• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

A comparison between God and fun I made a few years ago seems to be relevant here.

Many people have subjective experiences of fun.
Many people, as PartSkeptic points out, have subjective experiences of God.

A variety of large industries, amounting to a substantial segment of the economy, have the ostensible purpose of providing experiences of fun.
A variety of large industries, amounting to a substantial segment of the economy, have the ostensible purpose of providing experiences of God.

If you examined every molecule in the universe you would not find a single particle of fun.
If you examined every molecule in the universe you would not find a single particle of God.

Though everyone seems to think they know what they mean by fun, it's remarkably difficult to formulate a clear definition of the word.
Though everyone seems to think they know what they mean by God, it's remarkably difficult to formulate a clear definition of the word.

Nonetheless, experiencing fun likely has value that could help explain how the capability to do so evolved: it rewards certain experiences often related to learning and competition, promoting the learning and practicing of useful skills.
Nonetheless, experiencing God likely has value that could help explain how the capability to do so evolved: it rewards certain behaviors often related to social organization and group bonding, promoting useful cooperative effort.

What people consider fun varies between individuals and between cultures. What some people consider fun, others find repugnant.
What people consider God varies between individuals and between cultures. What some people consider godly, others find repugnant.

Does fun exist? Sure. Does fun (or the desire for fun) shape ourselves and our lives? It appears so. Did fun create the universe; is fun a distinct sentient being who rules over us as a parent, punishes the wicked, and has an infallible plan to lead us all to a promised future state of ultimate eternal bliss? If I told you yes, you'd have no good reason to take me seriously.
Does God exist? Sure. Does God (or the desire for God) shape ourselves and our lives? It appears so. Did God create the universe; is God a distinct sentient being who rules over us as a parent, punishes the wicked, and has an infallible plan to lead us all to a promised future state of ultimate eternal bliss? Well, people tell stories portraying God that way, but there's no good reason to take them literally.
 
Exact hole for puddle, versus puddle fits any hole. Evolution by design, versus design by evolution.

First versus second.

Like the duck-rabbit illusion, the duality exists, and there seems to be no middle; it's one or the other.

Both observe. Here is a puddle. Here is a whale.

The first posits a prior something: to dig the correct hole; to blueprint the production of a whale.

The second posits what is observable, tests it and repeats.

The first seeks to explain what is beyond observation; thereby wedding invention to lies.

The second seeks to explain what it can observe; wedding knowledge to doubt.

Observation is the watershed.

Knowing this, the first must attack observation itself. Fake news is very old.

Try to see the rabbit for the duck; the duck for the rabbit; but learn which is the quack: it is they who question only to distract.
 
PartSkeptic said:
.........

They do not. Judaism and Israel are examples of the most religious society on earth. They are the elite and do exceptionally well.

.........
Click to expand...


Just were do you get these ideas from PartSkeptic ... do they just pop into your head from some spiritual source maybe?

The religiosity in Israel was just 51% (that is percentage of people who think religion is important to them) in 2009 according to Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

and the GDP per capita according to CIA World Fact Book $35,200.

Not bad but somewhat less than Sweden with a GDP per capita of $49,800 and a religiosity down in the gutter. (The place it belongs.)
 
PartSkeptic said:
Look at the posts that try to "teach me the error of my ways". And check out some atheist articles that warn against arrogance of "being right".
Click to expand...
I point out the fact that your accusation that we think we've somehow evolved to be better than you is false, and you respond as if I had been talking about merely the fact that we think we're right and you're wrong.

PartSkeptic said:
Scientists think they do, simply because they can stimulate what appears to be a mystic experience. They cannot account for why the brain is built that way.
Click to expand...
I comment on the existence of quite well-known evolutionary explanations for cognitive biases, and you respond as if I had said anything at all about scientific duplication of "mystical experiences".

