So Boerd said
I didn't ask for proof of my existence, I asked for proof of my humanity. Try again.
Why in the world would I bother trying to prove your humanity, when most concepts of humanity are intangible, or not exclusive to the human race?
Even if we're talking specifically "prove you are a human being"... Why? Why should I prove that you are a human being? You are the entity in question, you prove whatever it is you are if you want, or don't, it makes no difference to me. The only thing that matters is that you exist, and you prove it by existing, where as deities do not exist, and prove it by not existing.
Which is the only point I was making.
Grizzle Bear said
What if I told you that upon finding out my God didn't exist, absolutely nothing would change in my day to day life?
Then I'd say you're pretty moral and I have no quarrel with you.
Imperfectionist said
We already went over that, So Boerd, and Brovo answered well. Go look in that post.
To be frank this thread is stoopid big. I don't blame people for not reading.
Imperfectionist said
What I think happened was that I wrote myself into a corner. I rambled way too much to rebut a very simple fallacy, and Brovo used that as an opportunity to show off his cleverness.
Uh oh. Here we go again.
Imperfectionist said
He answered all of the points I cared about in a very satisfactory way, but the rest he seemed to be kind of an asshole about, especially the "answering every question" thing. So, I was torn. One the one hand, I was satisfied, because there had been a satisfactory clarification of his original point. On the other, I was pissed, because the post had an air of elitism and "how could you possible not know these things, you peasant?"
*Pushes up snobby glasses* Advanced role player. It happens.
*Sips tea* Swear I'm not that bad though.
*Sits on throne made out of the skulls of player's hopes and dreams*... No, really.
Imperfectionist said
As too often happens, pissed won out, because the only option for satisfied was "Thank you for clarifying. Goodbye." The problem with that was, despite his cleverness, he still did not convince me on any of the points beyond the statement I made about cosmic intelligence. So, I was pissed and incoherent, I did a bad job of saying things, and I misconstrued legitimate argument as intentional inflammation. I've already apologized for both.Here is an actual rebuttal of each of those points:
Okay. Here goes.
Imperfectionist said
Math - I was unclear. There are lots of different kinds of math, and I was referring to the "math as the language of the universe," not the arbitrary math we use in everyday life. I brought up the golden mean as an example, because we did not create the mean; we discovered it. We have discovered formulae and created mathematical theories that describe the manner in which the universe works, and the point is that those relationships existed before we discovered them. We did not create that kind of math. It's always been there, the underlying order of the universe, just waiting to be expressed.
Yes, and? The universe has rules, we're figuring them out. While quite extraordinary, that's no evidence or prerequisite for a supernatural explanation, leave alone one involving a deity.
Imperfectionist said
As for physics, well, we don't generally discover that is wrong, I mean, much of Newtonian physics is stil followed today, like his stuff on thermodynamics and motion. Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics have said "the laws of thermodynamics are wrong", because... They aren't. They still work. We've always been moving towards getting the biggest possible picture, and we may have rejected some of Newton in favor of the two new kids in town, but not all of it. And math will always be there, waiting for us to catch up.
Alright. Okay. I agree. I don't think I ever disagreed with this.
Imperfectionist said
Math being different in other dimensions - Again, I should have been more clear on the kind of math I meant. Arbitrary number systems =/= math in its entirety, I'm sorry for not clarifying. What I should have said was, "Is the speed of light different in other dimensions?" or "Does relativity apply in other universes?" In a nutshell, are we truly unique, here in our expanding bubble, or is there a grand order that spans all possible aspects of existence? I don't really have an answer for this one, it's kind of high concept, and obviously there's not yet any method of traveling to other dimensions to test such things. I'm just indulging myself.
Well as I said before, we can't ever prove other dimensions exist or do not exist under the premise that they're beyond our physical realm, so... I guess your interpretation of how time works would imply whether or not there are other universes, but until such a thing can be physically proven, through skepticism, I'll go with "no".
Imperfectionist said
Existence of other dimensions - Pretty straightforward, though to me, if you can't prove it one way or the other, that's all that I think should be said. We will eventually prove it one way or the other, and until then we just whether they exist or whether they influence our own dimension or universe in any meaningful way. :) So, semantics aside, we're basically on the same page.
There's no evidence they exist, either, so until there is some, I don't believe they exist.
It'd be fascinating if they did, but until there's evidence... Ehhh'...
Imperfectionist said
Is there truly any past or future? - You say yes, and my only rebuttal is the fallibility of memory and the imperfection of prediction. With your utilitarian view, it probably doesn't matter whether they are actually real or not, because as we perceive them they are useful tools for living as best we can and not going insane. Fair enough. Just because the universe have only been created last week, it doesn't mean that really matters all that much in the grand scheme. I can dig it. If that is not what you would argue, please let me know.
