Was that hate or fear?

I think you’re overthinking it. Whats significant about hate is the reasons for it. Most people have recognise it’s ok or good to hate Hitler. Most people couldn’t care less if you hate the taste of Milk.
It’s the basis of hatred that is significant or not, most of the time.

I’m not trying to win, just asking a question and didn’t see where you really answered it. You avoided directly answering. Also, You don’t find discussing things fun?
Anyway, sure take a good mental note of my name and you can avoid wasting both our time in the future.

:chin: Some people believe science can be applied to the god question and some do not. But certainly, we can apply philosophy to the god question. — Athena

Basic logic and critical thinking, haven’t come across a god concept that passes even that simple test let alone a scientific one.

Now, what boundaries do you think we should set for the god question and why? Or, instead of boundaries, should we expand our understanding of the god question? Does not it begin with a desire to understand all of life? I certainly prefer expanding our understanding of the god question. I absolutely what to avoid the futile argument of if god exists or not because that is so repetitive and boring after several years of the same arguments again and again. — Athena

Well the right answer is always going to be boring and repetitive, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the right answer and make one up instead.
Also, the “does god exist question” isn’t futile. It’s actually really easy to answer. What might be futile is trying to get someone committed to the idea after a lifetime of indoctrination to listen but even that I dont agree with because people reason their way put of that delusion all the time. I couldn't call it futile for those reasons.
Again, you aren’t really answering my question. You want to talk about understanding all life and what that might mean then great but why call that a god question? Just make it the “life” question... that conversation doesn’t require “god” at all but you keep wanting to put “god” in there. Why?

I want new arguments. What is the unified force? — Athena

Is there a unified force? How do you know?

Ok, but I’m not asking why someone might use the term “god”. I’m being more specific, I want to know why you, a person who recognises that the term “god” is being used to describe not the usual characteristics of “god” but to describe something else for which we already have a name for yet instead of using that name still insist on calling it “god”.

I would say the shirt.

A complex series of variable repetitions. The way the thread is not the shirt.

Science isn’t about patterns it’s about repeatability, at least in the context you’re using. That’s an important distinction to your argument. Once you swap out “patterns” for “repeatability” your question doesn’t need to be asked anymore.
It would preclude the part of your argument that depends on 100% certainty as well, as science is concerned only with repeatability not certainty.

Thanks for correct me. :lol: I feel like an idiot for that mistake. Maybe I need to check my medication? — Athena

Lol, no problem.

I understand you want to drop the religious mumbo jumbo and think about god in those other terms, but I’ve never understood why some folks keep the term “god”. Why define god so differently that it no longer resembles the religious god at all? Why not just let go of the label and talk about whatever it is you were trying to redefine god to be? (Like love or mystery or the universe...just talk about love, mystery or the universe! Lol)

Why use the word "god"? To avoid the dead-end conflict of if there is a god or not. I hate that argument because it is the same over and over again. — Athena

I don’t see how that would end the conflict of whether god exists or not. Using the term “god” when what you really mean is the universe or mystery of the universe only confuses the matter. How would it end the conflict?

What do you mean by scientific bias? I don't think research is supposed to be biased? — Athena

“Basis”, not “bias”.

Brilliant.

I’ve reached the limit of my willingness to explain it to you. It’s not remotely a strawman argument I’m making. I suspect you think that because you do not understand the logic of what you are saying so it seems like I’m creating a strawman but unfortunately for your “argument” the premiss and logic I’m using is yours. It’s just that it’s fallacious, as in logically fallacious. You haven’t actually addressed that at all.
Or you just don’t understand what a strawman actually is.

No, his good reasons for believing in “strong AI” are not thats it’s possible. There is an entire branch of science that give good reasons to think AI is possible contrasted by no such scientific field to source for good reasons god exists. All believing in god has is naked possibility, like any number of absurd possibilities I could name. You are making a false equivalence between a possibility (not a good reason to believe anything) and good scientific reasons. The former is all belief in god has going for it and the latter has both but more importantly it has a basis in science and rationality.
You have shown no self contradiction to what you have claimed Dennetts position is because your argument is fallacious...a false equivalence is a fallacy.

It’s fallacious as an argument against a position Dennett holds. You started by quoting Dennett, “good reason” being the two key words. You have not provided a “good reason” to believe...something being possible is not a good reason to believe in it. So your argument in no way refutes what Dennett said. Dennett isnt denying the possibility, he is denying that there are good reasons.

Ok, so you don’t seem to really be saying much at all then. You haven’t presented a “good reason” for believing, just acknowledging a possibility.
A - that is one possibility out of a virtual infinity of possibilities and demonstrates nothing.
B - it doesn’t refute anything you say Dennett claims.

I’m afraid your argument is still fallacious.

It doesn’t follow that because consciousness can be created by humans that human consciousness must be created too.
I can create ice by putting water in the freezer that doesn’t mean ice that I find outside in the winter is also created by someone.
The fact that something can be created doesn’t mean that it can only be created. Your argument is fallacious sir.

Ok, why would we want to call any of those things “god” instead of the names you just used for them? Why not call Logos, “logos”? Also, what you mentioned are a handful of possibilities not scientific definitions for god. That would require a scientific basis for making the connection between those things and god and I don’t see one.

What do you mean exactly? A scientific definition of god looks like what?

Well it depends on what you mean by “like” the universe.
If you mean god as just another name for universe then maybe not awful but still not good because it encourages magical, wishy washy thinking. Just call it the universe.

Well said sir.

Don’t you ever get tired of contributing useless negations? You are neither helpful nor entertaining so just save it.

I think it’s often both. Atheists think that there is no good reasons to think god exists but many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well.
Google Christopher Hitchens on the celestial dictatorship. He explains the answer you are looking for quite well.

Ah, right. I phrased that poorly lol

Sadly not. — bongo fury

What do you mean? To me it’s sadder if it’s being done poorly , that means a bunch of people are out there making mistakes and creating confusion. Also, does that mean you think it’s being done well, in general?

I think that you’re describing a specific aspect to a problem most people already recognise: the problem of imprecise language. That is something that people try to address in everyday life and in philosophy to varying degrees of success and is combated mainly by being aware of the problem. It’s the same with the problem of bias or erroneous pattern recognition, perhaps inevitable or unavoidable in the end but none the less our best tool is awareness. Pitfalls of the human condition we best avoid by being aware and accounting for their existence.
So yes, philosophers should try to avoid what you describe and do indeed do them...maybe what you are noticing is how poorly it’s often done rather than a lack of inclination.

What if a vicious serial killer tripped on his way back from his most recent depravity and incurred a serious head injury. He is found and taken to the hospital where he lays in a coma for several months. When he awakes he has no memory of his past deeds. He recovers and spends the remainder of his life helping the poor and downtrodden. If evidence arises linking him to the crimes he committed should he be prosecuted. — Steve Leard

I think it depends on the nature of the head injury. If it’s only memory loss then I would say they are still morally responsible but there is lots of data now where brain injury can drastically alter someones personality. If the head i jury has done this to such a degree that the person cannot reasonably considered the same person then it becomes less clear what moral responsibility the person has for the actions of what is essentially another person.

Ya. There is a spectrum of takes on it, but seems like racism to me. The colour of her skin was an issue for some who didn’t think it was appropriate for royalty. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m drawing that conclusion based on more information than you’re drawing yours on at least.
I get where your coming from, the charge of racism has lost most of it’s meaning. Also, i didn’t mean to claim it was the institution. The source of the comments were individuals.
Anyway, a complete waste of my time but I got sucked in.

How do you know I haven’t listened to the other side?
Also, you are making your own assumption about it not being racism based on equally weak foundations.

Get real, like being “worried” about skin colour is just an innocent pondering. Please.
You got the non-story right though. Who cares.

I don’t deny that the environment effects the body, and that words exist in the environment. My only contention is that it is the biology that causes us to recognize, interpret and supply meaning to symbols, give them “power” so to speak. — NOS4A2

That’s what I was trying to convey by calling it dynamic. Words are part of the environment that interacts with biology and they change/effect each other and then the changes play out against each other again and so on. Tracking those changes is tracking the causal chains and words are in there somewhere.
I think where we would agree is the degree speech effects action. I wouldn't put the responsibility on the speech in most cases, but on the listener for letting the speech get to them. For example if I call someone a name and they go crazy and stab me the onus for being a bad actor is on crazy stabby guy not the speech but that’s not the same as saying the speech effect isn’t taking place. It is, it’s just that it shouldn’t dictate action. The good actor doesn’t act on speech alone (most of the time). Does that sound like common ground?

"However, what if the puddle explores the boundaries of the hole and find's it's a perfect square. Then, the puddle is going to wonder if the hole happened by accident or not. Or, what if the hole has the shape "2 + 2 = 4" (picture some little canals connecting the symbols). Then, the puddle would know for sure the hole is artificial." — RogueAI

I did read it yes, maybe I’ve misunderstood your purpose. Did you intend to describe a fictional universe or the actual one? I thought you were claiming that the actual universe was like this fictional one you presented. Also, you haven’t actually addressed my arguments.

In the puddle analogy, that's not what's going on. The conclusion is based on the hole having a mathematically significant shape that implies a designer. — RogueAI

No, the opposite. Maybe we are talking about different puddle analogies? There must be some miscommunication here because we literally have opposite ideas of what the puddle analogy is saying.

his universe also has a mathematically significant shape in that it is flat (or as flat as we can tell) and the odds of it being flat by chance are so vanishingly small, it's called the "flatness problem". So, is being flat a significant fact about the universe, like a hole shaped like Pi? I will grant you that in the case of the universe, it's not so clear. I think you can make a good argument that since flatness is necessary for complexity, and complexity is what you would expect from a designer, the existence of a highly improbable attribute (flatness) that is exactly what we would expect to see had the universe been designed is strong evidence for either a designer or a sufficiently larg — RogueAI

Well I would say flatness is necessary for a specific complexity but it’s more accurate to recognise that complexity can arise from more than just flatness (in the context of the universe of course).
That something is improbable doesnt make the negative conclusion correct.
Also, complexity requires no designer. Things can be complex and not designed at all. I think your argument still falls short I’m afraid.

I’m not sure what you mean by neurological processes being at the mercy of biology...they are part of your biology. This biology is triggered and effected by abstract symbols as well as other biological processes. Symbols we recognise have an effect on our thoughts and actions. You call it sorcery, but it’s only sorcery in the way an ipad is sorcery to a caveman.
I understand your point about knowledge, understanding and language...these are the sorts of biological processes that you referenced right? There are internal things effecting action as well as external. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) the internal things can override the external but saying the external has no effect in the way you are is incorrect. It’s both. It’s dynamic.
Glyphs may not cause you to understand them but they do cause certain neurological outcomes if you do recognise them. The degree to which they do effect action is certainly debatable, but that they do is well established.
I think you can recognise that and still maintain your free speech absolutism but your argument that it’s fanciful, magical thinking to claim words effect action doesn’t hold up.

The symbol of the number on the key corresponds to an actual electronic process specific to those particular numbers. You aren’t recognising the connective tissue between what you are referencing as “powerless” and what you are recognising as “empowered”. That’s his point, that there are in fact connections between one recognising symbols and ones actions. This isn’t controversial, there are plenty of studies and research to support that idea. If it seems fanciful and absurd to you it’s because you are ignorant of how these neurological processes interact with words and information.

You can question it sure, but you cannot draw a conclusion based on how well suited you are to the environment. It doesnt imply design just because one is well suited to it, in fact one should expect to be well suited to an environment one has adapted for.
You referencing the complexity of a universe that’s the first 10 digits of Pi is essentially an argument from ignorance fallacy. You do not understand the complexities so you insert “design” to fill in the gap and draw a false conclusion. Thats logically fallacious.

You missed his point completely. The water fits perfectly into the hole not because the hole was designed for it but because the water naturally shapes to conform to its little puddleverse.
Our universe wasn’t designed for us to live in, we are the natural result of it’s traits just like the puddle is a natural result of the holes traits (specifically, it’s shape). If our universe was much different and there was life in it then that life would be much different as well, as dictated by the “shape” of the different universe.

Sound and words are not the same thing. You used “sounds” in your argument and then changed it to “words” in your conclusion. Verbal sleight of hand which I’ll assume was an error and not intentional. Just fyi, enjoying following the discussion.

Would you say that words can influence actions? Or would you consider that to be the same thing as words causing things?

Well said.