#270590 - 29/11/2005 06:15
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
That is something that can be tested. It can be proved or disproved.
OK, then under your bed. That's something I can't test. (But yes, the analogy was not very appropriate; FSM would serve better).
Quote:
The unseen branch thing
Not quite; I have personally experienced many branches and got credible accounts on lots of others. If I were to draw a very precise, to molecular level, picture of a branch and asked myself whether it exists, the answer would be "probably not, but similar ones do".
Quote:
Besides, if you took a worldwide poll asking people if they believe in some sort of higher being, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. I would say that counts as a "clue of its exitence".
Countless different, incompatible and mutually exclusive higher beings, some being forgotten, others invented. This tells about humans and their desire for simple explanation of the world, for hope and comfort, or for cunning use of those needs in others in order to controll them; it tells me nothing about Universe. As you pointed out quite eloquently later in your post, cosmological questions are not decided by vote.
Quote:
By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Oh, prety high, judging by very crude experiments on formation of organic molecules. Probability of evolution taking exactly the road it has or any other particular one is close to zero: little green men in Andromeda galaxy have little reason to believe that exactly these two chaps mentioning them in their argument exist (but we do, as you will be quick to point out).
Quote:
... the people that lived before us appear to have been more and more dumb.
On the contrary, they (say, from Cro-Manon onward, that is Homo Sapiens, not other Homo species) were every bit as ingenious as we are; perhaps even a bit more so, because with development of civilization evolutionary pressure weakens.
Quote:
Flatland and '2001: Space Odyssey' argument
Exactly. I think you are making my argument here. All "gods" I am hearing about are ridiculously anthropomorphic: two-dimensional beings describing two-dimensional gods; Arthur Clarke (in "Lost worlds of 2001" - bits and pieces that Kubrick rejected) describing civilization that gave us a push millions of years ago in full detail, completely with kids with toy ray-guns.*
You will find in my other posts on this topic (while the horse still kind of moved) that I am not dismissing in principle the idea of the Universe being created, or tuned. It is just that we cannot know anything about it**, so that postulating any particular scenario is completely arbitrary and irrelevant. While I cannot know our Universe wasn't created in the way Benford's Cosm or Brin's Earth describes, I could safely bet my life on it. (Actually, acording to most of today's prevalent religions, by choosing not to adopt "just in case" attitude towards existence of their gods I am betting my ethernal life, am I not?)
Cheers!
*) BTW, reading this was a major disappointment; Clarke completely missed the idea; obviously, the movie was more or less completely Kubrick's work.
**) Even if we found something like the image in Pi (from Sagan's Contact), it would still not be the proof of the Universe being created. Pi has infinite nmber of digits, so 'infinite number of mokeys' argument applies. But, of course, by 'we' I mean hunams as we are here and now. A million years from now, who knows?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270591 - 29/11/2005 07:50
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
veteran
Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Quote:
Besides, if you took a worldwide poll asking people if they believe in some sort of higher being, the result would be overwhelmingly in favor of it. I would say that counts as a "clue of its exitence".
Considering all the research showing the psyclological and cultural need for humans to have some "greater power" to believe in as a safety blanket, I would take it as a very strong inventive to critically investigate any claims of existence of such an entity. Millions of people desperately wanting to believe something doesn't make it true. Millions of people also believed the earth was flat (and probably still do).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270592 - 29/11/2005 08:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 20/07/1999
Posts: 1102
Loc: UK
|
Quote:
By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Based on the available sample size, I'd have to go for odds of 100% 
pca
_________________________
Experience is what you get just after it would have helped...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270593 - 29/11/2005 20:56
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
I've been meaning to answer this particular post: Quote:
I notice that both you (Jeff) and Brad essentially base your claim that your God (Gods?) is correct on the fact that you feel that your version is right. I guess I just don't understand how either one of you can base your life on an assumption. I mean, there are certain things that I feel are inherent to my being, things that I feel that don't have any particular basis in rational thought, like an aversion to spiders or the desire to not kill or the desire to argue, etc. But I don't see these things as having been created by a supreme being (that is, I don't feel the necessity to anthropomorphize these feelings) but I just see them as parts of my personality as filtered through both evolution and experience.