PartSkeptic said:
Give me ONE fact that is seen as proving the existence of the multiverse theory.
Click to expand...
I counter your lie that that multiverse theory was invented to counter apologetics about God, and you respond as if I'd said anything at all about factual support for multiverse theory.

(And the way you wrote that sentence doesn't even really mean what you presumably wanted it to mean; I trust that you have no doubt about "the existence of the multiverse theory" so I just played along despite how badly miswritten it was.)

PartSkeptic said:
There are a lot of scientists who are atheists who are amazed at the beauty and complexity of the universe. Einstein was one.
Click to expand...
I point out the fact that you have not established what you called a "FACT" about fine-tuning, and you respond as if I'd said anything at all about amazement, or beauty, or complexity, or how any arbitrary group of people felt about anything, or whether any one particular arbitrary individual was a member of such a group.

(This one was so far off from anything even faintly resembling the actual subject that I needed to look back at earlier posts to see what the subject you were trying to squirm away from this time had even been.)

PartSkeptic said:
Proof and evidence in scientific terms.
Click to expand...
There's no such thing. There's proof, and there's evidence.

When scientists mean "proof", they say "proof"; when they mean "evidence", they say "evidence".

People who say "proof and evidence" are creationists & other religionist apologists who are either (1) magnificently clueless about even the most rudimentary aspects of how science works, or (2) deliberately spraying extra off-topic nonsense all over the place in the hope that their opponents will be distracted by the silly trifles like word choice & definitions instead of the actual topic.

PartSkeptic said:
At least you are honest in your statement that you are a hard atheist, and not a rational skeptic.
Click to expand...
I disprove the Christian "God" while explicitly detailing the difference between that and the cosmic fine-tuner and my reason for momentarily focusing on the former instead of the latter, and you respond as if I had been talking about the latter instead of the former.

===================================================================

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start dealing with the subject and other people's words honestly; knock off the perpetual lobbing of distraction attempts and obfuscation and accusations & other lies at every step of the way.
 
Myriad said:
A comparison between God and fun I made a few years ago seems to be relevant here.

Many people have subjective experiences of fun.
Many people, as PartSkeptic points out, have subjective experiences of God.

A variety of large industries, amounting to a substantial segment of the economy, have the ostensible purpose of providing experiences of fun.
A variety of large industries, amounting to a substantial segment of the economy, have the ostensible purpose of providing experiences of God.

If you examined every molecule in the universe you would not find a single particle of fun.
If you examined every molecule in the universe you would not find a single particle of God.

Though everyone seems to think they know what they mean by fun, it's remarkably difficult to formulate a clear definition of the word.
Though everyone seems to think they know what they mean by God, it's remarkably difficult to formulate a clear definition of the word.

Nonetheless, experiencing fun likely has value that could help explain how the capability to do so evolved: it rewards certain experiences often related to learning and competition, promoting the learning and practicing of useful skills.
Nonetheless, experiencing God likely has value that could help explain how the capability to do so evolved: it rewards certain behaviors often related to social organization and group bonding, promoting useful cooperative effort.

What people consider fun varies between individuals and between cultures. What some people consider fun, others find repugnant.
What people consider God varies between individuals and between cultures. What some people consider godly, others find repugnant.

Does fun exist? Sure. Does fun (or the desire for fun) shape ourselves and our lives? It appears so. Did fun create the universe; is fun a distinct sentient being who rules over us as a parent, punishes the wicked, and has an infallible plan to lead us all to a promised future state of ultimate eternal bliss? If I told you yes, you'd have no good reason to take me seriously.
Does God exist? Sure. Does God (or the desire for God) shape ourselves and our lives? It appears so. Did God create the universe; is God a distinct sentient being who rules over us as a parent, punishes the wicked, and has an infallible plan to lead us all to a promised future state of ultimate eternal bliss? Well, people tell stories portraying God that way, but there's no good reason to take them literally.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I've misunderstood but I can't see how your comparison is meant to work?

