Oh yes, Supernatural is a nonsense word. Everything is natural, nothing is “extra-natural”.
Erek
I feel the same way about people who don’t believe in Invisible Pink-Unicorns. To not believe in them is a statement of faith. I much prefer people who just don’t think its proven.
No, I’m simply saying that information is not matter, but the arrangement of matter.
Actually, that’s my point. By supporting us, purpose-giving creatures, the star aquires purpose. A star in some lifeless galaxy would have no such thing.
Matter that isn’t alive ( duh ).
You were claiming “God IS the universe, God IS mathematics, God IS you, God IS your brain, God IS everything.”. That’s a claim of fact, not a word definition.
Which failed, where science suceeded.
WHOOSH ! fnord
That is not evolution.
A brickhouse stands because someone put it there. Making up the crust of the Earth is not purpose. The external universe isn’t random; it’s had billions of years to evolve order.
I agree, and the arrangement of that atom after it leaves your body was determined by it’s arrangement while it was part of your body.
I’m so glad you’ve cleared that up for me.
Actually, I was defining God.
Ummm…okay
It was a whoosh, except I know of the Illuminatus trilogy and love to play “Illuminati”.
Der Trihs has spoken!!!
You aren’t even consistent.
Erek
Maybe the answer to this question will help me understand your point of view: is “the arrangement of matter” a part of the physical universe?
Well, physically speaking, all particles came from the same place — both those that compose you and those that compose lifeless matter in some distant galaxy (distant in time as well as space). You really can’t know what particle came from what star.
So what happens then to purpose and significance? Must we assign purpose and significance to the whole universe, since we don’t know where our brain particles came from? Or must we assign purpose and significance to nothing for the same reason? After all, if significance is born in the brain’s knowledge (and I assume we mean the frontal cortex as opposed to the amygdala), and things are significant merley because the brain says they are, then may there not be significance to metaphysical things that the brain comprehends? Like God, for example?
And that brings us to another question. This is a hypothetical, so bear with me. Suppose just for the sake of argument that you, and you alone, attached significance to human life. That is, suppose the whole world disagreed with you. Would human life still be significant? If so, will it still be significant after you die? And if not, doesn’t that make significance pretty insignificant?
Is your argument that in all arenas mysticism has failed and science has succeeded?
After death, true. Whether it is heaven or non-existence, not problem. However during death, not so good.
There are three types of parents. One type holds hands all the time, and don’t let the kids out of their sight, and corrects immediately. Type 2 give broad guidelines and realize that kids have to make their own mistakes to grow. Some may be real bad, but you have to take that risk. Type 3 is so distant they might as well not exist - think Eloise’s mother.
I agree that God type 1 is no good. We got an extreme case of God type 3. I’d like God type 2 myself.
Well, actually it is a god who might gently correct people doing evil in his name. I don’t mean a god that testifies in court like George Burns, but one that really doesn’t like having his name taken in vain.
Is this really too much to ask of a deity?
Yes. Consider this : Take a bunch of rocks and pile them into a pyramid. That’s a pattern. Now scatter the rocks; they are unchanged, but the pyriamid - the pattern - is gone. The pyramid can’t exist without the rocks, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real.
In the same way, I believe my mind is a pattern built of the structure and activity of my brain. It’s not a solid object the way the brain itself it, but it does have physical reality.
We can’t really give puropse to something unless we interact with it. Since we are presently limited to one plant and have existed for only a short time, we can only give purpose to a small amount of the universe.
God is significant, even though he is unreal. People kill and die over him, so in many ways his lack of reality doesn’t matter.
Life is significant because it cares about things, feels things and does things. Your hypothetical race of semi-sociopaths would still think and feel and plan; they and their doings would still have significance, although I question how long they would bother to stay alive.
Yes.
One answer could be…Why do you (or any one else claim to) believe that the resurrection of Christ is a historical fact?
Forgive my butting in, Voyager, but your question touches upon something meaningful for me. As you probably know, my own theology posits that God simply gives every person the desires of his heart — one man’s heaven is another man’s hell, and whatnot. That is my understanding of Jesus’ teachings.
However, I really don’t understand the premise underlying the sort of objection to mainstream Christianity that you pose. And so I ask this question, not to oppose you, but to understand you. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mainstreamers are right. God requires acceptance of Him, and that the consequence of refusal is to suffer eternity in Hell.
The question then to me becomes, is this really too much to ask of a person? I mean, He isn’t requiring that you do anything beyond your mental or physical bounds. He isn’t demanding that you smash into buildings, climb mountains, and walk barefoot over molten steel. His requirement, in fact, is exceedingly humble given His alleged power and status. It seems to me that it is indeed too much to ask of a deity that He impugn His own holiness and purity by acquiescing to those who couldn’t care less about Him anyway. Do you understand the question? It is difficult to phrase, and I might not have been clear.
We all die. In the grand scheme of things, it matters little if we die horribly or peacefully in our sleep. Though it’s not hard to get along with somebody else’s troubles, out of empathy I’d prefer that no one had to spend their last seconds in pain and fear. And I don’t see what it matters to a god if we do or not.
To address Lib’s comment, while the universe probably won’t be affected if our whole planet gets sterilized five minutes from now, people do exist, people do have feelings, and I prefer that people, if possible, do not suffer. I’m quite the materialist, but don’t see why this is an issue with materialism.
Forgive my butting in too, please 
Supposing the christian god exists. He also requires not worshipping any other gods. (AFAIK implicitly acknowledging other gods also exist, tell me if I’m wrong). Why should the christian god be so special? I mean, what reason is there to believe him and not some other god(s)?
He’s asking me to grovel before him, on pain of eternal torture. That is far to much to ask, especially since a god that allows an eternal hell to exist is an evil god. I have no desire to grovel and fawn before anyone, much less a God of Torture.
Your view is honestly fascinating, almost eclectic. Typically, things are said to have physical reality when they can be empirically tested. A pyramid, on the other hand, is an analytic object; that is, a thing is a pyramid because of, and only because of, the definition of a pyramid. Contrast that to a subatomic particle, which can be detected by empirical means. Regardless of how you define it or label it, a thing goes flying out from a collision and leaves a trace of its existence. With pyramids, triangles, and numbers and such, no such thing. If we did not define the number one as the successor of zero and apply the Induction Axiom, we could not even prove that one plus one equals two.
That seems to contradict…
…this. Your statement above requires that for something to have purpose, we must interact with it. If God’s purpose indeed is to serve as an excuse for murder and martyrdom, then that must mean that people interact with God. And yet, if God is not real, then how are people interacting with something not real?
Is Yodr Fipp, my imaginary childhood friend, significant? He cared about me very much, felt proud of me, and took upon himself the blame for a lot of wicked little things that I did. Does significance imply purpose, and therefore reality?
Well you can’t have it both ways. You began by positing His existence and declaration of uniqueness. You cannot then ask what reason there is to believe in Him and not some other god. The reason is in your premise.
My response was to cosmosdan question about what God I would like to see. It is not really an objection to Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. I don’t disbelieve in any particular deity because of the moral code of a religion, but because of lack of evidence and evidence of lack. I’m also not saying that any god must have the characteristics I mention, only that would be a god worthy of worship in my opinion. If you got to design a deity, would you design one with hell or one without hell?
I’m a bit skewed, because the religion I got brought up in had no hell, and I never heard a sermon mentioning it. I think there are some issues in defining a god who allows a hell as being omnibenevolent, but I’m not sure I see omnibenevolence as a necessary condition for a god.
You are misinformed, Der Trihs. Scientific inquiry can offer us little or no insight on many fundamental human questions. Mysticism has answered these questions satisfactorily for many people, and its full range continues to be explored.
I did position his existence. I did not position his uniqueness (as the only god), and neither does he, as far as I know (but as I said, correct me if I’m wrong, and a cite would be nice).
Also, I don’t believe (as in trust) in some people who I know do exist. That’s a matter of faith. Even if god existed why should I trust him?
You said, “Supposing the christian god exists. He also requires not worshipping any other gods.” That posits both His existence, and his declaration that He is unique.
Now that’s a good question. I think you should be allowed to freely and volitionally give or withhold your consent. As it happens, so does He.
For me, it wouldn’t make any difference. Being with Him is heaven, and without Him is hell.