The Banana, an Atheist Nightmare (revisited)

[marplots]

Marplots: If we dodge the limits of the material (the palette) and take our God to be all-powerful (and the other attributes) we are still stuck. It does little good to view a work from an artist who is all artists -- any style is only a subset of the possible styles and no information is obtained by viewing a single work.

Here I think we are stretching the analogy too far.
I will refer to God's mark as his signature, if we are considering an all powerful God, all existence would fall under the scope of his signature including the material. So space or time or mass might be his particular signature or choice.

It's tricky and gets back to what we mean by "all powerful." Some take that to mean anything at all, others add something like, "able to do anything possible, but not anything at all."

So, for example, can God make a round triangle or something that is both wet and dry (or solid and liquid) at the same time. If God is limited by what is possible, then the all-choice thing drops away. If He decides to make the elements one way for one reason, He can't also have them do other things for another reason. Once you pick gravity as having a certain value there are consequences that determine how the world will be.

These consequences will at times appear negative or even evil. So, if you choose weather as a way to shuffle things around on a planet, the fact of moving air leads to things like hurricanes and tornadoes. One can argue there might be a solution set that accomplishes all that God wants without any downsides, but my guess is that this is impossible for a mathematical reason -- the degrees of freedom introduce chaos.

The only out I can see is if God dips His hand into the nuances of the machine, adjusting things toward His design almost continuously. My guess is that such interference would be detectable -- the dice rolls too many threes or something like it.

That's what I meant by limitations. Choosing is an act of self limiting. I can be locally all powerful, but if I want eggs for breakfast, I can't simultaneously have an egg-free breakfast, nor can I have the same egg scrambled and over easy. Add in the toast, bacon and juice and you can see how things start to get complicated quick.

If we knew which choices were of primary importance to God, we'd have a better idea. I'm not even convinced that humans are at the top of the choices menu.

 

[marplots]

There is the more specific question though, in the context of this thread: how do you know that the banana is part of that "signature".

...excellent analogy snipped...

The same thing about God, really: if there is some signature of his, how would you know it's the banana and not, say, the screw worm or some other nastyness?

This is why revelation is the path on offer. It skips past all the difficulty of making sense of what an arbitrary-seeming God does. The revelation route uses something akin to, "It's this way because that's the way God wants it and here's what He has to say about it..."

Want to know why I'm wearing a blue tie with little amoebas on it today? Ask me. Otherwise, you are just hypothesizing in the dark.

 

[punshhh]

Or...alternatively...

...rather than having our purpose or destination pre-determined by some outside force, we have the freedom to define our purpose and destination for ourselves. Personally, I think it is a terribly sad and pathetic life if you think that the only way to have purpose or destination is for some higher power to define it for you.

Yes.

What might our purpose or destination be on this speck of dust?


Or perhaps an inner power?

I like to consider that intelligence becomes a caretaker of existence by degrees. Humanity is at the level of caring for a planets ecosystem.

 

[marplots]

Or...alternatively...

...rather than having our purpose or destination pre-determined by some outside force, we have the freedom to define our purpose and destination for ourselves. Personally, I think it is a terribly sad and pathetic life if you think that the only way to have purpose or destination is for some higher power to define it for you.

You can have it both ways. There are two perspectives on offer.

A trite example would be a cow who believes she controls her life and makes free choices within the confines of her situation. She might honestly have a sense of accomplishment, purpose and self determination. She is a good and honorable cow. A quality cow.

You and I know her purpose and destination is the slaughterhouse and the meat market.

I believe I will die. I think my time on earth is limited and there's nothing afterwards. Am I a victim of predestination because of this? Should my mortality quench my daily drive to feed, breed and succeed? The plain fact is that it doesn't. I operate like the cow, within the limitations of my situation and I feel just as purposeful and free as my bovine companion might.

 

[HansMustermann]

This is why revelation is the path on offer. It skips past all the difficulty of making sense of what an arbitrary-seeming God does. The revelation route uses something akin to, "It's this way because that's the way God wants it and here's what He has to say about it..."

Want to know why I'm wearing a blue tie with little amoebas on it today? Ask me. Otherwise, you are just hypothesizing in the dark.