Sure... Kinda? Because, yes, Solipsism is a thing, and it's not entirely unreasonable considering, again, if you go far enough into the philosophical rabbit hole, you really can't prove anything is real beyond your own mind. However, back to my core principle: Skepticism. If the universe was created last week, I have no physical evidence to prove that, and a mountain of evidence against that (ex: carbon dating), so... I don't believe it to be true. Now could I be wrong? Certainly, I could also be wrong about kobolds with their cute little shovels and candle-obsessed ways, but as it stands... No evidence, so I don't believe it.
Now to take a quick break from answering to explain why we can't see eye to eye on the same topics, even if we see the same evidence.
See what we have here is a plain difference in how to view the universe and it's why we clash. You view it as possibility: If it might exist, and it seems plausible, then you can't say it isn't real. I view the universe under the scope of pure skepticism, I don't use faith in general: If there's no evidence for it, I don't believe it exists, even if I know that, as a theory or concept, it's plausible in some manner.
However, if something does have a plausible theory (ex: the Earth is round), and I have methods by which to verify that theory (ex: Travel the globe, take pictures from space, measure the circumference using shadows on a sun dial, etc), I can test it. If I can test it, I can see if it holds true or not. If it holds true after a repeated battery of tests, take it to peer review. If it survives the gauntlet of peer review, it's a scientific theory. If it's a scientific theory, then it's the closest we have to the truth of how the universe functions, and I believe it confidently until something comes along to disprove it or change it..
So when you say something like "doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things" based on a
possible scenario (ex: universe created last week), my answer is "well it does matter, because I can't verify the claim, there's no evidence put forth for it, so..."
It's not that I'm trying to disprove your interpretation of the universe. It's more that I'm trying to show my interpretation of the universe doesn't use faith anywhere, it uses reason, and fact, and sometimes the facts can be wrong, or misinterpreted, but I don't take that as a bad thing--I think it's a good thing. It means whatever I thought I knew was wrong, and I can learn something that is more likely the truth instead of the error I once knew.
Essentially: What I
can agree on is the idea that a deity
might exist, or elves
might exist, or planet X
might exist, or alternate universes
might exist...
However, they are all on the same shelf of being unverifiable claims. Which means that, as it stands, I have to reject them all under the same principle that I reject Santa Claus and the Philosopher's Stone.
HOWEVER! I don't judge people for believing in these things. What a person believes is... Ultimately... Irrelevant, to who they are. So if someone believes that the universe is the byproduct of a child's imagination, but is otherwise a good person who donates to charity and is kind to his neighbours and so on... I will treat them as being a good person who donates to charity and is kind to his neighbours: With respect, and admiration, even if I think his belief about the origins and state of the universe is silly.
That should... Maybe make things clearer in a less "asshole"-ish way, right? Because I'm serious I do have a hard time reading tone in text.
Imperfectionist said
What time, and why does it exist? - Hmm. Again with the "arbitrary creation by humans" thing. Again, I was unclear, and I apologize. Just as a side-thought, though, in the imperial system the idea is that things are measured in real-world terms, and they were eventually morphed into standard measurements. The "foot" is about the length of a human foot. The "yard" is about the length of a stride or pace, three feet. Miles and inches and the like, though, I have no idea. Overall, I agree that metric is probably better for things like measuring distances between places, or large things like buildings or what have you, but on very specific, mostly human-scale measurements (height, for one), centimeters have never cut it for me. I love feet and inches. Anyway, sorry, that's a tangent.
That's fine.
I like Metric just because multiples of ten make everything much simpler, but, hey, Imperial has worked for centuries, I still give out height and weight in feet, inches, and pounds, so. Can't totally knock it.
Imperfectionist said
You gave a small, half a sentence analysis on the time I wanted to refer to, and you said that it exists beyond flawed human measurements... Which is just what I'm going to say as well. Time is a force that gives form to space, one cannot meaningfully exist without the other, and to me it smacks of some kind of grand natural order to the universe, even if it isn't an intelligence in the traditional sense. A creation force, a force of order that generated space and time and determined the speed of light and the Fibonacci sequence, and the relationships between the elements, all of that. It isn't too far-fetched, I think, and before you start, it also has nothing to do with the patriarchal Abrahamic God. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a possibly unintelligent , some kind of cosmic power that's embodied by these things. Maybe it has consciousness, maybe it doesn't... But is it more likely than spontaneity? I will wager yes. Does it matter, in a utilitarian sense? No, but at the very least it's an interesting thought.
