The Universe ???

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:09:44 -0500, Davoud wrote:

"Guiding..." "generally offers..." IOW, what I said. Skeptics have
their reasons for doubting the existence of deities, but the fact
remains that no one knows whether one or more deities exist. I've
always thought that deism is a reasonable compromise. In practical
terms it says that an omnipotent god set it all in motion and then took
off for parts unknown.

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

It's like arguing the "compromise" position that unicorns used to
exist, but don't anymore, which is why we don't see them but they
still show up in old tales.

The best that deism offers is the ability for those who irrationally
cling to a need for a creator to make that claim without making any
religious claims- important given that every religion presents as
truth a great deal of material which is objectively false.

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:55:53 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:09:44 -0500, Davoud wrote:

"Guiding..." "generally offers..." IOW, what I said. Skeptics have
their reasons for doubting the existence of deities, but the fact
remains that no one knows whether one or more deities exist. I've
always thought that deism is a reasonable compromise. In practical
terms it says that an omnipotent god set it all in motion and then took
off for parts unknown.

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

It's like arguing the "compromise" position that unicorns used to
exist, but don't anymore, which is why we don't see them but they
still show up in old tales.

The best that deism offers is the ability for those who irrationally
cling to a need for a creator to make that claim without making any
religious claims- important given that every religion presents as
truth a great deal of material which is objectively false.

You have made a cistern out of your own head which is fine if all you want to do is console yourself but generally people are moved by the same spirit that makes them enjoy music,nature or just looking out at the stars and moon.

You unfortunate people, for all your concentration on magnification , have filled your heads with so much inherited voodoo and meaningless junk that you have lost the ability to put observations and experiences in context of the most basic motions such as the daily and orbital motions of the Earth.

The Universe is filled with a spirit that resonates with people who can be moved to think and act in accordance with it presence.

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Christian text

It is not that none of you can let those words in but rather you manage, for whatever reasons, to keep them out. Inspiration or in-spirit is the power to elevate ,sooth or bring joy to existence and it ain't going to be done by chanting voodoo back by a bit of magnification with a bit of take-my-word-for-it attitude .

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 11:55:53 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

I will agree that deism is not made necessary as a compromise.

I can't prove that unicorns never existed, but I see no reason to consider the
possibility that they might; it's fairly clear they are nothing more than a
legend.

Why is it any more difficult to dismiss God in the same way?

Well, while the supernatural claims of religion themselves may be, obviously
enough, just ancient superstitions, and children's stories, then manipulated by
people with an agenda of control... religion still responds to a real human
need.

Thus, rejecting religion may need to be examined, to be sure we're not throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.

One standard reply might be, oh yes, religion responds to a real human need -
our fear of our own mortality. But since we do actually die, there's nothing to
be done about that, there's no way to fill that "need".

I think there are other things involved.

There is a lot of injustice in the world. So people hope for justice to be
meted out in the afterlife. But, as well, the authoritative commands of God are
a standard of right and wrong that applies to all men, high or low, and thus
the meek and poor are given a hope of justice from them.

So I think there _is_ a need to have an objective standard of right and wrong
that is superior to man-made laws. Because those might follow the wrong Golden
Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" (I recall this from the comic
strip The Wizard of Id, but it may have predated that.).

And it's all well and good to say that we're electrochemical machines bound by
the laws of physics; but those laws don't even point to a direction to explore
to explain the phenomenon of *consciousness*. And consciousness is not an
illusion - because were consciousness not real, then there would be no one
present to experience the illusion of consciousness or anything else at all.

Something is going on that corresponds, at least in some small part, to the
traditional ideas of the supernatural. What we know of matter or energy, on the
one hand, or of mathematics on the other hand, doesn't even come close to
including a phenomenon like our awareness of being and experience.

We're here. We're real. We *matter*, and how we treat each other matters.

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass. Is it even useful to note
this? Have we anything in our reasoning equipment for such thoughts to lead
anywhere but to a revival of superstition?

Well, the ancient Greek philosophers tried to have a stab at this sort of stuff.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 11:55:53 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

I will agree that deism is not made necessary as a compromise.

I can't prove that unicorns never existed, but I see no reason to consider the
possibility that they might; it's fairly clear they are nothing more than a
legend.

Why is it any more difficult to dismiss God in the same way?

Well, while the supernatural claims of religion themselves may be, obviously
enough, just ancient superstitions, and children's stories, then manipulated by
people with an agenda of control... religion still responds to a real human
need.

Thus, rejecting religion may need to be examined, to be sure we're not throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.

One standard reply might be, oh yes, religion responds to a real human need -
our fear of our own mortality. But since we do actually die, there's nothing to
be done about that, there's no way to fill that "need".

I think there are other things involved.

There is a lot of injustice in the world. So people hope for justice to be
meted out in the afterlife. But, as well, the authoritative commands of God are
a standard of right and wrong that applies to all men, high or low, and thus
the meek and poor are given a hope of justice from them.

