NeoDeltaI

Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest you were by any means. I just wanted more information, as I felt I knew the jist of what you were saying, but not how you wanted me to respond. I won't ever take offence to someone refuting my reasoning, only personal attacks and the like. A toast, to civility, and restraint! (SpaceGhostC2C)

Indeed, I agree with you that God is extremely hard to define. I never really tacked on more meaning than "the thing that created us." Therefore, in a few thousand years, if our technology and knowledge permit, we could create a cloned race of humans and ourselves become "God".

The idea of the Universe being a God is extremely interesting to me, so I'll respond after reading a few more articles on the subject (but with my 50 bytes/second connection, it gets quite tiring).

Philosoft

KOY?!

NeoDeltaI

None, that I can think of. I haven't heard any religious institution propose that God is really an alien scientist. My theory suggests that no human on Earth has any direct contact with God, or at least a two-way connection (he may hear us, but we can't hear him).

I firmly believe that any God, or higher power, that exists has no "commandments" for us, simply because we have no way to harm it. Why is the supposed Christian God so strict about what we can and cannot think/do/feel when none of these actions should affect it in the least? Motives are very important to my beliefs, and they're the reason I left Christianity in the first place.

I don't aim to comfort any religion on Earth, since, ultimately, anything that we could describe or label as God would be totally out of our understanding. *refer to my 'ancient man meets TV' argument*

In regards to the Christian God, I feel more uncomfortable with the idea that it does exist. I'm happier not believing that particular God exists, so that there's no unfair judgment after death. Proving their God, I feel, is of little comfort to anyone.

Goliath

VirusInTheSystem,

Lemme share a little secret with ya: Almost everyone judges practically everything.

Fine by me, as long as you're calling a spade a spade (jeez, I'm starting to sound more and more like Koy!--not that I'm complaining, mind you...)

I had said

To which you responded

I've put thought into my replies to your posts.

Ah, so you're now throwing in the requirement of life. Is the universe alive? If not, how can it be self-aware (whatever that means)?

Hmmm...."vague" may have been a better choice of words than "undefined."

Well, you can't prove your assertion that we (as humans) have a role in the universe until you define what you mean by "role," (or, if you plan on making "role" an undefined term, then you need to set up some axioms that describe how "roles" act).

Okay, if you mean "role" in this rather mundane sense ("mundane" as compared to the idea of humans playing a role in the universe for some deity), then I agree with you that humans play a role in the universe. Hell, the fact that we exist means that we play a role in the universe--the role of existing.

But "believe" does imply an assertion. Since you were attempting to prove some of your claims earlier (ie that the universe is "self-aware" (again, whatever that means)), I was simply calling you on an assumption that you've used that you haven't proven.

However, since you're backing off to the philosophical realm, I'll let this sleeping dog lie.

Frankly--and this is nothing personal towards you--I find statements of belief without justification behind said beliefs to be undescribably boring.

My apologies, I misread. I'm so used to theists having no idea what atheism is (ie thinking that atheism entails any beliefs whatsoever) and I'm so used to rebutting their silly claims about atheism, that I had a knee-jerk reaction to your "if."

I've spent the past seven years of my life studying mathematics. What do you think?

It seems as though you are unable to take criticism of any kind without lashing out with petty insults, even when I have extended my hand in apology.

How very, very Christian of you.

Your reply seemed to be a reply to me . If you weren't referring to me, who were you referring to?

And, if you weren't referring to me, then I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction (see above).

I had said:

To which you replied:

Then I'd be amazed. I guess the first thing I'd do would be to ask how a rutabega can type.

Sorry, your "witty" comeback might have had some sting to it if I had mentioned anything at all about feelings, rights, or discrediting anything that you have to say. Since I didn't, your analogy doesn't stick.

Ah, "little clubber" was a pet name that the great Koyaanisqatsi used to call some of the theists that he debated with. Unfortunately, Koy has retired from the II message boards. The name "little clubber" has nothing to do with your physical stature or what you like to do for nightly entertainment.

Sincerely,

Goliath

(Edited to take out a comment that was a bit harsh and made a bit too hastily...)

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Goliath

*chuckle* I've noticed that I seem to be taking up more and more of Koy's mannerisms when posting on this board. I think it's a good thing.

Sincerely,

Goliath

VirusInTheSystem

Goliath,

By don't judge, unless you expect to be judged the same way in return, i meant: don't judge with *condescension* if you don't want the same. My first post may have been a little ignorant and unpolished, but I don't know if it deserved a "holier-than-thou" reaction from anyone.

quote: I've put thought into my replies to your posts.

Yes, your replies certainly did contain intelligence, coherence, and valid points. I meant you did not think about the tone you were using, or whether it was called for.
-----------------------------------
quote: Is the universe alive?

maybe. maybe not. i don't really know.
----------------------------------------

quote:My apologies, I misread. I'm so used to theists having no idea what atheism is (ie thinking that atheism entails any beliefs whatsoever) and I'm so used to rebutting their silly claims about atheism, that I had a knee-jerk reaction to your "if."

no, Goliath, i don't believe everything that the Goodly Religious Leaders of our nation would like to brainwash us with. Atheism, to me, is simply not having a belief in a diety... or not believing in a diety resembling anything that Theists would consider "God". I don't think Atheists are the evil force seeking to destroy all that is Holy, or anything of that nature. I also don't believe that witches are baby-sacrificing devil-worshippers. I personally find witch-craft to be a beautiful and unique religion, if a bit chaotic. I also bleive that nothing in Buddhism contradicts my beliefs.
I consider myself to be an Agnostic Theist. So the conservative protestant pre-conceptions usually won't apply.

------------------------------------
quote: It seems as though you are unable to take criticism of any kind without lashing out with petty insults, even when I have extended my hand in apology.

I'm sorry. I can actually take massive amounts of critisism of my *beliefs*. I quess I was still reacting to what saw as an unprovoked *personal* attack. But as you said, you apologized. So now I also apologize for carrying on with whatever immature arguing that you might have set off.

quote: How very, very Christian of you.

Actually, no it isn't. Its everything *but*. And again, i apologize. I'm also human.

------------------------------------

when i said: Maybe I'm just fooling myself. Maybe the jokes on me... on all of us who think that existance has some sort of meaning.

I meant that perhaps the universe really does *not* have any greater "meaning" or purpose than is on the surface. We live, we die, the end. We're gone.
I was saying that maybe this is true... so people who are decieved into believing otherwise will have believed in a false hope.

----------------------------------------

quote; Sorry, your "witty" comeback might have had some sting to it if I had mentioned anything at all about feelings, rights, or discrediting anything that you have to say. Since I didn't, your analogy doesn't stick.

i wasn't trying to use wit. I was typing nensense-- something i thought you were doing a number of times (like your "rational" responses to my comments about the Goddess of mathematics and your "religious" response). More importantly, I thought that the idea of equal rights for rutabegas is pretty funny. It wasn't an analogy about anything. I was just suggesting that if I were to respond like you have, i might read something out of the text that is completely not there. I apologize for the comment though.

-----------------------------------------

yes, i know little clubber doesn't refer to a small person who likes night-clubs. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> I just felt like making a joke of it because it sounds arrogant and "condescending" (which is something you don't appreciate having thrown in *your* face. so as I said, don't use it in your own critisism.)

--------------------------------

Now, I'm hoping we can get past petty bickering and try to have more intelligent conversation from now on. I accept your apologies, and I apologize for trying to continue the quarrel.

Truce?

-Virus

Philosoft

Hey, someone has to wear that hat. Koy's spirit lives on...

davidm

I liked NeoDeltaI's initial post. I also liked what Virus had to say.

I am an atheist, always drifting on the hinterlands of agnosticism. Despite that, I liked the way Virus fired back at Goliath. It is amusing to see Goliath sneer, "condescension unappreciated," when everything that I have ever seen from him is the epitome of sarcastic condescension

I think it is clear that Virus was using math as a loose metaphor. Anyone not too full of himself, I feel, would recognize that fact.

There are many ways a god could be. This universe could be the result of an experiment, conducted by naturalistic beings more advanced than ourselves. It is already suggested that the human race, little more than a hundred years after inventing radio, has, in principle, the ability to create a "big bang'' in a laboratory, and thereby create a new universe. What would naturalistic beings thousands of times older than us be capable of doing?

It could be that we are cognitively closed to vast swatches of reality. Our nearest evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees, who share 98 percent of our genetic material, are incapable, even in principle, of understanding what a book is, or what the moon is, or what the big bang is. What would beings who stand in relation to us, as we stand in relation to chimps, know and understand? The idea that the human brain is competent to apprehend all meaningful reality is deeply presumptuous.

It could be that all logically possible universes are actually real, as the late philosopher, David Lewis, who was a professor of philosophy at Princeton University, has forcibly contended. In that case, some universes, perhaps even our own, would contain or be the product of a designer.

VirusInTheSystem

quote: I am an atheist, always drifting on the hinterlands of agnosticism

david, from the rest of your post, it sounds like you just might *be* an agnostic I think agnostic is a very good title, actually. It is the only one to admit: I only know one thing: that I know nothing

I'm proud to be an agnostic, personally.

quote: The idea that the human brain is competent to apprehend all meaningful reality is deeply presumptuous.

yep, you just hit the nail on its metaphoric head.

peace,
-justin

Ps. David really showed Goliath, didn't he?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

MadMordigan

My buddy Occam said the reason god is silent is because he isn't there.