Ah, and here again, the different world views come plain into the light. You see some form of intelligence or order where I see a mystery. I don't know why the universe operates the way it does. It's intriguing, but then, the universe to me looks more like a set or series of fundamental laws that, individually, are pretty simple, and wouldn't require some extraordinary, supernatural force to create. Yet, as you mix more and more of them, they allow greater complexities to arise, which creates more laws that are bound to the current fundamentals in play, and how much each one is influencing it. So for example, the universe is always expanding from its centre point--where scientists think the big bang occurred--which means energy, matter, and so on, is being eternally stretched thinner and thinner. Eventually we'll reach null point, that is, everything that exists,
decays.
For example: Gravity as a concept is pretty simple. The more mass something has, the greater its attraction to other mass is, and the greater the force required to cause momentum. It's the difference between kicking a paper bag, and a brick. The brick is probably smaller, but has greater mass, so it requires a significant amount more energy to propel it anywhere than the paper bag does, which might get picked up in the wind before you can even kick it and sent off to choke a penguin somewhere.
Yet, take a look at that example. If you kick the brick and the paper bag, they'll probably only go about the same distance (assuming you have a reasonable amount of strength), and the greater the amount of strength you use, the further the brick will go in comparison to the bag. Why? Oh, other factors, like air resistance, terminal velocity, and so on. Suddenly it's not nearly so simple as "the heavier it is, the more force is required to move it". I mean, yes, it's true: It's much easier to move the paper bag than the brick, but additional force above and beyond what is necessary has a greater effect on the brick than the paper bag.
And this is just kicking a brick and a paper bag. The rest of the universe is immeasurable more complex than this and we've had a meagre five... Six... Seven thousand thousand years or so to figure it out really, the vast majority of that time spent by people attempting to enforce one world view or another as being universal truth. (True "science" as we know it hadn't really flourished until the enlightenment period.)
So I don't claim to know things like why gravity works the way it does, or why the universe exists. If anything, that's beyond the realm of science to figure out and science doesn't try to figure that out--science figures out the what of things, and the how, not the why. To me, though, in absence of any evidence of a supernatural reason for life or the universe or otherwise, I hold by a simple principle: The purpose to life, is to find the purpose to your life. Whether that's searching for the answer for why we're here, or searching for innumerable truths, or creating art, or helping your fellow human beings, or animals... To find what gives your life meaning and then pursuing it. That is the purpose of life. No matter if that purpose is ruling a country or playing
every video game that has ever been released! Whatever goals you have, pursue them, endlessly, tirelessly, until you accomplish that which you want most out of life.
That way, regardless of whether there is or is not an afterlife or rebirth or otherwise... When you are on your death bed, and you are staring at the white ceiling, your vision fading you, you'll look back on all of your conquests, failures, victories. All of your friends, family, lovers, pets, adventures... Your happiest moments, most sorrowful moments, and you will die knowing you did what you loved most out of life, instead of dying realizing that you spent your whole life worrying about what happens after it's gone.
Still. Talk about tangential ranting.
Grizzle Bear said
Morality is rather subjective. People can and have spent lifetimes arguing over what is and isn't morally just. I'll put it this way though, I do not need religion to be a good person. I do need it to be the best person I can be.
Eh'. If it helps you, good, I suppose. I've found skepticism has been a good enough methodology to form the basis of a good morality, but hey, so long as you're a good person, and you don't want to shove religion into science class rooms, I'm not much for caring what it is you believe, whether that's in a god or a spaghetti monster or nothing at all.
*Has no argument really, because I have nothing against this position*
Grizzle Bear said
Fair enough, it's a long thread and I admit I only skimmed bits of it. Personally I believe there is a hole more to the atheism vs religion discussion than does or doesn't God exist. But if that's all just rehashing the same old junk for you guys, my apologies.
Well, eh'. Mostly it is just whether or not you believe god does nor does not exist. The discussion has evolved over time to include several other arguments, like evolution vs creationism and whether or not you can be moral without religion/god and philosophy and so on. At the end of the day though being atheist does not mean you also believe in evolution, nor does it mean you believe in subjective morality, or otherwise. (Though it may make you more predisposed to believing these things due to most atheists coming from rational skepticism prevailing over faith.)
At the end of the day, though, atheism is just not believing any deity exists. Technically you could be a Buddhist atheist, as there are sects of Buddhism that do not have any gods at all. Most nowadays use it in place of Freethought--which is the idea that I tend to follow: Unless you can physically prove it exists, you can't know it exists, so it probably doesn't. The amount of evidence required is also comparative to the "fantastical" quality of the claim: I can easily believe you have a friend named Susie due to there being many people and pets named Susie, so statistically, odds are good that you've met at least one thing in your life named Susie. Now if you claimed Susie has pyromania powers, or Susie could read my thoughts... That's a more fantastical claim, and requires more fantastical evidence as a result. Logical, right?
It's also why you find some of the more "upper tier" atheist blogs, channels, podcasts, and so on, tend to also call themselves "freethought" or "free thought". They're aware of the history of their movement and show it to those who also know it with a mere two words.