So I think there _is_ a need to have an objective standard of right and wrong
that is superior to man-made laws. Because those might follow the wrong Golden
Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" (I recall this from the comic
strip The Wizard of Id, but it may have predated that.).

And it's all well and good to say that we're electrochemical machines bound by
the laws of physics; but those laws don't even point to a direction to explore
to explain the phenomenon of *consciousness*. And consciousness is not an
illusion - because were consciousness not real, then there would be no one
present to experience the illusion of consciousness or anything else at all.

Something is going on that corresponds, at least in some small part, to the
traditional ideas of the supernatural. What we know of matter or energy, on the
one hand, or of mathematics on the other hand, doesn't even come close to
including a phenomenon like our awareness of being and experience.

We're here. We're real. We *matter*, and how we treat each other matters.

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass. Is it even useful to note
this? Have we anything in our reasoning equipment for such thoughts to lead
anywhere but to a revival of superstition?

Well, the ancient Greek philosophers tried to have a stab at this sort of stuff.

John Savard


All this depends on how you define a god.
If the universe is everything then whatever determines the laws of physics
could be called God.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:59:54 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

I think there are other things involved.

There is a lot of injustice in the world. So people hope for justice to be
meted out in the afterlife. But, as well, the authoritative commands of God are
a standard of right and wrong that applies to all men, high or low, and thus
the meek and poor are given a hope of justice from them.

My view is that this way of looking at things is deeply harmful, as it
encourages and enables people to defer justice to an afterlife that
does not exist, and in so doing discourages them from trying to fix
things now, to find justice now, in the only life they are guaranteed.

So I think there _is_ a need to have an objective standard of right and wrong
that is superior to man-made laws.

Of course, as I've noted before, I disagree. Every standard of right
and wrong ever created or operated under has clearly been man-made. We
can have objective standards of right and wrong that follow logically
from the axioms we choose to create. And we've demonstrated that we
are very capable of creating standards of high quality. This is a very
human project, and only humans can make it work. History demonstrates
just how much efforts to define rules as "god given" have failed, have
resulted in some of the greatest atrocities (at least, by humanist
standards) ever known.

And it's all well and good to say that we're electrochemical machines bound by
the laws of physics; but those laws don't even point to a direction to explore
to explain the phenomenon of *consciousness*. And consciousness is not an
illusion - because were consciousness not real, then there would be no one
present to experience the illusion of consciousness or anything else at all.

The problem with claims like "consciousness is not an illusion" is
that they are largely made meaningless by the lack of a clear
definition for either "consciousness" or "illusion".

Taking "consciousness" to refer to our sense of self-awareness,
however, I have no reason to think that both the scientific method and
current scientific knowledge don't offer myriad ways of studying the
phenomenon (which I personally consider to be actually quite trivial
and unprofound... but time will tell).

Something is going on that corresponds, at least in some small part, to the
traditional ideas of the supernatural. What we know of matter or energy, on the
one hand, or of mathematics on the other hand, doesn't even come close to
including a phenomenon like our awareness of being and experience.

Again, I disagree.

We're here. We're real. We *matter*, and how we treat each other matters.

I don't know what it means to say we matter, but I agree it matters
how we treat each other. Not to the Universe, not to anything except
ourselves.

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass.

Why?

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 9:13:19 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 11:55:53 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

I will agree that deism is not made necessary as a compromise.

I can't prove that unicorns never existed, but I see no reason to consider the
possibility that they might; it's fairly clear they are nothing more than a
legend.

Why is it any more difficult to dismiss God in the same way?

Well, while the supernatural claims of religion themselves may be, obviously
enough, just ancient superstitions, and children's stories, then manipulated by
people with an agenda of control... religion still responds to a real human
need.

Thus, rejecting religion may need to be examined, to be sure we're not throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.

One standard reply might be, oh yes, religion responds to a real human need -
our fear of our own mortality. But since we do actually die, there's nothing to
be done about that, there's no way to fill that "need".

I think there are other things involved.

There is a lot of injustice in the world. So people hope for justice to be
meted out in the afterlife. But, as well, the authoritative commands of God are
a standard of right and wrong that applies to all men, high or low, and thus
the meek and poor are given a hope of justice from them.

So I think there _is_ a need to have an objective standard of right and wrong
that is superior to man-made laws. Because those might follow the wrong Golden
Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" (I recall this from the comic
strip The Wizard of Id, but it may have predated that.).

And it's all well and good to say that we're electrochemical machines bound by
the laws of physics; but those laws don't even point to a direction to explore
to explain the phenomenon of *consciousness*. And consciousness is not an
illusion - because were consciousness not real, then there would be no one
present to experience the illusion of consciousness or anything else at all.

Something is going on that corresponds, at least in some small part, to the
traditional ideas of the supernatural. What we know of matter or energy, on the
one hand, or of mathematics on the other hand, doesn't even come close to
including a phenomenon like our awareness of being and experience.

We're here. We're real. We *matter*, and how we treat each other matters.

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass. Is it even useful to note
this? Have we anything in our reasoning equipment for such thoughts to lead
anywhere but to a revival of superstition?

Well, the ancient Greek philosophers tried to have a stab at this sort of stuff.

John Savard


All this depends on how you define a god.
If the universe is everything then whatever determines the laws of physics
could be called God.

In that case your 'laws of physics' belief is the fall of an apple as an experimental analogy scales up to the 'universal qualities' -


"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton


So analogies equate to the 'laws of physics/motion/gravitation/whatever' and visa versa. The blood runs cold with that one because humanity is bought off so cheaply by people who can't discuss anything in general or detail.

On Friday, 29 January 2016 22:27:30 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 12:59:54 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass.

Why?

Why, indeed?

The acceptance of *any* religion/fantasy is to accept them all. You simply cannot pick and choose from the sticky sweet counter. They must all be perfectly true or all complete fiction. You really can't have one without all the others. That would be as insane as holding a belief in the existence of any superhero. Superheroes are simply the latest form of religion. Where the desperate human need for justice, in its total absence in this life, is personified. Only when justice, for all, is free and transparent will the need for religion and superheroes cease to exist.

Great wealth and religion are the only defenses which allow raving lunatics to avoid the closed psych wards. The acceptance of great wealth is as insane as holding any religious belief. Wealth and religion are just the two faces of the same coin. You toss it and then prostrate yourself, for life, before the winner. You have made the conscious choice to imprison yourself in the unlit asylum. You have deliberately chosen to defer justice to the land of unicorns, elves and fairies. Or to the mere whim of the stinking, rich ogres and their vile henchmen.

On 29/01/2016 20:59, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 11:55:53 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Why is a "compromise" necessary? Any assumption of a deity simply
makes the entire question infinitely more complex. Deism is still
theism, which is a view that offers no better explanations than
naturalism and is supported by no evidence. It cannot be objectively
maintained as a rational viewpoint.

I will agree that deism is not made necessary as a compromise.

I can't prove that unicorns never existed, but I see no reason to consider the
possibility that they might; it's fairly clear they are nothing more than a
legend.

We may not yet have found any fossil unicorns. The narwhal does exist
and is possessed of a tusk not unlike that of "unicorns".

Why is it any more difficult to dismiss God in the same way?

Well, while the supernatural claims of religion themselves may be, obviously
enough, just ancient superstitions, and children's stories, then manipulated by
people with an agenda of control... religion still responds to a real human
need.

Especially corrupt and despotic leaders who want to promise their people
jam tomorrow as opposed to feeding them today.

Thus, rejecting religion may need to be examined, to be sure we're not throwing
out the baby with the bathwater.

One standard reply might be, oh yes, religion responds to a real human need -
our fear of our own mortality. But since we do actually die, there's nothing to
be done about that, there's no way to fill that "need".

But it is the main purpose of religion - to handle bereavement and make
unsubstantiated promises of a better life after death often for profit.
Very handy if you are in business as a mercenary church praying for the
sins of the wealthy on a commercial basis and selling indulgences.

I think there are other things involved.

There is a lot of injustice in the world. So people hope for justice to be
meted out in the afterlife. But, as well, the authoritative commands of God are
a standard of right and wrong that applies to all men, high or low, and thus
the meek and poor are given a hope of justice from them.

The meek shall inherit the earth (but not the mineral rights).

So I think there _is_ a need to have an objective standard of right and wrong
that is superior to man-made laws. Because those might follow the wrong Golden
Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules" (I recall this from the comic
strip The Wizard of Id, but it may have predated that.).

That is a pretty good description of the USA now. Trump exemplifies it.
A country run by billionaires for the benefit of major corporations and
other billionaires who are rich enough to buy the lawmakers.

And it's all well and good to say that we're electrochemical machines bound by
the laws of physics; but those laws don't even point to a direction to explore
to explain the phenomenon of *consciousness*. And consciousness is not an
illusion - because were consciousness not real, then there would be no one
present to experience the illusion of consciousness or anything else at all.

Consciousness is most likely an emergent behaviour in a sufficiently
complicated neural network. When our computer simulations reach the same
scale as a human brain (or possibly somewhat smaller) we will have self
aware machines to investigate too.

Something is going on that corresponds, at least in some small part, to the
traditional ideas of the supernatural. What we know of matter or energy, on the
one hand, or of mathematics on the other hand, doesn't even come close to
including a phenomenon like our awareness of being and experience.

We're here. We're real. We *matter*, and how we treat each other matters.

That may not require a God, but it requires something that a completely
materialistic approach to reality does not encompass. Is it even useful to note
this? Have we anything in our reasoning equipment for such thoughts to lead
anywhere but to a revival of superstition?

Well, the ancient Greek philosophers tried to have a stab at this sort of stuff.

Most of it stems from the principle of reciprocity - usually summed up
as do as you would be done by (or in the case of the pirate in Zork: Do
unto others before they do unto you). You don't need to have a secret
overseer looking at what you do and keeping tally to do the right thing.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown