Sputnik, sweetheart by Murakami. — javi2541997

I read "1Q85" and really enjoyed it. Almost a fantasy but not quite. Is it magical realism? It scrambled up my mind. I keep thinking I'll read more of his work, but when I take a look, I find myself unready to jump back in to such an odd world. I'm sure I will eventually.

This is my justification for the existence of time. — vanzhandz

To start, it is not my intention to claim that time doesn't exist. It's a concept I use all the time (oops). Still, here are some thoughts:

• Scientists have a hard time defining time. It's a hard concept to grasp and study.
• I think it's fair to say that special relativity calls the existence of time, at least as we know it, into question. Our awareness of time requires us to determine the simultaneity of events. That's how we normally determine our place in time - we compare one event, the position of the hands of a clock, with another event that interests us. Einstein showed us that events that appear simultaneous in one frame of reference may not be so in another.
• In physics, you will find discussions of the asymmetry of time. At a subatomic level, time is seen as able to move in both forward and reverse directions. At a macroscopic level, time has a definite direction. See the discussion of the arrow of time in Wikipedia. Interesting.

None of this means you are wrong. It just means things are more complicated than they seem.

I would agree that my wording of this does not do my point any justice. I wish I could find a better word then "mistake." What I am saying is; the events that happen within reality can not be classified as mistakes because in order to do so we would have to apply our human perception of a mistake to said event. Human perception, although it exists within reality, does not however have any affect on the rules which govern reality. And because all events that happen within reality are subject to the rules of reality, including the advent of human consciousness, then you can not classify any event within reality as mistake. It is the result of the rules which govern reality taking their course. — vanzhandz

I'm a bit confused by this, but I'll take a swing at a response. Which you probably won't like. Which we don't need to follow up on. Your contention depends on the existence of an objective reality. There are those, including me, who do not think that the existence of objective reality is self-evident or necessary. This is not a fringe idea. You will find discussions of it here on the forum. I won't go into it further here. I think it will disrupt your discussion.

I am proposing that there must be laws which can explain why reality is capable of having things exist within it in the first place. We as humans would be subject to these laws, considering we exist within reality, meaning that within these laws of existence there is the capacity for beings such as ourselves to exists... — vanzhandz

For there to be laws or rules, there would have to be someone who wrote them. There are two possibilities I can see. 1) God or 2) Us. As I said before, the laws of nature humans come up with are descriptions of how the world works, not requirements that the world must follow. The laws of nature are human constructs that we superimpose on the world as we perceive it.

...beings such as ourselves to create meaning in the way that we do. — vanzhandz

As I said previously, I agree that we humans are built, evolved to create meaning.

An interesting point in itself from a 'scientifically rigorous' standpoint. This is the kind of 'mistake,' that we find all over religious fables, that helps confirm their status as folklore. There is no sunset or sunrise. It looks like there is to us but it's actually Earth's rotation that causes this effect. — universeness

Just about everyone today calls when the sun comes up sunrise and when it goes down sunset, even though we all know the sun is not moving and the earth is rotating. 1,600 years ago in Rome, people did not know the Earth rotates.

It is of course a modern interpretation of the saying. His parables have a way of being timeless, maybe due to their simple, real-life setting. They lend themselves to modern reinterpretations quite easily, a plasticity which is part of his appeal I think. — Olivier5

Again, thanks for your input.

You started a really interesting discussion. Thanks.

Thomas Hardy — Pantagruel

I really like Hardy, but I've never read that one.

I went to a Methodist church when I was a kid, but I'm not a member of any religion now. I've never paid much attention to Christian church history. This discussion has been eye-opening and interesting. Your posts in particular have been helpful.

Thanks.

Americans are religious because the various churches don't belong to the state and they have to compete for members. But when the church is part of the state and gets tax revenue, it doesn't have to compete. It basically rests on it's laurels. So anyone who wants atheism, agnosticism and overall secularization to advance should promote state religion and the church being part of the state. — ssu

I don't know if what you say is true, but it is an interesting way of looking at things.

So the separation between church and state is also desirable because one cannot judge a king with the same moral standards used to judge day to day activities. — Olivier5

l hadn't thought of "render unto Caesar" as another way of saying separation of church and state. That makes sense to me.

I think I suss out what you mean but this sentence makes no sense to me. To begin with, evolution neither has a "telos" nor is an "intentional agent" ... — 180 Proof

You're right. The universe has no purpose or intentional agency. The point I was trying to make is that the universe doesn't fit us, we fit the universe. We were created by chemical and physical processes and evolved to fit our environment.

... nature is not fine-tuned for us, rather we fine-tune our concepts and models to nature. — 180 Proof

Evolution also fine-tunes us to fit into this world.

Welcome to the forum.

It is apparent to me that there are four things that an individual can unequivocally prove. — vanzhandz

If these four proofs are true then humanities existence is not a mistake and humanities ability to create meaning from seemingly nothing is also not a mistake. — vanzhandz

I don't think you have proven any of your four propositions. Let's take a look:

The first: You exist. This I believe to be the simplest proof, considering that if you did not exist on some level than you would not be able to ponder your own existence in the first place. — vanzhandz

This isn't a proof. You've accepted it as a self-evident truth. That's ok with me.

The second: Time exists. If time did not exist then one would not have the ability to discern past from present. — vanzhandz

The fact that we can tell past from present is not a proof that time exists, it's a definition of what time is.

The third: Reality can not make mistakes. — vanzhandz

Since reality is the standard by which whether something is a mistake is determined, saying that reality can not make mistakes is a tautology.

The fourth: Reality has a blue print. "Blue print" refers to a set of universal laws that bind reality together in someway which set the stage for all events occurring in reality. — vanzhandz

When you say "universal laws" I assume you are talking about what are called "laws of nature," e.g. special and general relativity, the law of conservation of matter and energy, and the second law of thermodynamics. I don't think these are laws or blueprints in the sense you mean. They don't determine or regulate or how the universe works, they only describe it. They are generalizations from experience.

To me this is just a complicated way of saying that by creating meaning for the decisions you make in life you are doing exactly what a human meant to do. — vanzhandz

I agree with this. Creating meaning seems to be something we do just because we are humans. It's part of human nature. On the other hand, I don't think it follows from your four postulates.

1+1=2 has a reason to me. I've found the equation useful in my daily endeavors to obtain resources. — Ree Zen

Here are some definitions of the word "reason."

• The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.
• A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction.
• A fact or cause that explains why something exists or has occurred.

Unless you think that the universe somehow made 1+1=2 in order to be useful to you, your use of the word in this context is incorrect.

But pretend that instead of just you being executed, you live in a huge multiverse and there are 100 bazillion (where "bazillion" is a very very large number) you's being executed by sharpshooters at the same time. In a big enough multiverse, just by random chance, there will be a few worlds where the sharpshooters all DO miss by random chance and/or suffer simultaneous equipment malfunctions. — RogueAI

I think you're probably right in an infinite universe. In a finite universe, there's probably no way to know how many particles and how many volumes there are in our current universe; how far away an atom has to be to affect conditions on earth; and how many universes beyond our own there are, if any. Then, what are the odds that exactly the same type of particle is in exactly the same locations in another hypothetical universe to match our universe, with a few changes to affect the shooters. Without knowing that stuff, your statement about the 100 bazillion universes is unsupported.

Beyond that, as far as we know, we can never know what is going on outside the observable universe, which is much smaller than the entire universe, or in another universe. Even if we could, how could we ever find the universe of interest and find the firing squad within it.

I think we can make some reasonable assumptions that a universe with no atoms would not support life, nor a universe that exists for a second before collapsing in on itself, nor a universe with no stars, etc. — RogueAI

I didn't say that, if there is a multiverse, there won't be some without life in them. I also don't know if there can be life in a universe with no atoms. It certainly wouldn't be life as we know it. That's the story - we don't know, and probably can't know, how likely the situation is that you describe. Which makes the whole issue meaningless.

One problem is that a balanced, measured response can be too quickly labeled an attack. — Fooloso4

I agree. I don't have any money on this table. I'm not a theist, much less a Christian, but I think the way religion in general and Christianity in particular are addressed here on the forum is disrespectful and contemptuous. Often vehemence takes the place of reason. That includes parts of this discussion.

or be made to do so. — baker

I wonder what his means.

I don't think so, and a great way of showcasing this is the following analogy (not my own):

Suppose you're going to be shot by 100 sharpshooters from ten feet away. The order to fire comes, the shots ring out, and you're still alive.

Wouldn't the fact that you exist be surprising to you? Wouldn't you conclude there was a non-accidental reason for why you're alive? — RogueAI

Some thoughts.

First, what does this have to do with the multiverse?

[joke]Second, for 100 shooters to be 10 feet away, they would have to be in a circle with less than a foot of space to stand each. If they shot at you, they would be very likely to hit each other. Clearly they all shot in the air or into the ground. [/joke]

Seriously - Sure. I know about how likely it is that one shooter, much less a hundred, would miss me, so I would assume a non-accidental reason. But I have no idea what the probability of a universe which could support intelligent life is. The only way we could know that is if we had more than one universe to look at. A sample size of one provides absolutely no information about the frequency of the relevant property except that it is greater than 0.

It is unfortunate that a discussion of the historical sources and influences that shaped the writings of the Bible and its various interpretations is regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred. — Fooloso4

It is certainly possible to have a reasonable and civil discussion about the historical accuracy of the Bible, but you generally won't find that here on the forum. I agree with Noble Dust:

There’s a difference between a balanced, measured scholarship, and a mania resembling fundamentalism. — Noble Dust

I don't think either the pro-design or the anti-design arguments make any sense. I think the problem with the pro-design argument comes from Premise 2 of Collins' argument:

The fine-tuning data are very improbable under single-universe atheism. — SwampMan

This shows a lack of understanding of how probability works. Before you start, the probability of flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads is about 1x10^-30. After you're done flipping 100 heads in a row, the probability is 1. Getting the multiverse involved is meaningless and confusing.

I have debated many theists. I cannot speak for others but I have never been accused by any of them as having a 'hatred for religion.' — universeness

I can only judge by what I've seen here on the forum.

not everyone on this forum cares very much about who you agree with. I for one, certainly don't. — universeness

You sure seem to care.

Yes it is and yes it does. If you want a panto exchange then I can provide one for you until I get bored doing so. You just make statements you offer no reasoning worth rebuttle. — universeness

I agree with @Noble Dust's evaluation:

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

I am sure if I knew more about you, I would find some of your positions 'unbalanced' and 'weird' and 'obsessive,' — universeness

[joke] @Noble Dust's positions aren't unbalanced, weird, or obsessive, but he himself is.[/joke]

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression.

Why is that relevant?
— T Clark

Why is not relevant?
who do you believe was the true Jewish Messiah, prophesied in the old testament from the list available? I choose none of them, including the fabled Jesus Christ. — universeness

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived. Christ was not his name, it was the designation he gave himself
— T Clark

Maybe true, but there were many others who also claimed such titles: — universeness

I don't see why the fact that others had claimed to be the Messiah is relevant. Also, my post was a response to this from you:

In Greek, even his name literally translates to Jesus(Saviour) Christ(Messiah), so his name is Saviour messiah.
— universeness — T Clark

I'm not Christian and I don't have strong feelings either way. But the statement from your post is not correct. That says nothing about the divinity or historicity of Jesus Christ.

This makes your original point meaningless as the gospels were written in Greek so the character's name in Hebrew is not relevant to the gospels. — universeness

Information I found on the web indicates the King James version of the Bible was a translation from Hebrew and Greek sources.

Another point you should consider is that Ben Yussuf goes against the immaculate conception claim.
If the virgin birth is true then calling the character 'son of Joseph.' would be incorrect. — universeness

We're not talking about immaculate conception, we're talking about the historicity of Jesus.

The measurement problem in physics relates to Heisenberg and Schrodinger but in essence revolves around the possible "influence" of the observer/measurer. Berkeley's view that to be was to be perceived seems therefore particularly precient? — Edmund

Heisenberg's original paper on uncertainty was based on the observer effect - any light I aimed at a particle to measure either it's position or speed would add energy to the system and make measurements of the other property less accurate. That makes sense to me, but it is my understanding that this explanation is now considered incorrect. Here's what Wikipedia says:

Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a related effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the system, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,

It seems to me that this means that what Berkeley was talking about is something different than the uncertainty associated with quantum mechanics.

Maybe true, but there were many others who also claimed such titles: — universeness

Why is that relevant?

Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf
— T Clark

A name not mentioned in the bible at all! — universeness

Yeshua is Hebrew. Translated through Greek to English it became Jesus.

How do I know that I can't comprehend God? — Zebeden

Welcome to the forum.

A warning. There are a lot of anti-religion bigots here on the forum who often give believers a hard time. People here, including the moderators, are not sympathetic to people who want to discuss religion from a theist perspective. Good luck.

In Greek, even his name literally translates to Jesus(Saviour) Christ(Messiah), so his name is Saviour messiah. — universeness

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived. Christ was not his name, it was the designation he gave himself.

God. Android spouses -- as if keeping the batteries in the mouse, bicycle lights, iPod, iPad, iPhone, smoke alarm, vibrating dildo, pacemaker, the car, and everything else wasn't trouble enough! — Bitter Crank

Apparently there are devices you can put in roadways to charge electric vehicles while they are moving. Just have one of those installed in your house.

Great post. — Bitter Crank

I'm with BC. A really good post. Thoughtful and well-written.

I prefer "Bible-thumpers" (or holy mouthbreathers). — 180 Proof

Yes, but that's because you are, as are so many here on the forum, an anti-religion bigot.

that particular world is often a patchwork quilt of words and emotions. — Tom Storm

As are they all.

I used to ask this question. I think the answer is complex and hard for literal minded people like me to comprehend. The gospels are not 'disposable' - this is a reaction to, not an understanding of what is meant - the books suggest a truth above narrative and provide examples and teachings in a form for humans to engage with at their level of understanding. — Tom Storm

This in response to your reference to "literal minded people."

I'm not a Christian, but my wife is Catholic so I've spent some time around the church. I was at a dinner party sitting next to my 30 year old son, a 20 year old Jewish woman, and another 35ish year old man. Somehow the subject turned to religion in general and transubstantiation specifically. I told them that Catholics believe that the wafer is the actual body of Christ and the wine is his actual blood. They said, "You mean symbolically." I said, no, literally. We talked about it for 10 minutes and I couldn't convince them not that the Catholics were correct, but that they actually believed it. Finally my wife came over and gave them the official word. Even then they kept arguing.

If you want to understand what other people understand about the world, you need to make sure you are in the same world they are.

Well, I wouldn't call them atrocities. — Ciceronianus

Well, yes. There was some irony in my response.

Does it work? I don't think so. But it may make these theologians Jesus Freaks of a different kind, worshiping an abnormal, unusual, unexpected Jesus. Or perhaps they make a freak of Jesus. — Ciceronianus

Atheists like to complain about how religionists have hurt the world - they start wars, they torture disbelievers, they subjugate women. You have added to that list of atrocities doing handstands in church and pestering people in the streets. Oh, the horror, the horror.

That is interesting. But we know there are causes. Bridges collapse - engineers investigate - causes are identified and reported. — Cuthbert

Saying that causes exist is not the same as saying everything is caused.

The concept of cause is very troublesome to explain in general terms in the philosophy schoolroom. But jettisoning it seems premature. — Cuthbert

Bertrand Russell did in 1912, and he was not the first. To say that causes don't exist is open to question, but that doesn't mean it's premature.

We can banish 'cause' from the schoolroom for being awkward. We still need it in order to live our lives every day. It is a phenomenon that should be preserved in philosophy even when it gives us a headache. — Cuthbert

I use the word "because" all the time. If someone hits my car with theirs, I say "He caused the accident." As I said previously, I have no problem with the idea of cause in many situations. I also have no problem with dispensing with it when it gets in the way, as it always does when we talk about the first cause.

I don't think the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether causation is a good way of understanding things. I don't want to send it off on a tangent. It's an interesting question, but I it would take some homework on my part before I'm ready to have that discussion. As I noted, my purpose in responding to the OP was just to point out that it is not a foregone conclusion that everything has a cause.

I think I have a long way to go before I can be compared to you, when it comes to insulting those who you don't agree with. Please keep trying to build your evidence. I will let the other members of the forum judge between us. — universeness

I will continue to point out the difference between your professed desire that people be treated with respect and your disrespectful actions. I think the other members of the forum have better things to do than "judge between us." Perhaps you should tattle to the moderators again.

I'm not alone in exposing the flaws in our universe — Agent Smith

A fact is a fact! If people had never complained about the awful heat/cold, no one would've ever thought of inventing the AC/heater! — Agent Smith

Again, delusions of grandeur. Complaining never solved any problem. It takes work to do that.

I always find it sad (OK, and a bit funny) to see atheists contort themselves in an effort to deny the reality of the Creator. Atheism is an irrational worldview.
— Photios
I don't find theists sad, they are just scared and they need a superhero who cares about them to comfort them when it gets dark. They don't question the existence of god because they need it to exist. — universeness

I was struck by your response to Photios. It reminded me, with perhaps some irony, of things you wrote a week or so ago:

you need to be less provocative in the phrases you have used against others on this forum and arrogant text example you have just responded to me with ('hows that') — universeness

My only complaint with you, is you can be very insulting towards others. You come across as petulant at times. — universeness

T Clark has been very disrespectful towards others. — universeness

I wonder what successful science he had in mind, in which causal laws have been replaced? "What caused X?" seems to be a common form of research question in all the sciences. I'm struggling to think of an exception. — Cuthbert

I put the quote in just to show that the necessity of causation is not a foregone conclusion. Many philosophers and scientists dispute the need for it. I have my own reasons for thinking that causation is not a very useful concept in many situations, but I thought hearing that from Russell would be more convincing.