Thanks Cináedh.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
One side says the Universe was created by God,
the other side says the Universe was created by nothing.
When I see nothing do something, I’ll pray to nothing.
#31,
One side says “We don’t know.”
The other says “My magic sky-daddy made it all for me!”
For some reason the people in the second group insist on calling the people in the first group arrogant.
#32
You’re a little wrong.
Atheists claim there is no God.
Agnostics claim we don’t know.
Believing in a god is USUALLY meaningless, seen from a numerical standpoint. Consider the fact that even if there is a god, the majority of all people on the planet who believe in god are wrong, because they believe in the WRONG god and/or method of appeasing him for their reward.
Once you believe in god, then the real gamble is on which god to place your bet. Take a good long look at the payout table and use your calculator before making any lifelong wager. Unfortunately, there’s zero verifiable evidence pointing toward any particular god to help you make your choice. The vast majority of believers gravitate toward the god-concept most prevalent in their culture, given a foothold in their minds before they were old enough to begin questioning the voices of authority.
Also consider that certain god options require true belief, and not just pretense. You can go through all the motions of worship, but if you don’t truly believe, then you’re no better off than the most wretched and unrepentant sinner. This is the point on which Pascal’s Wager fails most miserably.
It’s truly impossible to choose a belief, although believers will tell you otherwise because they like to think that their “choice” is what earns them a reward.
#33
I was referencing the question of origin of the universe, not the existence of a creator.
While a strong atheist will deny the existence of a creator, I haven’t met one, my self included, who will claim that the universe came from nothing; only that it most probably wasn’t created by a god for the human race.
Brilliant!
Christians tricked and atheists pissed, what an irony 🙂
“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.”
Wait wait wait wait wait! Living a RELIGIOUS life, you have much to lose- going around in little absurd circles, beating yourself up, etc. Pursuing a SPIRITUAL life you have everything to gain.
That’s funny, though. I wish I could think of an atheist who was unemotional, not a drunk and not bitter and hateful!
#33
Actually that’s not true.
Anti-theists claim there is no God.
Atheists have no belief in God, however they do not actively deny the existence of God by definition. It’s a lack of religion.
So a tiny tiny part of the Universe is saying: ‘the whole Universe is dead’
Argument against one’s own existence = fail.
Ordinarily, I would let such semantic shading pass without comment, “but” when offered by Semantics #38, I have to say your characterization is “non standard” and thus an example of bad semantics. Antitheism goes more to the belief systems and effects than the existence or not of god(s). There is much variety including my own stylings: God certainly can’t exist as he is variously formulated and there is no evidence of any of the formulations (except he created and then left the vicinity?) so I am a “strong atheist” that merely takes it one step farther that “if” he did exist, the free will of man should allow MAN to choose his fate, not leaving it to some god. In this context, we are equals. God may win the contest but the contest is still there for those who have not given up their humanity already. So, the broadest reach of antitheism makes the belief or non-belief in god actually irrelevant.
Mr Anderson said, on May 30th, 2010 at 8:51 am
>>So a tiny tiny part of the Universe is saying: ‘the whole Universe is dead’
Here’s today’s news: The Universe is almost totally dead. It’s empty spacetime plus an extremely small smattering of matter and energy.
And if we’re the only life, the Universe sure is one boring place.
There are more stars in the Universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. And that mass is just the tiniest fraction of the Universe that anyone could imagine.
Mass of the visible Universe ~~ 3×10^52 kg (kilograms)
Volume of the visible Universe ~~ 4×10^80 m^3 (cubic meters)
3×10^52 kg / 4×10^80 liters = 7.5 × 10^-29 average density of the Universe. That’s pretty darned close to empty, isn’t it?
Assume there IS a god. He created trillions of stars in billions of galaxies and (if we’re assuming a god, let’s assume other planets are inhabited) millions of civilizations.
Now a god with all that to take care of, and yes, I’ll accept s/he/it is omnipotent and all-knowing, all-seeing, etc., still, with the whole universe on his mind you think he really cares if you’re hiding under the covers beating off?
If I believed in god, I would want one with a more majestic mindset. I could never believe in a god as petulant and juvenile and egotistical as that of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic and most other faiths.
BubbaRay said he is almost totally dead.
The Universe can’t be any less alive than you are BubbaRay. It’s got you proving my point already…)
The Judeo-Christian/Islamic God is a hypocrite. The written descriptions and religious mantra claim he is a god of love, when in actuality the opposite is true. The pain and suffering of the totally innocent that God allows when he has the power to easily stop it, is a crime against his own laws. So it is easy to conclude that the religious description of “God’ is a man made ideal… if there were a god, that description would be the one we would want. What is more likely, that if there is a god it is indifferent to us. There is no reward or punishment waiting after death. A god who allows millions of newborns to starve to death (and things way more disgusting) while others are pampered, wouldn’t give a damn on how you lived your life or what became of you afterward. So, Donai… you fail to see the disconnect, the complete contradiction between what you read and study about “God”, and what is happing around you. THAT is moronic.
So far, no one has successfully challenged my claim in post #4 : Since living life according to “God” is subjective, Pascals wager is impossible to make.
Re: #31 Mr. Anderson: “One side says the Universe was created by God, the other side says the Universe was created by nothing.”
God is a man made ideal, which is also “nothing”. So you have not point there.
This is not a heads or tails kind of wager. First you have to determine if this “God” that you are betting on wants to be worshiped or not. If you believe he wants to be worshiped than you have to determine which religion past or present that he prefers to be worshiped under.
I just prefer to lead a good honest life and take my chances later.
I’m late to this discussion (I went camping this weekend), but I tend to not behave as if I think some guy in the sky is looking down on me, and is always judging me (for one, how does he find the time?).
In my daily life, I tend to ignore the guy in the sky idea, and just do what I feel is the right thing to do. I’m usually comfortable with the results.
‘Nuff said!
Re: #31 Mr. Anderson: “One side says the Universe was created by God, the other side says the Universe was created by nothing.” /// Heh, heh. Looked at logically, this is a form of proof that god is nothing.
But totally made up attribution by the religious types. I have “never” heard anyone say the Big Bang came from nothing except by the religious crowd. The science guys always say and incredibly small point, a “singularity,” and “we don’t know how or why. Its a real mystery.
Mystery: in science means “we don’t know” but are working on various theories.
Mystery: in religion means here is a book with all the details about something that are hypocritical, illogical and anti-human “but” we will kill you if you don’t agree.
Another proof.
If that’s what you believe, then that’s your religion, and you’re talking about your religion, not mine.
Before the ‘incredibly small point, a “singularity,” and “we don’t know how or why’ what or where did they come from? Unknown or nothing known?
It should be very obvious that the Universe is alive. It lives through you and me, and all kinds of life forms.
Mr Anderson, all real-life evidence suggests that the Christian God is a myth. You are avoiding that evidence. It’s not just a matter of belief any more.
‘the Christian God is a myth’ so???
What does that have to do with the God that you are a part of? The God of gods / great spirit, etc…
Mr Anderson, you can make anything up you want. Knock yourself out.
True, if we can’t be rational, I’m wasting my time.
I’m completely rational. There’s nothing that I’ve said that can’t be backed up with empirical evidence.
Show me some empirical evidence on the Universe being “alive”, or that I’m part of a “God”. The only thing you’ve offered so far is that because I’m alive, the whole universe is alive. Irrational, unless you have empirical evidence.
If A is a part of a set of all A’s, and
if A(1) has a specific value,
then all A’s has at least the value of A(1)
The Universe can be no less alive than you are.
If you have no empirical evidence that you exist,
then I can see your point.
What ever amount of empirical evidence you can prove that you are alive, also proves the Universe has at least that amount.
“If A is a part of a set of all A’s”
???
…of all A’s? Your premise relies on “life” which is a concept, as being in the same set as substance… “matter”. You are alive therefore elemental iron is alive?
Sorry, that’s completely irrational.
If you are just a concept, then I can see your point.
My premise relies on you being alive and made of some matter.
life –noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
So by definition, life is described as a condition. Iron, are not described as “conditions”. Life and iron are not in the same set as you describe, any more than data is matter.
Sorry, that originally said something like “Iron, helium and sodium are not described as conditions…” and then I decided to keep it simple. Sloppy editing on my part.
So if we look at your body, atom by atom, we’d find no life. Yet, you are somehow more than just the non-life parts (atoms). If we remove all the iron from your body, you and the Universe would have a loss of a physical life.
At a little larger scale, we might find some bacteria on your surface and they’re discussing whether their world (your body) is alive or not. 😉