Well, see, that's just the thing. If I wanted to know why YOU did something, indeed I'd ask YOU. I would not ask some schizophrenic who hallucinated about you.

Much less when the crap he's hallucinated is such a messed-up acid trip as Revelation is. If someone came back with some surrealistic hours-long trip in which he saw Marplots with a sword poking out of the mouth, and piloting a borg cube the size frikken Moon (no, seriously, that's the size of that landing cube), and fighting a dragon in the sky, and having a white blood that bleaches stuff, and it goes on for dozens of pages of such messsed up crap... well, let's just say, I wouldn't really take that as a reliable source about Marplots.

It's the same with God, really. If God wanted to reveal himself and answer questions ("Yes, son, of course you'll be saved. Everyone is auto-saved every half an hour and backed up to tape on sundays."), that would indeed be an excellent source for figuring out God. In fact, the best.

But we don't have that.

The only sources we have that fall under 'revelation' are some schizophrenics who hallucinated about God.

I mean, fer fork's sake, Paul even says so himself, and Luke says it about him in Acts 9 and has Paul say it himself in Acts 26. You can't get a more clear statement than that, yes, what he has about Jesus comes from a hallucination.

Now I can see how that made the cut in the ancient world and in a culture where God was supposed to reveal himself in dreams and visions. Sure, I can see why Paul or his very few followers might swallow that as a legitimate revelation. It fit exactly the kind of contact with God that they were expecting.

But, frankly, in the modern age, everyone who's not been living under a rock, and at least vaguely heard about such things as psychology or psychiatry, has no excuse. Whoever actually goes for the special pleading that just in Paul's case that was an actual vision... unlike the literally millions of schizophrenics and epilepsy cases who have similar visions and delusions without any divine source, really has no excuse.

But at any rate, that leaves me without any trustworthy revelation sources. Doubly so since "revealed" truths are in any case incompatible with basic skepticism. If someone can't show the evidence, how would I know that they even actually hallucinated Jesus, much less that the Jesus that talked to them is the real thing? How would I know if the real Jesus spoke to John and told him all that load of surreal stuff, or it was a figment of his own imagination? How would I know if Jesus even approves that crap preached by people who claim revelations from him?

So, yeah, there is the revelation route... if you don't mind its being just worthless crap for gullible marks.

 

[Steve]

I always wanted to hear Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on the magnificent organ at Westminster Cathedral. That would be divine.

I'm not sure it was terribly magnificent. They divorced shortly afterwards.

Perhaps she never tried playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on it.

 

[TimCallahan]

And don't forget the provision of something everyday and inoffensive to demonstrate correct condom fitting in sex education classes...Such foresight! (shame s/he didn't think to remove the foreskins if they were unnecessary prior to manufacture however).

Let me see . . . Oh, I get it now. The way to have safe sex is to put a condom on a banana before you do the wild thing. I mean, putting a condom on an apple obviously wouldn't work. Am I getting this right?

 

[12AX7]

They started out with their own banana but because they ate the other banana god punished them by taking away their banana and having to eat the other banana thereafter....and punished men with the insatiable and often thwarted desire to share their banana.

There you go again, speaking in parables.

Matthew 7:20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Not made by me mind you, but someone in another thread made a powerful case that the ease that bananas could be fit into body orifices was a sign that God meant us to be gay.

I LOL'd!

Shoot me now.

Nice ain't it? Almost textbook Poe's Law.

Jews, one the other hand, have the banana peeled within eight days of the birth of the banana bearer.

Some even use their mouths to clean up the fruit after peeling.

 

[superfreddy]

So, which came first, God or The Banana?

 

[punshhh]

So, which came first, God or The Banana?

As I see it we have two choices, either they are both eternal or both popped into existence at some time.

 

[punshhh]

Perhaps she never tried playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor on it.

Quite

 

[The Norseman]

So, which came first, God or The Banana?

What if God is The Banana?



MIND = BLOWN

 

[Wolfman]

Yes.

What might our purpose or destination be on this speck of dust?

Whatever you decide you want it to be. It is different for every person. If you lack the intellect or capacity or courage to determine your purpose or destination for yourself, don't make the mistake of thinking that all others are like you.

You can have it both ways. There are two perspectives on offer.

A trite example would be a cow who believes she controls her life and makes free choices within the confines of her situation. She might honestly have a sense of accomplishment, purpose and self determination. She is a good and honorable cow. A quality cow.

You and I know her purpose and destination is the slaughterhouse and the meat market.

I believe I will die. I think my time on earth is limited and there's nothing afterwards. Am I a victim of predestination because of this? Should my mortality quench my daily drive to feed, breed and succeed? The plain fact is that it doesn't. I operate like the cow, within the limitations of my situation and I feel just as purposeful and free as my bovine companion might.

You're correct...that's a very trite (and entirely inaccurate) example.

There are, obviously, events over which we have no control. "Free will" doesn't mean "can control everything that happens to me". There's a great deal in our lives that is beyond our control.

But we can control our decisions, we can control our reactions to events. Consider two people who have cancer. One gives up, and passively waits to die. The other has a leg amputated, then goes on a marathon run across Canada to raise money for cancer research, ultimately becoming a hero and leaving a legacy that carries on far after his death (Terry Fox).

BOTH people died of cancer. It had nothing to do with free will, it was a random event. But how they reacted to it was a matter of free will. One didn't die passively because that was his fate...it was because that was his decision. The other didn't become an international hero/icon, with a legacy that continues long after his death, because some invisible entity decided that's what he should do...it is because of his own personal decisions, his choice to make something worthwhile out of his circumstances.

Those who are so entirely lacking in imagination or personal initiative that they can't even conceive of a life without some entity telling them what their purpose is are, in my opinion, some of the saddest and most pathetic individuals out there.

 

[marplots]

... some snipped ...

The only sources we have that fall under 'revelation' are some schizophrenics who hallucinated about God.

I mean, fer fork's sake, Paul even says so himself, and Luke says it about him in Acts 9 and has Paul say it himself in Acts 26. You can't get a more clear statement than that, yes, what he has about Jesus comes from a hallucination.

Now I can see how that made the cut in the ancient world and in a culture where God was supposed to reveal himself in dreams and visions. Sure, I can see why Paul or his very few followers might swallow that as a legitimate revelation. It fit exactly the kind of contact with God that they were expecting.

But, frankly, in the modern age, everyone who's not been living under a rock, and at least vaguely heard about such things as psychology or psychiatry, has no excuse. Whoever actually goes for the special pleading that just in Paul's case that was an actual vision... unlike the literally millions of schizophrenics and epilepsy cases who have similar visions and delusions without any divine source, really has no excuse.

But at any rate, that leaves me without any trustworthy revelation sources. Doubly so since "revealed" truths are in any case incompatible with basic skepticism. If someone can't show the evidence, how would I know that they even actually hallucinated Jesus, much less that the Jesus that talked to them is the real thing? How would I know if the real Jesus spoke to John and told him all that load of surreal stuff, or it was a figment of his own imagination? How would I know if Jesus even approves that crap preached by people who claim revelations from him?

So, yeah, there is the revelation route... if you don't mind its being just worthless crap for gullible marks.

It's a minor league revelation on offer, rather than the burning bush type. As I understand it, the idea is that you read God's word and the Truth (with a capital T) is revealed to you. It's a powerful idea that goes back at least to Luther and the availability of printed Bibles that the lay public could read. This is a step removed from a professional priest who reads it and tells you what it means, and several steps away from God appearing to you in a dream.

Also, since the Bible itself is called into question with the schizophrenic authors bit you wrote, the dodge for that is read it and see if it makes sense to you beyond what you know of the men who wrote it. There's probably a technical term for it, but the idea would be much like reading what I've written here. The words alone, and the thoughts they express can be true/false, shallow/deep or whatever, outside of what you know about me.

So that's two nuances that play against each other. The first is revelation by way of reading the Bible and the second is verifying the Bible by what revelations you get from it. Kinda neat.

I would say that I've experienced it only very minimally and it didn't lead me to God. What wisdom I found in the Bible wasn't of a quality I'd ascribe to God, more of the sort I'd get from any good poetry. Apparently, it takes more to impress me than it would have in the 16th century. However, I am familiar with people who mine the Bible for verses they find inspirational and deeply meaningful.

 

[marplots]

Whatever you decide you want it to be. It is different for every person. If you lack the intellect or capacity or courage to determine your purpose or destination for yourself, don't make the mistake of thinking that all others are like you.You're correct...that's a very trite (and entirely inaccurate) example.

It sounds like I'd only have to determine your intellect, capacity and courage to direct your actions. That would be a sort of determinism I guess.

There are, obviously, events over which we have no control. "Free will" doesn't mean "can control everything that happens to me". There's a great deal in our lives that is beyond our control.

I agree. Perhaps there is more beyond our control than we think.

But we can control our decisions, we can control our reactions to events.

How do we know this? Is it because we feel it?

Consider two people who have cancer. One gives up, and passively waits to die. The other has a leg amputated, then goes on a marathon run across Canada to raise money for cancer research, ultimately becoming a hero and leaving a legacy that carries on far after his death (Terry Fox).

BOTH people died of cancer. It had nothing to do with free will, it was a random event. But how they reacted to it was a matter of free will.

Again, how do we know this? Wouldn't it seem the same if we were directed without our knowledge?

One didn't die passively because that was his fate...it was because that was his decision. The other didn't become an international hero/icon, with a legacy that continues long after his death, because some invisible entity decided that's what he should do...it is because of his own personal decisions, his choice to make something worthwhile out of his circumstances.

That's interesting. Do you suppose the guy who just died off decided he didn't want to live longer and be a national hero? It seems odd that some of us would ever choose not to succeed or do our best or rise above our travails if we had the free will to do so. If we are limited by our biology or for psychiatric reasons, then that's all I was saying in the first place -- we are victims of context and the situations we are in.

Those who are so entirely lacking in imagination or personal initiative that they can't even conceive of a life without some entity telling them what their purpose is are, in my opinion, some of the saddest and most pathetic individuals out there.

I don't see the conflict. I don't think that religion is forced on someone at the point of a gun (at least not the authentic kind) -- I think people really believe the stuff they say. They read the Ten Commandments and think, "That makes sense," and so on with other stuff. In those conditions, how could they choose other than to adopt the highest purpose available to them?

I think it is possible for someone of initiative, drive, imagination and all those other nice attributes to want to be Pope or the Ayatollah. Just because someone chooses differently than I, I shouldn't necessarily figure they are dolts or lacking ambition. As far as imagination goes, I find my lack of belief in God is at least partly due to an inability to imagine a realistic one.

 

[marplots]

Religion + Banana = Ice cream Sunday

 

[Wolfman]

It sounds like I'd only have to determine your intellect, capacity and courage to direct your actions. That would be a sort of determinism I guess.

Again, wrong. You read, but don't comprehend. I'm not saying that you can determine my actions, nor that I can determine yours. I'm saying that there is nobody who can determine their individual purpose/direction, except that individual themselves. Others may help you, give advice, etc., but the ultimate responsibility lays with you and you alone.

If you want to pawn that responsibility off on some imaginary deity, or other such 'higher power', or on some blind determinism, that's your choice. Just don't think that because you lack the ability to take that responsibility, that others are likewise unable to.

I think it is possible for someone of initiative, drive, imagination and all those other nice attributes to want to be Pope or the Ayatollah. Just because someone chooses differently than I, I shouldn't necessarily figure they are dolts or lacking ambition. As far as imagination goes, I find my lack of belief in God is at least partly due to an inability to imagine a realistic one.

Straw man argument. I never said that someone who seeks to be Pope or Ayatollah lacks initiative, drive, or imagination; I said that someone who is unable to comprehend how someone could determine their own life's purpose without having it dictated by a higher power, someone who not only is unable to take personal responsibility for their own life, but who cannot even comprehend how others would be able to do so...

...it is that individual who is truly pathetic.

There are numerous people living very happy, fulfilled, successful lives who believe in no god, nor in any kind of determinism, who have determined for themselves what their 'purpose' is.

And if you want to believe in a deterministic universe (with or without a god), feel free. But your attempts to debate the issue are entirely nonsensical, if that is truly your belief...since if this is a deterministic universe, with no free will, then attempting to persuade me otherwise is an exercise in futility, since I have no free choice to change my perspective.

The most fundamentally ridiculous aspect of determinist arguments -- be they religious or not -- is how much time those who believe in them will spend trying to convince others...which holds the implicit assumption that others are able to change their minds, that their beliefs are not predetermined.

 

[marplots]

Again, wrong. You read, but don't comprehend. I'm not saying that you can determine my actions, nor that I can determine yours. I'm saying that there is nobody who can determine their individual purpose/direction, except that individual themselves. Others may help you, give advice, etc., but the ultimate responsibility lays with you and you alone.

But we were talking God here, not me determining what you do. Couldn't God design in everything you say? This is the root argument for Calvinism. If you are created to be a certain way, you will be that way. You will make all your choices in light of who you are, but it's the "who you are" that is determined.

If you want to pawn that responsibility off on some imaginary deity, or other such 'higher power', or on some blind determinism, that's your choice. Just don't think that because you lack the ability to take that responsibility, that others are likewise unable to.

Is that the essential element here -- responsibility? I don't see how you can have it both ways, that our choices are a product of who we are and then have us simultaneously responsible for who we are as well. There's something out of order there. Unless you mean you willfully and freely decided who you would be and I don't see when that might have happened or how.

Straw man argument. I never said that someone who seeks to be Pope or Ayatollah lacks initiative, drive, or imagination; I said that someone who is unable to comprehend how someone could determine their own life's purpose without having it dictated by a higher power, someone who not only is unable to take personal responsibility for their own life, but who cannot even comprehend how others would be able to do so...

...it is that individual who is truly pathetic.

I'm still confused then. What would you think of someone who determined, on their own, that their life's purpose was to follow God's wishes as far as they could understand them?

There are numerous people living very happy, fulfilled, successful lives who believe in no god, nor in any kind of determinism, who have determined for themselves what their 'purpose' is.

I can't dispute that. There are plenty of examples on both teams.

And if you want to believe in a deterministic universe (with or without a god), feel free. But your attempts to debate the issue are entirely nonsensical, if that is truly your belief...since if this is a deterministic universe, with no free will, then attempting to persuade me otherwise is an exercise in futility, since I have no free choice to change my perspective.

But it's more subtle than that. If I and the universe are deterministic, I can do nothing other than try to convince you; nonsense or not, I'm bound to do it. Further, it may be that you are bound to accept my arguments and change your stance. I can't find out until I make the arguments.

[/I]The most fundamentally ridiculous aspect of determinist arguments -- be they religious or not -- is how much time those who believe in them will spend trying to convince others...which holds the implicit assumption that others are able to change their minds, that their beliefs are not predetermined.

Are you of the opinion that everyone who thinks determinism is a workable idea started out thinking it so? If not, at least some must have changed their minds along the way. Predetermined doesn't mean the same thing as static.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Question: Is making the Slippery Slope fallacy with the banana argument, like.... the biggest irony in the history of ever?

 

[marplots]

I should mention how I think free will and determinism can coexist.

I do magic as a hobby. In a "pick a card" scenario (at least one version) I know ahead of time which card you will select. Maybe I've written it down and mailed it off or made a prediction some other way. You, as the spectator feel you have a free choice. If I ask you (and I have asked), whether your choice was freely made, you will say yes. The experience from your perspective is one of freely choosing and, I think, it is identical to other experiences regarding free will.

However, from my perspective, the whole thing is determined ahead of time. This is supposed to be a parallel with man's relationship to God. As an atheist, I find flaws with the set up and what religious people want to infer from it, but I do not have a gripe with the idea of determinism philosophically. I also agree that there isn't any way to tell if the whole thing is a magic trick or not. At least I can't think of a way to test it.

I prefer the no free will and the materialist side to other explanations, but I can't really say I know enough to refute them. I do know, from my experience, that even when I feel I'm acting freely, I always choose the best choice and never choose what I think is second best at the time -- unless I'm doing so to game the system, in which case, I'm still choosing the best, just using a different criteria to do so.