Why I'm not an Atheist

[Cramulus]

I'm not ignoring you, and to be completely frank, I have no beef with you whatsoever. I was even joking around with you about the kia thing on the last page of this thread.

If it appears that I was ignoring you, I apologize, and I assure you it was not my intent to do anything of the sort.


That being said, after deciding that I was being rude, your FIRST move wasn't to talk to me about it, but to troll my posts and quick draw "didn't read lol" gifs---which shows me loud and clear that you actually do have some issue with me.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm not ignoring you, and to be completely frank, I have no beef with you whatsoever. I was even joking around with you about the kia thing on the last page of this thread.

If it appears that I was ignoring you, I apologize, and I assure you it was not my intent to do anything of the sort.


That being said, after deciding that I was being rude, your FIRST move wasn't to talk to me about it, but to troll my posts and quick draw "didn't read lol" gifs---which shows me loud and clear that you actually do have some issue with me.

Well, I didn't see much point in talking to you, since you had ignored every earlier attempt to talk to you.

Then this:

it's almost like you have something to say

Sorta spurred things on a bit.

Cram, I may have hollered at you, I may have been a jerk (warranted or not), but I have never treated you as anything less than a human being, even if you were a human with whom I was - for whatever reason - angry.

So when you returned this time, and seemed to be more or less friendly, I was hoping that the past bullshit was over with (sneering at me over WOMP, etc), and I was ready to let all that go.  I was rather eager to let all that go.

But now I feel like a fucking fool, after a solid day of speaking to you and having you more or less turn your back.

You say that was not your intention; I shall take you at your word.

But if you were wondering why I did what I did as a FIRST move, consider that from my point of view that was the only move available.

[Cramulus]

You could have PM'd me or talked to me like two friends/adults trying to resolve a miscommunication, but your "only move available" was to troll me and press my buttons? give me a break.

I wasn't avoiding you, and I've already apologized for any unintentional slight, so what do you want from me? I am not here to have drama with you or anybody. Do you really think I am carrying around some secret grudge? Up until you started trolling me, I HONESTLY figured everything between us was cool. Now I know that's not the case, you're paranoid about me, harboring hostility, and are itching to escalate it.

I'm genuinely sorry if that's the way you feel. I love you, man.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You could have PM'd me or talked to me like two friends/adults trying to resolve a miscommunication, but your "only move available" was to troll me and press my buttons? give me a break.

<snip>

Now I know that's not the case, you're paranoid about me, harboring hostility, and are itching to escalate it.

Walking away at this point.

[Pere Ubu]

...um....   hello....?

Not like I want to get embroiled in something, but I thought I'd slop my two cent-flax into the discussion, such as it is.

I used to consider myself a regular lightning-defying Atheist, at least partially as part of being defiant of authority in general and partly of having grown up in the Moral Majority '80s. I ripped on Swaggart and the 700 Club, crossed "IN GOD WE TRUST" off on my money with a black marker, and voraciously read anti-creationist texts.

Ultimately this led to picking up humanist/atheist magazines... and while the Xtian bashing in American Atheist Magazine was indeed entertaining, they went on to bash everyone who had a religion of any kind as weak and stupid. Then I came across True Christians like the Berrigan brothers, the Plowshares protesters,  and Father Oscar Romero, and I realized that atheists, just like the ones they criticized, could be just as fundamentalist and intolerant as believers. Denying that religion could ever have a positive effect on someone is just as stupid as denying that the "wrong" religion could ever have a positive effect. So, that was that.

At the moment I'd consider myself a Deist, maybe - I do believe there are Gods, at least in the sense of something more powerful than humanity, only I don't necessarily believe they need or want adulation and/or worship. (And in my darker moods, I'm of a more Lovecraftian mind; you don't WANT to draw Their attention by praying...)

Eris is about the only deity I take seriously, and that's entirely because She tells you NOT to take Her seriously.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hi Pere Ubu!

That was a great introductory post, thanks for joining the fray!

[LMNO]

Also, bold choice of screen names. You from Ohio, by any chance?

[Pere Ubu]

Thanks muchly for the welcome, and no, the 'nym is more Alfred Jarry than Dave Thomas.

But then, isn't 'pataphysics pretty much the scientific extension of Eristic principles?

[rong]

there are many fascinating ideas in this thread.  Do any mods think a split is warranted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had.  I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension.  i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line.  Where is this line? it is in a plane.  Where is this plane? etc.  This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions.  In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion about humans being antennae or what have you for the greater common consciousness has prompted me to share an idea that a friend told me about - and I had another idea I want to share on the same topic.

a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive.  He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive.  He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.

b) I think the idea that we are all antennae transmitting and receiving signals from the greater common consciousness is pretty neat - but, why does there only have to be one?  Wouldn't it be interesting if there were two (or more) "common consciousnesses" - some people are tuned into one, some people are tuned into the other one.  Maybe some people are tuned into nothing - these would be the "robot" people.  Anyhow, just an idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, on the subject of Agnosticism.  A few months back I had an idea to compile some sort of essay or book that I wanted to call the Truth about God
The basis for the writing would be that, it is impossible to know if the God you choose to believe in is real, or just a delusion.  But even given this uncertainty, certain truths can be arrived at.

For example.  "thou shalt not test God" - if God is real, you can certainly find examples of scripture that tell you not to test God.  But let's say God is a delusion - if you test your delusion, you give your delusion an opportunity to fail and then you will lose faith in your delusion.  If you want to maintain your faith in your belief - you should not test it lest it fail - whether your belief is "correct" or a delusion.

Another "truth" might be that - God will be with you if you want [him] to be.  Again, whether or not [he] is real doesn't matter.

I am curious if anyone would be interesting in collaborating on a list of truths in this vein.

[Golden Applesauce]

V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had.  I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension.  i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line.  Where is this line? it is in a plane.  Where is this plane? etc.  This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions.  In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.

The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.

As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.

[rong]

V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had.  I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension.  i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line.  Where is this line? it is in a plane.  Where is this plane? etc.  This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions.  In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.

The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.

As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.

you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers.  I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.

I follow what you are saying about real numbers not necessarily being "real" but I don't understand how that relates to my belief that there are infinitely many dimensions.

[Golden Applesauce]

a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive.  He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive.  He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.

Does he mean processes that we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how, or processes that are fundamentally impossible to perceive? If it's the first one, let's wait 200 years. It took quite a long time for humans to figure out all the processes involved in powered flight, and the early attempts attempting to mimic bird wings with no understanding of the processes that made bird wings work were hilariously bad and doomed to failure, but we've definitely figured it out now.

Saying something is fundamentally impossible to perceive is equivalent to saying that it fundamentally can't exist. Let X be such an unobservable thing. Let U+X be a universe like ours universe except with one extra X, and U-X be a universe like ours except missing all instances of X. Any differences between U+X and U-X are perceivable effects of X. If there are no perceivable effects of X, than U+X is no different from U-X, and so the U+X is actually the same universes as U-X, which makes X a pretty meaningless thing if +X and -X are the same.

[Golden Applesauce]

V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had.  I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension.  i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line.  Where is this line? it is in a plane.  Where is this plane? etc.  This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions.  In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.

The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.

As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.

you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers.  I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.

What happens if that "somewhere" is "the universe"?

Q1: "Where is GA?"
A1: "At GA's apartment."
Q2: "Where is GA's apartment?"
A2: "At GA's apartment."
Q3: goto Q2

(edit - not ignoring the parts I haven't quoted, they just have their own responses and I'll get to them separately if I get around to it.)

[rong]

a) my friend told me he had an idea that there are many more dimensions in reality than the ones that we perceive.  He thought maybe that certain processes in our brains happen in these dimensions that we don't perceive.  He felt that would be a good explanation for why we humans can't seem to develop A.I. - we are only modelling the processes that we can perceive when, perhaps, there are many other processes going on that we just can't measure or perceive.

Does he mean processes that we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how, or processes that are fundamentally impossible to perceive? If it's the first one, let's wait 200 years. It took quite a long time for humans to figure out all the processes involved in powered flight, and the early attempts attempting to mimic bird wings with no understanding of the processes that made bird wings work were hilariously bad and doomed to failure, but we've definitely figured it out now.

Saying something is fundamentally impossible to perceive is equivalent to saying that it fundamentally can't exist. Let X be such an unobservable thing. Let U+X be a universe like ours universe except with one extra X, and U-X be a universe like ours except missing all instances of X. Any differences between U+X and U-X are perceivable effects of X. If there are no perceivable effects of X, than U+X is no different from U-X, and so the U+X is actually the same universes as U-X, which makes X a pretty meaningless thing if +X and -X are the same.

I think he meant processes we can't perceive because we haven't figured out how.  In other words, I think he was saying that, we are aware that neurons communicate with each other by synapses firing, but that there are also other "synapses" that fire not in the dimensions we are used to but, rather, say - the 5th and 6th dimensions if you like.  Since those processes are happening "behind the scenes" we have no way (yet) to observe them and incorporate them into our models.

I think where we may differ in opinion is that, supposing this extra-dimensional processes do exist - I am not convinced we will ever actually be able to observe them.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist.  To put it another way, germs existed before the microscope was invented.  Supposing that humans never existed, or developed the ability to observe germs via a microscope - this does not alter the existence of germs.

[rong]

V3X's post about dimensions has prompted me to share what I believe is an epiphany I had.  I was thinking about dimensions and how to answer the question "Where is this?" you must add another dimension.  i.e. Where is this point? It is on a line.  Where is this line? it is in a plane.  Where is this plane? etc.  This train of thought has led me to believe that there are infinitely many dimensions.  In many ways, I think of God as the "infinitieth" dimension.

The hidden assumption in that line of thought is that questions imply answers. "Where is X?" implying that there is a Y for X to be in. You might as well ask "What color are God's shoes?" and derive from question that not only the existence of a god but also that a god wears shoes that have a color. Or you could ask "What is not the answer to this question?" to prove that paradoxical entities are real, and paradoxical entities imply that all statements are true and all statements are false at the same time. If there is a statement that is true but not false, or false but not true, that implies that there is at least one question which does not have an answer.

As far as dimensions specifically, you can certainly construct arbitrarily many dimensions, but it's hard to argue that any of those dimensions "exist" in any real sense. The so-called "Real Numbers", for example, are constructed mathematically as groupings of countably infinite dimensional vectors of rational numbers. (Rational numbers are 2-dimensional vectors of integers: <numerator, denominator>). You can make a case that 2, pi, square root of 7, whatever are all real entities in our universe, or at least describe relationships between real entities. But then you have Real Numbers that are noncomputable, which is to say that no algorithm defined with a finite number of symbols could calculate them. I don't mean numbers like pi and square root of 2 - those are irrational and have have infinitely many non-repeating decimal points, but you can write simple algorithms that produce ever-closer approximations of them and then declare that finding the limit of those approximations is equivalent to calculating the number. There are countably-infinite such finite-symbol algorithms, and power-set of countably-infinite Real Numbers, so the definition of Real Numbers allows for numbers that can't come from any algorithm. Such a "noncomputable" number would have to contain infinitely many bits of information, so any real relationship that it described would have infinite physical potential energy. It's hard to make the case that noncomputable numbers are really existing thing in the same way that 1, 2, pi, sqrt(7) are.

you are correct and I concede that my questions presume answers.  I think my assumption is that the universe is "somewhere" - but I'll have to think about it for awhile.

What happens if that "somewhere" is "the universe"?

Q1: "Where is GA?"
A1: "At GA's apartment."
Q2: "Where is GA's apartment?"
A2: "At GA's apartment."
Q3: goto Q2

(edit - not ignoring the parts I haven't quoted, they just have their own responses and I'll get to them separately if I get around to it.)

I see what you are doing here and I can't really disagree.  Except I'm more comfortable answering:
"GA's apartment is in GA's apartment building"
Where is that?
GA's city.
Where is that?
GA's state
Where is that?
GA's country
.
.
.
Where is that?
The Universe
Where is that?
The I'm not sure
Where is that?
The I'm not sure + 1
Where is that?
The I'm not sure + 2
.
.
.