DHA's Wager

No problem.I thought I pretty much answered that back in Message 4? As long as you have a split personality you should be fine. When facing the BIG GUY the correct believer personality can come to the fore. Hopefully he or she will be convincing and not say something like "Of course I believed in you unlike..." Seriously I doubt that it would be a problem if there really is a GOD. As I have said here before, any GOD who could have created the universe and intuitively understand the relationship between gravity and all other forces, who could create a system as filled with marvel, as self healing as evolution, is not some bling-bling pimp daddy who will get bent out of shape if disrespected. Instead, I would expect him to be at most, amused.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would say that the best answer is agnosticismyou don't know because you don't have enough information to know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD Depends what you seek to know doesn't it?To say we leave open the possibility for an entity capable of the attributes of all the various philosophies concerning the reason for the universe we explore,despite thousands of years of trying to winnow out an unambiguous demonstration of its existence,strikes me as being not due to a lack of information to be found,it rather evidence supporting non existence of such a being.It always amuses me how human gods are in their actions,quick to fury,regretful of actions,fearful of strangers,capable of love,homicidal tendencies,jealousy,mercy etc.I feel that the information tends to be overwhelming and,knowing well the things I am capable of in social interactions,such philosophies strike me as slight of hand to distract the audience while the agendas go unnoticed till the trick is done.My atheism is solidified by human nature.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

so you are claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. that must place high concern on missing evidence in science then: gravitons, gravity waves, just for starters.how do you rule out a god that became the universe, immolating itself in the process?sorry, but logically agnosticism is the only valid answer, and anything else is based on faith.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD I am not claiming anything.Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence when enough knowledge accumulates over enough time to bring the positive outcome of a case down to a sufficient improbability that the further pursuit of such constitutes not a seeking of knowledge but a shell game to keep an idea alive past its justifiable limit.
Of course nothing is certain, that does not make it a worthwhile pursuit.The actual existence of a god/s hinges upon the lack of occult and shadowy whispers indistinguishable from background noise IMO.That such can be readily accomadated through an explanation entailing human fears and hopes as well as the shuffling of political cards rises in probabilty to the point where to withold from the acceptance of there being no such entity seems assine,not wise.{Again IMO} I need not rule it out since such a situation would be different in no degree from a universe without such.As the topic proposal concerns the wager {Pacals and DHO's} I would still be ahead in placing my money to atheism. You say faith I say rejection of a line of thinking that is tantamount to leaving the door open to all ideas incuding those that are clearly in contradiction of one another or of such nature that they do not posses a shred of evidence that is not tainted by human manipulation or whose claimed existence fades from view when closely examined.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

so dark matter and dark energy ... total absence of evidence or even an idea of what it is other than a fudge factor to make mathematical equations balance ... time for it to go? okay so now how about a god that is unknowable, as the totality of a human is unknowable to the bacteria living in it's stomach and whose only contact is with the fluids in that stomach? a god whose normal digestive process forms the rules of natural behavior that we see?To me you can logically be an atheist versus various religions but not against the entire concept, as that is essentially using the strawman argument with a weakened version of the concept of god (weakened because of the restrictions placed on god by the religion) as a refutable belief (there was no world wide flood, therefore there is no god). and if god is so beyond knowing that all the evidence that is available for observation is small fluctuations in background noise? perhaps the dance of subatomic particles is the effect of god's thoughts. can you rule that out? why does it leave a door open to ideas that contradict the evidence available? that is illogical, and as illogical as the concept that showing the bible to not be absolutly literally true totally disproves the concepts of christianity, imho.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD That all depends on what we would use to explain imbalance of the equation.How do we determine the origin of the missing mass? That it has been given the catchphrase dark energy and dark matter{though I tend to think it would be more to the reality to call it dark mass}
does of course do nothing to explain the source of this however throwing it out would also do nothing to eliminate the mystery.I agree with you in the sense that absence of the physical evidence is reason to keep a scepticism about the model but I do not have expetise enough to deny those who search for this to name it whatever they please. LOL! How about koala bears playing on an extradimensional merry go round which governs inertia in the universe?The problem is not is such a thing possible the difficulty remains is it going on or not? It is not necesary to speculate on that which none of our evidence is even hinting at else we run the gamut of choose your position one is as good as another.I would hope we are beyond such ill advised extrapolation. That is the problem though is it not? The concept is not even defined.Do we have any handle on what we mean by god?If so what is it it? If not then it is devoid of meaning as in undefined. No nor can I rule it in. I can make no rule about it at all. It is therefore meaningless except in the limit of my personal definition so therefore it is not even debateable.As in the instance above does the existence of a level below the threshold of background noise mean god's thoughts anymore than it means subquark jelly beans square dancing? Can you rule that out? Why or why not? In the agnostism you speak of there is no evidence that can not be subscribed to being whatever idea a person wishes to trot out nor to restrain another from asserting another idea directly in contradiction to the first and yet be considered as valid .Perhaps it is all illusion,a trick of the perception of our grey matter.What are the concepts of christianity that refutal of biblical accuracy disproves? Indeed what are the concepts of christianity?I am enjoying this debate. I do hope this clears to an actual post as I have twice tried to answer you tonight and my computer shut down to no power.Talk to you tomorrow.This message has been edited by sidelined, 14 February 2005 00:08 AM

How about assuming that the equations are in error instead of the universe? My example had to do with our ability to understand, while yours is based on several fanciful yet unnecessary and illogical leaps of imagination to make yet another strawman that has nothing to do with the argument. And I agree that it is unnecessary to speculate on it, especially as that was not what I was talking about. If you want to talk about magic koalas I know of a board and a thread for that.
(see blackandwhite’s version of the story (click) and the discussion board is on netscape at the "Magic Koalas" ... thread (click) -- if you want to read more than the one post visible you will need to sign on with a netscape, aol or aim screenname and then set your preferences for reading messages in the last 700 days minimum (mine are set to 9000 to go back to the very beginning of that board) fun stuffs.) You can always start with the standard definition in the dictionary: The second is a little more generic than the first (omni-this and omni-that not required, just supernatural powers).You could also say god is an {essence\force} beyond natural understanding to bring it more in line with the eastern religions that do not necessarily have a prime persona (the being that is not being) ... kind of like, say the force that holds a galaxy together in a way that cannot be fully explained by the known mechanisms of gravity, or say the randomness of behavior at the subatomic level.You can assume a supernatural action, or you can assume a natural action, but you cannot prove either. But this is my point: you cannot rule it out, therefore the logical answer is that you don’t know one way or the other ... and thus agnosticism is the most logical answer. Why? There is no reason for ideas that are not (1) logically {built\consistent} and (2) based on evidence of the natural world (or at least are not contradicted by them). This is the essence of the deist position after all, but more than that: if one assumes a god is responsible then one also has to assume that the best evidence of that work to be the product involved (or posit something\body more powerful that disrupts it). It did, I am too, in spite of a splitting headache and a ton of work to do.{{edited to fix magic koala link}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-15-2005 07:06 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hmm.. well, I think there may be one more factor. Various gods/goddesses are supposed to be all-knowing, so I think they'd know if someone was believing in them for no other reason than "just in case" - ie Pascal's wager - or disbelieving in anything and then pleading ignorance.Or to quote Terry Pratchett:

RAZD What about the equations do you disagree as being correct? Here was the statement I took issue with. A god that is unknowable cannot be a shortcoming in our understanding though it could be a shortcoming in our perception.Understanding requires knowledge that the unknowable cannot provide.I presented a scenario {koala bears playing on an extradimensional merry go round which governs inertia in the universe?} where in the knowledge is no less improbable as far as understanding goes.Since I placed the location in a dimension we cannot percieve we cannot rule it out either unless we agree,as science attempts to do,to the application of Occams Razor The concept of god explains nothing when there is no evidence to point to such.You cannot apply logic to something you cannot define. [qs]If you want to talk about magic koalas I know of a board and a thread for that.I will try to find the time to read that in the next few days.1. God
- a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
- b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Ok so now we have the further difficulty presented by these definitions.What do we mean by perfect? Is there such a thing?Precisely what are the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience?In 1{b }we have the problem presented by force and manifestation?What force? What manifestation?In 2 Supernatural powers and attributes? Explain what supernatural powers mean in the natural world.How would we recognize them? If we recognize them then are they not of necessity natural? What are the attributes of the supernatural? Again if attributes are recognized,what does this say about their {bsuper[/b]natural origin?In what way is a god that cannot be accesssed by natural senses and therefore unknowable any more viable than koalas that cannot be considered sensible? I have difficulty with the "force that holds a galaxy that cannot be fully explained by..." Without evidence for such a force we cannot even use the term force as that would imply an understanding. But you can provide evidence to support natural action.The difficulty I have is in how a supernatural effects change of any sort without leaving a trace and without bridge containing attributes of both.And those attributes belonging to the natual would be accessible. I do not see logic since there is no evidence upon which to substantiate any premises much less conclusions to asumptions that assert beings of sentience and limitless capabilities that cannot be accessed for investigation. Aye,there's the rub,not contradicted.This is the reason we seek evidence first and build our model to explain these.Can you show god to be logically consistent and produce evidence that can be falsified?I choose atheism until the evidence says otherwise.

---

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

The part where the mathematical equations are seen as more valid that the observations. Time and again we see modifications to equations when other information requires it. What is special here that we must assume dark stuffs to make the equations work? Right, you made a strawman that was easy to refute instead of addressing the issue. By Occam's razor there should be no presumption of dark stuffs in the cosmos. The issue is that because you cannot determine one way or the other the existence of god(s), that the most logical assumption is that you do not know one way or the other: agnostic. I wouldn't worry about it too much. The "blackandwhite" character is an interesting case of a person with the absolute inability to admit to making mistakes, and this leads to some pretty far fetched scenes. He also keeps a website page with insults he has perceived receiving so that he can share his misfortune with others. Perhaps the force making the galaxies spin out of sync with the gravity theory equations. Perhaps the manifestation of subatomic particles. Supernatural is In an extreme inerpretation, anything you cannot explain by natural means could be considered supernatural. In a practial one, anything you cannot explain by natural means only may be supernatural (as it has not been eliminated by a natural explanation).If you recognize something but cannot explain it with natural world mechanisms can you rule out supernatural? If you recognize that the equations just do not add up to the observations, you are left with "I don't know" ... But you accept "dark stuffs" as a "force that holds a galaxy" without any evidence for it's existence or even a theory regarding what it is and how it affects matter and energy in the universe. The observation is that galaxies are spinning faster than they should, especially in the outer arms, for the amount of {e=mc²} that is observed. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the dark stuffs. Or any idea of what {it} is and how {it} came to be. The only evidence is the effects that such dark stuffs would produce. This is like saying that the evidence for geocentric theory is the epicycles on the epicycles of planetary motion. Is that a natural explanation? Now wrap your mind around the fact that it has to comprise 96% of the universe, and tell me we have a natural explanation?Personally I find the concept of 'branes and an extra dimension or two more logical, but with them go the concept that {mass\energy} out of the plane³ of our universe is still acting on the {mass\energy} within it: de facto supernatural as it is outside our natural universe. There is also no evidence upon which to substantiate any premises, much less conclusions, to assumptions that assert no beings of sentience and limitless capabilities ... so to make conclusions base on {the first empty set} while {dismissing\disallowing} conclusions based on {the second empty set} is being logically inconsistent at best. Can you produce {evidence\theory} to the contrary that can be falsified?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

DHA writes:

quote:

---

Therefore it is best to not believe any, then when you die, if there is an afterlife you can always claim ignorance if you find yourself in front of the wrong deity

---

No, because god will know if you are not believing out of sincerity rather than not believing simply to win a stupid bet.There is no way to win the game because there is always the possibility (and it is equal to every other possibility) that you wind up in front of a god that hates whatever path you chose to take.This, essentially, takes god out of the equation. Since there's no way to pre-emptively get on god's good side, you are left with trying to figure out how to manage in the here and now amongst the people who can decide to get the townsfolk together with some tar and feathers.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

so dark matter and dark energy ... total absence of evidence or even an idea of what it is other than a fudge factor to make mathematical equations balance ... time for it to go?

---

Not at all. In fact, the very reason why it stays is because we can see its effect. Since we communicate by words and since we can see that something is actually happening, we come up with a term to describe the very real effect.Now, it is true that our conceptualizations of the effect are dependent upon all the other stuff we've come up with that we think we have a pretty good handle on. If we develop a new physics that makes gravity behave differently and such that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are natural outcroppings of a single thing, then we'll toss the terms. But none of that denies the actual evidence of what we're seeing. It doesn't matter what we call it: The outer edges of the galaxy are keeping up with the inner.

quote:

---

and if god is so beyond knowing that all the evidence that is available for observation is small fluctuations in background noise? perhaps the dance of subatomic particles is the effect of god's thoughts. can you rule that out?

---

Not at all, but it begs the question of why such a god would care if you believed. After all, we only recently became aware of quantum fluctuations. We're supposed to be able to read them for meaning? When they are indistinguishable from noise? How is one supposed to glean a message in something that by its very nature looks like something that isn't a message?

quote:

---

as illogical as the concept that showing the bible to not be absolutly literally true totally disproves the concepts of christianity, imho.

---

Depends upon how one defines "Christianity," no?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

So as long as the supernatural explanation is in keeping with our closed minded preconceptions of physics it is ok, but if it is in keeping with an open mind on spirituality then it isn't?Seeing the effects is not the same as seeing the cause of the effects, and so far all the black stuff is amounts to a supernatural explanation, like it or not.Attributing the observed behavior to "dark stuffs" is no different than attributing it to god(s) ... That would be my point. While a valid point regarding the original topic it is not relevant to the agnostic position, or any theistic position that god(s) is(are) unknowable, especially those that do not claim that such a god would care.And as regards the original topic, the best postition has to be the "I don't know" position, imho.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not at all. In fact, the very reason why it stays is because we can see its effect.

---

​

So as long as the supernatural explanation is in keeping with our closed minded preconceptions of physics it is ok, but if it is in keeping with an open mind on spirituality then it isn't?

---

Huh? How did we go from a discussion of physics to a discussion of metaphysics?

quote:

---

Seeing the effects is not the same as seeing the cause of the effects

---

Nobody is saying that it is. But what you're forgetting is that seeing the effect is literally seeing the effect. We still have absolutely no idea what gravity is or what causes it, but we can still see the effect.

quote:

---

Attributing the observed behavior to "dark stuffs" is no different than attributing it to god(s) ...

---

Incorrect. We can see the effect that we are ascribing to dark matter and dark energy. Anybody else can see it simply by going out and looking up.When was the last time god allowed himself to be put inside the box to be poked and prodded and analyzed? It's amazing how god only reveals himself to those who already think he's there.The reason we found out about what we are calling "dark energy" and "dark matter" is because we didn't think it was there.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what we call it: The outer edges of the galaxy are keeping up with the inner.

---

​

That would be my point.

---

But you're ignoring mine: We can see the outer edges of the galaxy rotating. Anybody can.When was the last time you could run an experiment and have god turn up?

quote:

---

And as regards the original topic, the best postition has to be the "I don't know" position, imho.

---

Only if one is mired in Cartesian Doubt.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!