Hmm. Do you view your personalities as having been created by God?
I think that you've gone down a pretty logical path toward the way I think about faith. We all make certain assumptions based on our experiences, but we don't know anything for sure. If we were properly skeptical about everything we didn't have absolute proof of, we'd end up like that guy in Hitchhiker's who is reduced to inactivity because he can't be sure if his recollection of what a pen or cat is is reliable.
We base our lives on assumptions all the time. We assume that everything we remember experiencing up until this point in time has really happened to us, we assume that the universe reacts the same way when given the same stimuli- it's those assumptions that allow us to operate reasonably. Do we know that nightfall will come tonight or the sun will rise again in the morning? Our science and recollections tell us so, but those could be faulty (Dark City, anyone?)
What we each try to do is make what we believe are the most reasonable assumptions based on what we've seen and experienced, and then base our lives on those things. Faith is one of those things for me.
And yes, I believe a large part of my personality is created by God. I also believe He sometimes uses events of this world to do it.
I suppose my return question would be, why follow things like a desire not to kill if it is only an evolutionary instinct? Not that I am trying to encourage that, but if given a situation where you could be sure of not being caught (no penalty for the act) where the positive benifit to you would outweigh your instictive feelings on the matter, would you commit murder then (and I mean murder, not self defense or anything like that)? Or is the instinct that strong that you are beholden to it even to your own detriment?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270594 - 29/11/2005 21:30
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Or is the instinct that strong that you are beholden to it even to your own detriment?
For me, yes, absolutely. I can't imagine what it would take for me to kill something bigger than a fly, and even that takes a good amount of persuasion on my non-instinctive part. (And, yes, I am a complete hypocrite when it comes to meat.) That doesn't mean that those situations don't exist, only that I have not encountered them yet.
And it not only supersedes my personal wellbeing, but the wellbeing of others. Like those who I genuinely believe would be better off dead and support euthanasia for; I don't think I could ever pull the plug. I was part of putting a cat to sleep about two years ago and I'm still not over it: not the loss -- I all but hated that cat -- maybe the loss to Teri, but definitely the fact that I was part of choosing to kill it. I know that the cat was in terrible pain, but I still feel pain from choosing to kill it. I can't kill mice that our cats toy with, despite the fact that they're in so much pain. It's definitely an integral part of my being.
I think that other people have that instinct much less than I do. I think that it's a sliding variable that ends with psychopathic killers. (I also think that there are others at that point on the scale who don't have the initial desire to kill, but are equally psychopathic. I think a lot of politicians and other successful ambitious people fit that description.)
That said, is the worry of sinning (and earthly punishment) the only thing that prevents you from killing to your benefit?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270595 - 30/11/2005 02:09
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Grrr... I hate that!  I usually do a quick Select All/Copy of the text box before hitting submit now. I've been burned like that too many times!
I saw Tom's note about downrevving the board software. That was the only time I got bit.
Quote:
Patiently waiting for reply.
Hokay.
Quote:
You thrive on this stuff don't you?
Well, my fixation with such stuff on the BBS may appear little out of balance. It would not be proper or reasonable to raise some issues like this in a work environment. Friends? Well, they all agree with me, so what's the fun in posing this type of question to them? If I went door-to-door on a Saturday morning asking complete strangers about stuff like this, I couldn't live with myself. But on the BBS you can pose all sorts of opinions, hare-brained ideas and expect that people of many different viewpoints will offer responses that don't involve spitting, gunfire, or putting flaming bags of dog poop on your front steps. Unique, eh?
Quote:
To start off, I guess I disagree with a premise or two that this conversation is started on. First of all, just because someone thinks they know the "message" loud and clear does not in any way mean that they are correct. My wife can attest to this! So, despite the fact these guys are 100% sure "their God" hates homosexuals, that doesn't mean there isn't a huge "communication" problem here.
I think I said it before: three cheers for people in authority who aren't 100% sure what their god thinks. That being said, if a deity is capable (in theory) of creating the whole universe, suns, planets, continents, rivers, beaches, fossils, mitochondria, and can even set the wheels in motion to bring us musicals like "Mamma Mia" then that is pretty friggen' omnipotent. I would expect him/her/it to have plenty of spare cycles left for getting their message across. If WBC is 100% sure, maybe they just happen to be the only people whose transmission was not borken by sunspots (hmmm, sunspots, you'd think He would have his crew work on those).
Quote:
In fact, I'm not aware of the Christian God hating any group of people. Certain behaviors like homosexuality and me not honoring my mother and father might be frowned upon, but nothing to the point of hatred.
If (looking down the page) we just go with the notion that there is one god who has been adopted as the Christian God -- and it is the same Christian God who has been around for many years -- then it would seem like at various times his adherents were pretty damn sure he hated *lots* of different people. Enough to burn plenty of them at the stake, draw and quarter them, stuff like that.
It is my impression that it is your *desire* that the Christian God be of a type that it would not be an unreasonable hater. I'm just not sure what evidence you have for that that trumps the WBC types.
edit: it occurred to me whilst pedaling to work that using the term "desire" could be be interpreted to mean "desire to believe", meaning that you want to believe something (but maybe really don't). I don't want to say that you don't believe something. Not for me to say. How about I translate this something closer to "choose to believe"?
Quote:
More importantly however, I don't buy into the whole "my God" vs. "your God" thing. I don't think there is a Lutheran God, a Catholic God and a W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zt Church God. I'd even go so far as to say I don't believe in a Jewish God, a Christian God and a Islamic God. I believe that there is just one God and there happens to be ton of different interpretations of God. And many of those differences in interpretation happen to be driven by politics rather than idiology. (Does anyone really think the "Protestant vs. Catholic" conflict in Ireland was driven by hatred over Vatican control?)
The notion of "One God, many interpretations" seems like a pretty recent one. Is this liberal ecumenicalism? Among other things, it means the priest, the mullah and the rabbi can all go to the same pancake breakfast and make nice. This is no small thing and wasn't always so. I would say that ecumenicalistic acceptance of other faith beats the living pants off of theological blood feuds and mass murder.
So, three cheers for "One God, just many interpretations." But what makes it true?
Quote:
I've found that most Christians that I've talked to believe this as well. That Muslims, Jews and Christians are all praying to the same God. We just have very differant interpretations of God.
I think I was maybe 14 or 15 when I concluded that I was an atheist. My leap from the decks of the Ark of the Vatican was probably hastened by those scurrilous Jesuits who, in the interests of liberal ecumenicalism, brought a Buddhist monk into our Freshman religion class so we could get a dose of "One God, many interpretations". I thought "That's nice, but if everybody is saying how anybody's interpretation is just as good as the next guys -- yet they are all so different -- that doesn't lend much credence to any of them".
The monk shouldn't blame himself. I was going to jump anyway.
Quote:
So when I come across some group like your W3ztb0r0 B4pt1zts, I rarely ever try to understand them from a theological viewpoint. I know enough about Christianity to know their hatred must be rooted in something else. Their problem is very much rooted in a communication breakdown and is driven, IMO, by something unrelated.
Had I spit at them or abused them in some way, I truly think they would have been thrilled. My my, how some people get their jollies. And while I'd like to think that any supreme being (if one day I am surprised to find that one exists) would not be such an asshole as to sponsor that bunch of jerks, I still have to ask, wishful thinking aside, how do we *know* they are tuned to the wrong station, god-wise?
Quote:
The same could be said for the suicide bombers in Islam. They pray to the same God as more peace loving Muslims, but they are being driven by an outside force (politics, what have you) and are being exploited by people that feed off of that hatred in order to gain power.
I agree that many other things other than straight theological principle feeds the actions of people we consider extreme. I mean, look at Jimmy Swaggert. Does that dude have some bad juju goin' on or *what*?
More to your point, I guess you could say that one reason reason I brought WBC zealots up is that, I think, they are a small domestic representation of the issue without getting into the politics of jihad, radical Islamists all that (and without mentioning Nazis, abortion, or Bush).
Quote:
So, like I said, rather than look at this in a theological way, I tend to look at it in a psyological or sociological way. Most homophobes I know have severe insecurities. I bet their wives can attest to that.
They almost never post, but just lurk here 
Edited by jimhogan (30/11/2005 13:52)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270596 - 30/11/2005 05:01
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is infinity of possible gods ... they are mutualy exclusive ... probability for any given particular god to be the one is approaching zero. Therefore, I assume it is zero.
There is an infinite number of outcomes for what will happen tomorrow on planet Earth. The probability of any given outcome actually occuring is also approaching zero. If you assume that it is zero, then that means no outcome for tomorrow exists, and sometime between now and tomorrow will be the end of the world.
Just because the probability of any particular outcome happening is effectively zero, you cannot say, therefore, that there will be no outcome. The end of the world's existance is only a single outcome of the infinitely possible outcomes. There are far more outcomes that do not involve the end of the world, so, while the probability of any particular outcome happening is near zero, the probability of the earth continuing to exist is actually significantly high (1 - the sum of the probabilities of events happening which cause the end of the world).
What I understood bonzi to be saying when he says "I assume it is zero", is that he assumes the probability of any particular god is zero, so he's not going to believe that the Christian god exists, nor is he going to believe that the Islamic god exists, nor is he going to believe that the Greek pantheon exists.
Similarly, he's not going to believe in any particular outcome of what will happen on Earth tomorrow, because any single outcome of the infinite outcomes has an effectively-zero probability of happening. However, he probably will believe that the earth will continue to exist.
Quote:
Assuming that God doesn´t exist is just having a closed mind.
No more so than assuming that God does exist. Further, either of those assumptions may have been arrived at through a quite open-minded investigation.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270597 - 30/11/2005 11:32
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
You´re using fuzzy math.
Damn, where did I put my theological trigonometry book? I keep losing these things.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270598 - 30/11/2005 13:12
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
My leap from the decks of the Ark of the Vatican was probably hastened by those scurrilous Jesuits who, in the interests of liberal ecumenicalism, brought a Buddhist monk into our Freshman religion class so we could get a dose of "One God, many interpretations".
Notably, Buddhists don't believe in a god. Well, they may believe in some supernatural beings, but none of them fill the role we traditionally ascribe to a god: creator of the universe, etc.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270599 - 30/11/2005 14:00
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Notably, Buddhists don't believe in a god. Well, they may believe in some supernatural beings, but none of them fill the role we traditionally ascribe to a god: creator of the universe, etc.
That was part of the Jesuits' evil genius, I think. We had at least one other monk/priest of some sort, IIRC, but it's that guy's robes that stuck in my mind!
So, 14 years old and I'm probably thinking "So you can have this *huge* religion with no real God of note". For a brief while I think I considered that to be a cool, low-impact alternative. Ditto Unitarianism. But then I decided that the whole mess was just completely arbitrary and figured there were better things to do on Sunday mornings.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270600 - 30/11/2005 14:13
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The notion of "One God, many interpretations" seems like a pretty recent one. Is this liberal ecumenicalism?
Sometimes, sometimes not. It really depends on the perspective of the person making the statement and what he or she means by "One God" or the "Same God".
A liberal interpretation would take the standpoint that there are many roads to God and as long as you follow a reasonable one sincerely then you'll do OK. I think this is a popular notion today, but it really doesn't float for me. It only really works if you boil each religious system down to a set of rules to appease God, and while that might be a popular understanding of religion in general, it isn't consistent with very many of them- especially Christianity.
However, "Same God" terminology might not mean that all systems are viewed equally. Rather it can mean that various religious traditions share a common root but on key points they differ. A prime example of this would be Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christianity believes that Judaism had the truth but didn't accept the Savior when He came and died of our sins. We both, however, believe in the "Same God" of the Old Testament. Muslims believe in same God as well and accept Jesus as a prophet, not Savior. So what you have is a sense that all three religions believe in the "Same God" because they share common text that they all agree upon, however each ascribes some different characteristics to that God. In this sense (and really, I believe, the most important sense), these faiths do not share the “Same God”.
Really for me it comes down to a matter of semantics. There are Christians who will never agree that Muslims worship the same God, and those who insist we do. For me it's kind of a moot point since we disagree on the most important aspect- Christ as Savior. We can use whatever terminology we like, but on that point the two religions are irreconcilable.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270601 - 30/11/2005 14:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
That said, is the worry of sinning (and earthly punishment) the only thing that prevents you from killing to your benefit?
You know, I'm not sure, really. I can say for certainty that there are lesser sins that I've not committed only because of my faith. Like you, I have a strong adversity to killing. Even killing bugs makes me uncomfortable.
I think, though, that if I had no faith and were faced with such a situation, not committing the murder would be an irrational act, even if I might not do it on the basis of instinct. At that point I'd have to evaluate why I adhere to my instincts so greatly without a rational reason to do so. Without faith, the only rational acts are those that make my life better and bring me happiness. Acts that put others ahead of myself are not rational- while they might bring greater happiness into the world, what is my motivation for doing that except for the instinctive rewards that make me feel good when I make others happy?
I think that were I not a person of faith then I would likely start with some of my smaller instincts that don't directly benefit me and try to overcome them. If you assume that evolution is responsible for a lot of our instincts (rather than being put there by God), then it makes little personal sense to adhere to them and put the greater good ahead of yourself.
And before you write this off as crazy, I think a lot of people do exactly what I’m suggesting. They won’t jump right to murder, but they’ll start eroding their instincts (God or evolution given) to the point they don’t feel badly anymore even when they act badly. Given enough time it seems we are capable of just about anything. For me, faith is what keeps me from even trying to overcome even the smallest instinctive moral reactions. I pray and work very hard at being the person God created me to be, because it is right and good and I want to be that person.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270602 - 30/11/2005 14:51
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I don't expect people intentionally erode their instincts, though. I mean, there are people who will work to fix their fear of spiders or flying or whatever, but I don't think there are people out there who intentionally work themselves up to killing people. Well, outside the military. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen as a result of something else. I can certainly believe that there are petty criminals who slowly work up to being murderers as their qualms wear away. But (and I'm probably wrong) I read what you said as someone doing it intentionally.
There are definite frequent benefits to overcoming some of those instincts, whereas I can't see the frequent benefits of overcoming the aversion to killing that would come at a point where you hadn't already overcome it, unless you're in the mob or the military.
What I'm getting at is that I don't see a reason that someone would start down that road. Their instincts would tell them not to, unless those instincts aren't there to begin with, in which case no "progress" is necessary.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270603 - 30/11/2005 15:52
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
But (and I'm probably wrong) I read what you said as someone doing it intentionally.
Right and wrong- what I'm saying is that people do it unintentionally all the time. For me personally thought, if I didn't have faith to hold me to my instincts I would probably try to work to overcome a lot of them. I doubt I'd ever make it up to murder because my instincts are too strong. However, I'd view that as irrational, even if I couldn't do it. Of course, this is completely hypothetical. I can't imagine myself being that person because it is so different than who I am. The only thing I know for certain is that my faith (for the most part) keeps me from knowingly allowing the errosion of even the smallest of moral instints.
Quote:
What I'm getting at is that I don't see a reason that someone would start down that road.
If a person logically evaluates that a life lived without the constraints of moral instinct would be more rewarding, that would certainy be a reason to start down that road.
This whole concept would make an interesting idea for a novel or movie, don't you think? Someone intentionally trying to errode away their moral instincts to make for a better, more self serving life?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270604 - 30/11/2005 16:16
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Actually, that does sound like an interesting idea for a movie. Maybe we could get David Fincher to direct.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270605 - 30/11/2005 22:02
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: ]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/07/1999
Posts: 5543
Loc: Ajijic, Mexico
|
Billy -- You have redeemed youself with this post. I actually was half way through it and had to scroll back to the top to verify that it really was you. That said... By the way, what are the odds of life forming and evolving on Earth after the Big Bang? Pretty close to zero I imagine.
Let's arbitrarily postulate that the odds against life forming and evolving are, oh, pick a number: say 800 trillion to one against. That's a one in 800,000,000,000,000 chance. Pretty slim odds, wouldn't you say? Well, there are by recent estimates about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. If one in every 800 trillion of those stars had life forming and evolving, that would leave about one and a quarter billion places where it happened. And wherever it happened would be "here" to the beings involved, and they would wonder if the odds favored it happening anywhere else. People from 1,000 years ago were simple minded, and those from 10,000 years ago even moreso.Absolutely not so!. In terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, they were every bit as smart as we are. I guarantee you that there were people a thousand yeares ago that would put your intellect to shame. (This is not meant as a slam -- they would shame me too.) The difference is, of course, that we "modern" humans have a much larger storehouse of knowledge (knowledge contributed in great measure by those "simple minded" people you disparage) upon which to base our reasoning. Sir Isaac Newton said it best when he said, "If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants." tanstaafl.
_________________________
"There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270606 - 01/12/2005 11:33
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: tanstaafl.]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I don´t have time to respond to everyone, but I just wanted to say a couple things.
Quote:
In terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, they were every bit as smart as we are. ...there were people a thousand yeares ago that would put your intellect to shame. (This is not meant as a slam -- they would shame me too.) The difference is, of course, that we "modern" humans have a much larger storehouse of knowledge ... upon which to base our reasoning.
I agree. I was also thinking along the same lines and even the Newton quote came to mind when I wrote that. I guess my point was that we don´t know everything there is to know, particularly about our existence, and future generations will view us as simple and unknowledgable. So even brilliant people shouldn´t be so sure about what they ´know´.
It´s interesting though how out of all of the species on earth, humans are the only ones that consistently increase their knowledge through each generation. And at this rate, sooner or later, humans will know everything there is to know, assuming that the universe is finite. And it´s interesting to note that how in the Bible, Adam and Eve ate from the garden of knowledge, and the snake told them that they would become like God and that they would know everything that God knows. We are also the only creatures on Earth that appear to worship a god, and the only ones to be ashmed of nudity.
Quote:
If one in every 800 trillion of those stars had life forming and evolving, that would leave about one and a quarter billion places where it happened.
So if we can assume that we live on one of 1.25 billion inhabited planets, then we can also assume that it´s a 1 in 1.25 billion chance that we are the most advanced life form. That´s pretty slim odds, so chances are there are creatures much more intelligent than us, which might mean they could teach us about our existence as well as we could teach a dog how an internal combustion engine works.
But, like you pointed out, there´s a difference between intelligence and knowledge. So perhaps these super intelligent creatures don´t possess the uniquely-human ability to build upon knowledge from generation to generation.
They say there´s a very small difference (like 2% difference I believe), between the chimpanzee brain and the human brain. I wonder if a human who lived in isolation from other humans his whole life (therefore not gaining any handed-down knowledge) would be any smarter than a chimpanzee. And this is the main reason why I think the disappointing books and movies about Tarzan are so damned unrealistic.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270607 - 01/12/2005 21:36
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Le Mouton enragé touches somewhat on that theme.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270608 - 01/12/2005 22:54
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I suppose Crime and Punishment does, too, somewhat. Sounds like an interesting movie, though.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#270609 - 02/12/2005 02:49
Re: Their god less valid?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I suppose Crime and Punishment does, too, somewhat.
I actually thought of that right after I posted.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index