy tale we don't like, but don't cross the line into making fun of this other ridiculous magical fairy tale we cling to.  That makes total sense.

This is like comic nerds arguing that batman could never really do all that crazy stuff because his body would wear out, but superman can because he's an alien.  Oh okay, that's so much clearer now thanks.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #222 on: May 08, 2018, 02:19:23 PM »
I should have been more specific about the kind of God being targeted here.

Lol.  That's a good one. 

Let's all make fun of the ridiculous magical fairy tale we don't like, but don't cross the line into making fun of this other ridiculous magical fairy tale we cling to.  That makes total sense.

This is like comic nerds arguing that batman could never really do all that crazy stuff because his body would wear out, but superman can because he's an alien.  Oh okay, that's so much clearer now thanks.

The argument was that the Christian god's benevolence and his creation of a torturous hell are contradictory. If a group of Christians don't believe he created a torturous hell, that argument is no longer valid in reference to "their" god. (Not commenting on whether that is a valid argument to begin with)

BookLoverL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: England
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #223 on: May 08, 2018, 02:49:12 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)
In pursuit of the freedom to make my own responsibilities.
Blogging at https://deathtocomplacency.com

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7781
  • Registered member
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #224 on: May 08, 2018, 03:06:12 PM »


Need more jpeg

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3132
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #225 on: May 08, 2018, 03:11:13 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)
Gaia theory?  It's a theory.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #226 on: May 08, 2018, 03:31:24 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)
Gaia theory?  It's a theory.

I think that would be considered a hypothesis.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: PNW
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #227 on: May 08, 2018, 03:36:55 PM »
I prefer Pantheism
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #228 on: May 08, 2018, 06:07:30 PM »
I prefer Pantheism

My oldest daughter would agree with you. She says "I believe in ALL the Gods".  Mom brag: last year she got first in state on her Mythology exam (national junior classical league)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1577
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #229 on: May 08, 2018, 06:11:13 PM »
I prefer Pantheism
Always been more of a Marvel guy myself. Stan's gospel or something like that. ;)
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6564
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #230 on: May 08, 2018, 07:47:20 PM »
She says "I believe in ALL the Gods". 

I believe in all the gods equally, which is sort of the same thing while also being the exact opposite.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #231 on: May 09, 2018, 07:24:08 AM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)

This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1577
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #232 on: May 09, 2018, 01:03:28 PM »
Saw this (jokingly) posted to a friend's fb page...
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: PNW
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #233 on: May 09, 2018, 01:04:46 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)

This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

The evidence is consciousness itself. We are the universe contemplating itself, so in essence we are all God.
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #234 on: May 09, 2018, 01:08:58 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)

This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

The evidence is consciousness itself. We are the universe contemplating itself, so in essence we are all God.

You and I appear to have a different definition of 'evidence'.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1577
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #235 on: May 09, 2018, 01:51:45 PM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)

This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

The evidence is consciousness itself. We are the universe contemplating itself, so in essence we are all God.
This quote reminds me of this:
http://wisdomofchopra.com/
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

Forever Wednesday

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #236 on: May 10, 2018, 02:43:51 AM »
I'm curious to know what those arguing against the existence of God here have to say about the (not necessarily Christian) concept of God in pantheism, i.e., God as identical with/the consciousness of the universe.

(Yes, I was being serious earlier when I was talking about the consciousness of non-human systems.)

I'm not sure what to think of Pantheism, as I'm not sure what its claims are. Was wondering if you could elaborate? For example, what is the difference between Pantheism and simply substituting the word "Universe" for "God"?

BookLoverL

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
  • Location: England
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #237 on: May 10, 2018, 09:10:52 AM »
This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

My evidence, such as it is (I don't think this sort of thing is ever 100% knowable), goes something like this: Given that humans have consciousness, and humans are made of the same materials as everything else, it makes more sense to have the default hypothesis be "lots of things in the universe are conscious, especially systems with complexity equal to or greater than the human brain", rather than "humans are somehow special and the only thing with consciousness ever". And the universe is definitely more complex than a single human brain. I know that's not a entirely a definitive argument.

I'm not sure what to think of Pantheism, as I'm not sure what its claims are. Was wondering if you could elaborate? For example, what is the difference between Pantheism and simply substituting the word "Universe" for "God"?

I think primarily it affects your attitude towards the universe, and towards smaller things like planets or ecosystems or trees or whatever, if you believe they are conscious. If you think something is dead, or was never alive, and has never had a thought or a feeling, it's easier to treat it as if it's disposable, which is where a lot of the current society's issues with overconsumption and waste ultimately come from. It's also where the idea of going to space just so we can mine asteroids and planets for minerals and wreck all those planets too comes from, I think.

If you believe that the universe/the earth/the rainforest/etc. is conscious, you are more likely to treat them with respect, because you see them as another being with thoughts, feelings, and their own ideas. It changes the way you interact with the world.

Strictly speaking, pantheism is only the belief that the universe is God, rather than that anything else necessarily has consciousness. But it means you see the universe as alive and interconnected, rather than as dead, empty, and running off ultimately mechanical rules. At least, that's what it's meant for me.
In pursuit of the freedom to make my own responsibilities.
Blogging at https://deathtocomplacency.com

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10659
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #238 on: May 10, 2018, 01:31:23 PM »
This concept has always made more sense intuitively to me than the idea of an external guy somewhere pulling all the switches.  Sadly, there's still a total lack of evidence supporting the concept.

My evidence, such as it is (I don't think this sort of thing is ever 100% knowable), goes something like this: Given that humans have consciousness, and humans are made of the same materials as everything else, it makes more sense to have the default hypothesis be "lots of things in the universe are conscious, especially systems with complexity equal to or greater than the human brain", rather than "humans are somehow special and the only thing with consciousness ever". And the universe is definitely more complex than a single human brain. I know that's not a entirely a definitive argument.

What's your definition of consciousness?  That's a tough question to answer.

A flock of ten thousand birds turning all at once in the wind is an incredibly complex system.  I'm not sure I'd argue that it's conscious though.  A dog's brain is significantly less complex than a human brain, but I'd argue that dogs are conscious.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #239 on: May 10, 2018, 01:32:31 PM »
Yes. And there is a difference between conscious, and self-conscious or "self-awareness" Two different things.

zoltani

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: PNW
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #240 on: May 10, 2018, 05:31:27 PM »
Yes. And there is a difference between conscious, and self-conscious or "self-awareness" Two different things.

Yes, but how do you know animals are not self aware? For example, why do crows morn their dead if they are not self aware?
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1577
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Talking To Flat Earth Friends
« Reply #241 on: May 10, 2018, 05:50:11 PM »
Yes. And there is a difference between conscious, and self-conscious or "self-awareness" Two different things.

Yes, but how do you know animals are not self aware? For example, why do crows morn their dead if they are not self aware?
It's all a gradient. People have a pretty big range in self awareness too... or so I've heard.

So, just to recap: we started by making fun of flat earthers, shifted to comparison of modes of thought between science denial-ism and religious belief, existence of god as a (non-)provable point, and finally ended up at the extent to which we are conscious/self-aware and if the simple act of contemplating the universe itself generates a sliding scale for deity via the concept of pantheism. Correct, no?

I feel we have come full circle in a cul-de-sac. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how self-aware you are if you don't apply a good filter to information. It doesn't matter how great a meat-computer you are if your software is S#!+.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.