|
|
Posted by The Natural Philosopher on 12/20/07 14:56
Steve wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:1198154467.74006.0@iris.uk.clara.net...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Erwin Moller"
>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in
>>> message news:4769595c$0$85795$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>> ???? ??? ?????? wrote:
>>>>> Excuse me!!
>>>>> Would you stop for a moment?!
>>>>> O...man...Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
>>>>> Who has made it?
>>>>> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
>>>> Good question, ???? ??? ??????!
>>>> Who made your designer?
>>>> .....
>>>> Well??
>>> well, obviously since nothing complex that we've every experienced has
>>> begun as something more simple,
>> Actually, science assumes the reverse is the case.
>
> i know, you're the second person that missed the sarcasm. i thought begging
> the logical delimma after that statement would have made it clear that i was
> being intentional. :)
>
Ah, Too subtle for a dull Thursday morning with caffiene levels at
critical...
>> That the total complexity of life is in fact based on simple rules.
>>
>> The way that a simple 5 lines of code can produce the mandelbrot set.
>>
>> God is probably just an amoeba.
>
> less...he is the pennacle of man's imagination and the apex of his laziness.
>
Pennacle?
>>> the most reasonable answer would be...something more complex than the
>>> designer. begging the same question ad-nauseum of each increasingly more
>>> complex creator.
>
> there's the indicator that i was being sarcastic.
>
>>> lest we forget, gawd is a 'special' case and being omni* does not require
>>> something more complex to create him/her/it/them.
>>>
>> Well that's just a copout logically speaking.
>
> exactly. sad that people actually think that's a good answer.
>
>> I MUCH perfer the Buddhist lexcicon.
>>
>> The 'Tao is that which exists through itself'
>
> which is quite illogical speaking in descartian terms.
Descartes was a fool. Plenty of non thinking things evidently exist.
Most Xtians for a start.
>tao can only know
> that it exists (though NOT via 'thinking == am'), else it wouldn't care to
> ask whether or not it did.
Thats implying that the tao is a French philsopher. It isn't.
> 'through' is an activity that requires 3rd party
> verification. it is objective. and, since one cannot be certain that
> anything is real, beyond the 'first case' - i exist - then one has no
> reliable means to verify *how* one exists, i.e. 'through itself'.
>
Indeed. Its a nonsensical statement that is used to show how the logic
of human thought cannot apply to the fundamentals aspects of things.
Remember thats a translation from another language. The mneaiong miay be
aking top a 'train that lays its own tracks'.
Its poetic statement also. Buddhism understands that not all thiungs can
be described directly and logically.
"To (peer) behind (consciuousness) with (consciousness), that cannot be
done"
> btw, afaikr, that's 'taoism' and has very little to do with buddhism. in
> most cases, taoism and buddhism have very differing opinions on things.
>
well Taoiskm is proto buddhsim IIRC. Or is it the other way round?
>> No personalization, no worship, no god bothering: A nice simple
>> philosophic statement of naming the unnameable..
>
> but equally subjective as any other religion.
>
Everything is ultimately subjective. I wouldn't call Buddhism or Taoism
a religion either..its more a philosophy. And a practical guide to doing
weird things to your head ;-)
>> The confusion arises from the Western mindset,where causality is imbued in
>> our language, and the way we interpret reality.
>
> same thing applies to eastern religions...perhaps moreso. asian peoples are
> more comfortable mixing statements of reality and the metaphysical, and
> speaking of them both at the same time as if all are objective experiences.
> the confusion sets in because all religion is *subjective*. not surprising
> since no religion can provide objective proof for it's truthfulness.
>
No one can provide objective 'proof' for anything, actually. All we can
do is construct as elegant and simple structures possible that seem to
model the world(s) we seem to find ourselves in.
My objection to God based ones, is that they sacrifice effectiveness for
simplicity. Ultimately you can do anything with religion at all. "Just
do what the Law says, and God will see you right, OK?"
Boring and useless.
>> Naturally that leads to a Prime Cause,. and the need to invent one.
>
> i don't think that's where it starts. i think man, being a toolmaker and
> being highly inventive, saw from his beginning that each tool had a purpose.
> he most logically extended that range of thought to all things he observed.
> god is simply the ulitimate, eventual answer/notion for people who didn't
> have the knowledge or means to learn how the natural world works. plus, who
> wants to toil to survive and not get some kind of reach-around after dying?
>
Who wanted to be born? I don't remember asking for it?
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the primitive peoples.
I think they actually were far more aware of the reality of life,
untrammeled by too much thinking about it.
My interpreation of Genesis,is that at some point Man started thinking
about it, and forming concepts, and that took him from a state of
blissful ignorance to a state of paranoid suspicion,where he was
surrounded by things that MIGHT be.
>> The answer is to reject Causalitu as a univverals principle, and simpley
>> state in plain English.
>>
>> "Some things just ARE".
>
> good point. i love to hear people argue stats when it comes to probability
> of things being the way they are. and, that if one single tiny thing were
> different, the universe wouldn't exist as it is. it's funny because the stem
> from the same assumption...that what we see has all been an eventuality. the
> simple answer is, yes, if the universe were different, the universe would be
> different. a moot point. :)
The anthropic principal.
>
>> At a stroke, the logical underpinnings such as they are of god bothering
>> collapse and are seen for the house of carsds that they really are.
>>
>> "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
>>
>> There is no need to introduce any more supernatural entities than that one
>> statement
>>
>> "Some things just ARE"
>>
>>
>>
>>> erwin, on the notion of irreducibly complex...has the proponent of that
>>> argument *ever* been able to show something that was? and that's
>>> forgiving the man-made, relative notions of complexity, order,
>>> randomness, etc..
>> The information contained in the universe has been shown to require a
>> computer..as large as the universe..to hold it..
>
> good analogy. :)
>
Apparently it is a fact, or as near a fact as anything else is.
Whilst te laws of nature may be incrediubly simple. teh initial state of
the data, so to speak, ciontains mosrt of te complexity.l
I guess you could replace 'Big Bang, broken symmetry;' by 'Gods fart,.
bad pizza'
But somehow it isn't quite the same is it?>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|