Fun is a human behaviour, it's a verb. It is something we do, something that we observe humans doing. No more mysterious in principle than "run" - we can freeze a person in the middle of a run and dissect her down to the smallest particle and we won't find an iota of "run".

God is a thing. It is something that is meant to exist but we can't observe.
 
Darat said:
Perhaps I've misunderstood but I can't see how your comparison is meant to work?

Fun is a human behaviour, it's a verb. It is something we do, something that we observe humans doing. No more mysterious in principle than "run" - we can freeze a person in the middle of a run and dissect her down to the smallest particle and we won't find an iota of "run".

God is a thing. It is something that is meant to exist but we can't observe.
Click to expand...

I fun.
You fun.
He/she/it funs.
We fun.

Fun is definitely a verb, right?
 
Darat said:
Perhaps I've misunderstood but I can't see how your comparison is meant to work?

Fun is a human behaviour, it's a verb. It is something we do, something that we observe humans doing. No more mysterious in principle than "run" - we can freeze a person in the middle of a run and dissect her down to the smallest particle and we won't find an iota of "run".

God is a thing. It is something that is meant to exist but we can't observe.
Click to expand...
The analogy is saying that God is merely something people do.
 
abaddon said:
I fun.
You fun.
He/she/it funs.
We fun.

Fun is definitely a verb, right?
Click to expand...

More properly. Repeat after me...

Funo
Funas
Funat
Funamus
Funatis
Funant

I fun
You fun
He/she/it fun
We fun
You all fun
They fun.

And steel edged ruler on the knuckles for anyone who gets it wrong! :cool:
 
Delvo said:
The analogy is saying that God is merely something people do.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
But that isn't what the vast majority of those that believe in a god/s say they believe in.
Click to expand...

You've never played the "Infinite God of Infinitely Variable Power and Vagueness" game with a Creationist before have you?

It's simple. Define God in vaguer and vaguer terms until it is defined so vaguely as to be meaningless. Once any level of agreement, not matter how vague or metaphorical the definition is at the point of agreement, is reached immediately claim this as validation for your specific version of God.
 
Darat said:
God is a thing. It is something that is meant to exist but we can't observe.
Click to expand...


Fun exists as something people experience.

God exists as something people experience.

Many people claim that God exists as a thing, that we can't observe. Let's assume (since we appear to agree on that) that they are wrong.

God still exists as something people experience.
 
Myriad said:
Fun exists as something people experience.

God exists as something people experience.

Many people claim that God exists as a thing, that we can't observe. Let's assume (since we appear to agree on that) that they are wrong.

God still exists as something people experience.
Click to expand...

attempt at naive introspection:

When I'm having fun, I'm generally unaware of pain as such, I'm not anxious (worried about the overdue book or the neglected chore), I'm not afraid (of James falling off the roof), I'm in flow (generally unselfconscious and not aware of directing my own attention and interested in what I'm doing) and I'm not grieving, and I'm aware of some kind of strength or capability, either in myself or the object of my attention, or both.

One could go on, if one were Proust or somebody.

If the object of my attention is not physical, it is still something definite over which my mind moves -- a memory of a text, for example. Sub-vocal movements of my vocal cords, maybe.

Is the awareness of God sort of understandable in these kinds of terms?

That is, is there is an object presenting itself?

I'm actually not asking for sake of argument.

It's more that my own religious feelings have come from nature or love or music or, you know, sunsets or the faces of pretty girls.

Or they are, I think the word is: inchoate. untutored. vague.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
Fun exists as something people experience.

God exists as something people experience.

Many people claim that God exists as a thing, that we can't observe. Let's assume (since we appear to agree on that) that they are wrong.

God still exists as something people experience.
Click to expand...
Still not seeing the comparison.

Not trying to be thick, it comes naturally to me, but god/s is not something people do, indeed for the gods of the vast majority of religions gods are set apart from humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom