Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > You know his name wasn't really Jesus Christ........

You know his name wasn't really Jesus Christ........ (Page 2)
Thread Tools
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
It's not that clear. In Exodus, God gives his name three times, each time differently.

First he says "I AM WHO I AM" then he says "I AM" and then "Yahweh."

When he meets with Pharaoh, he Moses says:

So does Yahweh mean "I AM" or "I AM WHO I AM" or something else. And the translation of "I AM WHO I AM" isn't universally agreed on. Some prefer "I AM HE WHO IS" or "I AM THAT I AM."

EDIT random thought: The author of the gospel of John preferred "I AM HE" as a translation. When Jesus says this in Gethsemane, the Jewish guards coming to arrest him drop to the ground in terror.

There's no clarity in the bible about such matters, that's for certain.
This is actually much, much clearer in Hebrew. The passage you're referencing is Exodus 3:14 (π!); the phrase 'I AM WHO I AM' in Hebrew is 'EHYEH ASHER EHYEH', which translates more accurately as 'I WILL BE WHO/WHAT I WILL BE'; the word styled as 'Yahweh' is actually 'EHYEH' again. The name 'Yahweh' never once appears in Hebrew, and in fact never could, as there is no 'w' in Hebrew. The Tetragrammaton is YHVH, and it is not pronounced, nor is here a known original pronunciation as Hebrew does not have vowels, and ancient texts have been discovered with multiple configurations of vowel markers.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 06:38 PM
 
YHVH is the ancient cheat code for a Hebrew game, it's like UUDDLRLRBA... to know it is to wield ultimate power.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
This is actually much, much clearer in Hebrew. The passage you're referencing is Exodus 3:14 (π!); the phrase 'I AM WHO I AM' in Hebrew is 'EHYEH ASHER EHYEH', which translates more accurately as 'I WILL BE WHO/WHAT I WILL BE'; the word styled as 'Yahweh' is actually 'EHYEH' again. The name 'Yahweh' never once appears in Hebrew, and in fact never could, as there is no 'w' in Hebrew. The Tetragrammaton is YHVH, and it is not pronounced, nor is here a known original pronunciation as Hebrew does not have vowels, and ancient texts have been discovered with multiple configurations of vowel markers.
Interesting where this thread is going. Ehyeh is אֶהְיֶה which looks similar to יְהוָה (the Tetragrammaton) but is not the same. Also, I just recently learned that Yemeni Hebrew and apparently Iraqi Hebrew do indeed pronounce ו as a w whereas the rest of Jewry pronounces it as a v. That seems to answer the question I asked a little while back as to how older English translations somehow got ו as waw, and that's where that popular but wrong pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton would have come from. There are a number of other differences the Yemeni Hebrew dialect (as that poorly constructed and incomplete Wikipedia article points out), and some believe the Yemeni dialect is closer to biblical Hebrew than the mainstream that most Jews use, something I don't but into but others do. Another difference in the Yemeni pronunciation is treating the vowel segol as an "a" sound instead of an "eh" sound, which has some interesting effects in certain places. Also, whenever the Tetragrammaton appears with vowels they're almost always the vowels of Ad-nai (L-rd) that are put there to remind the person praying to pronounce that instead of the consonants as written. Some Christians misinterpreted those markings and came up with Jehovah, which is completely wrong.

By the by, I think it's worthwhile to post a copy of a reply I sent to nonhuman on a related course of study of these topics. He had written to me about a scholarly theory of Bob Wolfe regarding divine names:

As for the Tetragrammaton discussion, I think it's an interesting supposition that אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה is what is meant and that the Tetragrammaton is a placeholder for it. That's not an entirely new claim, however. At the Jewish Encyclopedia article on the subject, we see under the Meaning and Etymology section it suggest that some of the early translators of the Torah may have agreed with that association. However, while Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh may well be linked to the Tetragrammaton, I personally don't think based on my current understanding that יְ־הֹוָ־ה must be just a placeholder for it. I can't rule that possibility out, especially because I have heard some rabbinical views that the Tetragrammaton could be a placeholder for another name, but I think the truth is more complex than that. (I realize that this aspect wasn't the main part of the hypothesis of your author, but it got me thinking.)

Here's where I'm going with this (this is a little complicated but hopefully clear): We know that יְ־הֹוָ־ה was known to humanity in Genesis. It was first revealed in Genesis 2, and in Genesis 4 it is said that men commonly began to call upon יְ־הֹוָ־ה. The Patriarchs knew G-d by the Tetragrammaton, but He says in Exodus 6:3 that He appeared to them as El Sh-di, G-d Almighty, but that he did not become known to them by יְ־הֹוָ־ה. Now I know that higher criticism would claim that such was the work of a sloppy redactor, but to me that represents a misinterpretation of the meaning. We are taught that each divine name has different attributes and that the Tetragrammaton has the attribute of mercy and also fulfillment. G-d doesn't say in that verse that the Patriarchs did not know the name but that He did not "become known" to them by it. Rashi points to that difference, explaining that the Patriarchs did not experience the quality of the Tetragrammaton by which their faith was completely rewarded. They were promised the land of Canaan but did not take possession of it in their days. Now, however, G-d says that He will fulfill the promise He made by redeeming the people from Egypt and bringing them to the Land, and as a result the people will know Him by the attributes of the Tetragrammaton name.

I think that that analysis helps explain the meaning of Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh in relation to the Tetragrammaton. For if you notice, when Moshe asked what name of G-d to give the people, G-d doesn't say "Tell them that my My name is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh." No, He says only Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh. . . so shall you say, Ehyeh has sent me to you. And Rashi says the meaning of that term, translated as "I will be," is that basically the one who sent Moshe is eternal G-d who will be with them in their subjugation and in the future. (I personally think that that particular seemingly enigmatic description could have been a code term passed down from the patriarchs, known and kept secret by the heads of the tribes so that they would know the deliverer when he came to them, but I think that's my own supposition.) (Rashi also explains why G-d tells Moshe Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh but then says to go with the shortened form of just Ehyeh, but that's somewhat off-topic.) Anyway, Ehyeh communicates that there is a power who will redeem the people and fulfill the previous promise they knew of, and I think that is its connection to the Tetragrammaton. In other words, Ehyeh communicates the beginning of redemption to the captive children of Israel, the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the display of divine mercy. Ergo, it is connected to the Tetragrammaton, and it may even be a divine name by itself, but I disagree that it is what is meant when the Tetragrammaton is found everywhere else.

To sum that up, I disagree with the original assumption about Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh being equal to the Tetragrammaton for the following reasons:

1. The Tetragrammaton appears far earlier in the Torah and without Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh to qualify it.
2. People in Genesis 4 begin to use the Tetragrammaton to refer to G-d, but if Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh was meant instead, one would think that it would show up in that area.
3. G-d doesn't say that His name is Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, and Scripture is very specific. If it doesn't say something, it's improper to act as if it did.
4. If Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh were to = the Tetragrammaton and were just sitting there in plain sight all this time, we would have a tradition not to pronounce it because it would be the most sacred name. We don't pronounce the Tetragrammaton, but we do pronounce Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, so it could not possibly be of equivalent sanctity. According to our tradition, the Tetragrammaton was only pronounced once a year by the Kohen Gadol during Yom Kippur in the Temple. After the destruction of the Temple the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was lost because of the taboo on saying it in vain. The fact that we have no such tradition about Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh indicates that it's not synonymous with the Tetragrammaton.
5. An added point: In the verse right after that instruction, G-d says additionally to Moshe that he should also tell the nation that יְהוָה the G-d of your fathers etc. . . So first he commands him to tell the that Ehyeh has sent him and then He says to tell them that fuller explanation with the Tetragrammaton. To me that backs up my contention that Ehyeh was an divine appellation that Moshe would be able to use to convince the people initially, and then the Tetragrammaton would be invoked after the people recognized that this man was a valid spokesman for G-d.

As for the second part of Wolfe's claim, that Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh can't be pronounced aloud without assuming the identity of G-d, I don't see any basis for such an assertion. We can pronounce Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, and it doesn't have any significant taboo attached to its pronunciation. (I'd have to check to make sure, but I don't think it's listed on the list of divine names we have from the era of the Talmud.) Sure, if someone went around calling himself Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, they would in effect be calling themselves by a term identified with G-d and closely associated with the divine name - I'll give you that. But it's hard to believe that given the lack of a taboo attached to the pronunciation of that term, the lack of any indication in the Talmud that would definitively equate it with the Tetragrammaton, and the fact that it's right there in plain sight, all indicate that Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, while very sacred, isn't the same as the Tetragrammaton.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Mar 2, 2010 at 02:33 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
You could say that…and many would agree with you…but I fail to see how this has anything to do with reason, and I fail to see the evidence. What I see is someone stating their personal belief based upon faith, and asserting it as evidence, which is pretty common in these discussions and not compelling in the least.
You mean from a purely naturalistic perspective. Of course. That's what I'm saying. In order to conclude there is no evidence of God, you're saying evidence suggests something other than a God when evidence may indicate more than one "fact" or "truth". If you adhere strictly to a naturalistic presupposition, all evidences you see will affirm naturalism, but this is no more rational or reasoned than one who accepts multiple possibilities or one who concludes that all things are evidence of God. It's not as if this notion has somehow retarded the sciences. The most noteworthy scientists in history were very much interested in learning the what to know more about the Who.

No, what I am saying is that the supernatural doesn't exist pending any compelling evidence to the contrary. Currently there is no evidence whatsoever, let alone compelling evidence.
The origin of matter is unexplainable by natural law. It is by definition, supernatural. In spite of this, a naturalist must assume a natural mechanism pending discovery. They do this in complete confidence; faith.

Who's speaking of certainty? Certainty of what cannot be known objectively is the realm of the faithful and has no place among thinking people. When I say that I don't believe in god, it doesn't mean that I am absolutely certain. It means that there is no reason to believe in god. No evidence and no compelling rational argument.
That's because you regard evidence as affirmation of a singular "fact" when this is neither necessary nor useful.

SETI is the result of rational thinking and evidence.
In 50 years it has found absolutely nothing, but in spite of absolutely zero evidence of intelligent life elsewhere, you still seem willing to accept the concept as rational. Evidence of man on earth does not mean evidence of intelligence elsewhere. i.e. this is not a compelling argument. I brought it up because design and/or intelligence is detectable and useful in the sciences.

No. Absolutely not.
I merely said if one is dubious, so too is the other.

Man has his senses to perceive the world and rational method to make sense of what he perceives.
Exactly and since the dawn of mankind, he has always endeavored to learn about God. He has done so and often continues to do so based on his perception of the world in concert with his rationale.

How is this dubious and how does this even compare to the man who asserts the existence of god with no evidence, no proof, and nothing perceptible to back up the claim whatsoever? Our senses and our intellect are all we have to observe and analyze everything within and without us. How is using the only tools we have to understand the universe dubious in the least?
I merely said if one is dubious, so too is the other. The fact is you simply reject evidence others accept. You've not proven any more rational or reasoned than one who accepts multiple possibilities.

I don't understand what you mean by this.
You insist on talking about "proof" and "evidence" as if these concepts can only define one truth, one fact. One may look at code in DNA for example and think of its beauty, complexity, intelligence, and wonder at its craftsmanship. Others may take the discernible "information" within the DNA for granted, perhaps regarding it as nothing more than the product of a wholly natural, relatively clumsy phenomena. Both are motivated to learn more about it. There's no reason to conclude that one is less rational than the other. The difference is merely one of perspective.

You act as if merely refuting something call its veracity into question. Just because one may refute something doesn't mean its refutable. On one side, we have knowledge gained through the only method we have of gaining knowledge, on the other we have knowledge gained through…what? A communication which can't be proven with a being that there is no objective evidence of?
I don't know how I'm "acting". I've certainly said no such thing which is why I gave examples both scientific and theological. All I've been saying is that one who adheres to a strictly naturalistic worldview will accept absolutely nothing as evidence of God. There of course would be a purely natural phenomena, discovered or not, to provide the necessary explanation. A naturalist would be very confident (faithful ) in this assumption. Perspectives.
ebuddy
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 12:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Interesting where this thread is going. Ehyeh is אֶהְיֶה which looks similar to יְהוָה (the Tetragrammaton) but is not the same. Also, I just recently learned that Yemeni Hebrew and apparently Iraqi Hebrew do indeed pronounce ו as a w whereas the rest of Jewry pronounces it as a v. That seems to answer the question I asked a little while back as to how older English translations somehow got ו as waw, and that's where that popular but wrong pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton would have come from. There are a number of other differences the Yemeni Hebrew dialect (as that poorly constructed and incomplete Wikipedia article points out), and some believe the Yemeni dialect is closer to biblical Hebrew than the mainstream that most Jews use, something I don't but into but others do. Another difference in the Yemeni pronunciation is treating the vowel segol as an "a" sound instead of an "eh" sound, which has some interesting effects in certain places. Also, whenever the Tetragrammaton appears with vowels they're almost always the vowels of Ad-nai (Lord) that are put there to remind the person praying to pronounce that instead of the consonants as written. Some Christians misinterpreted those markings and came up with Jehovah, which is completely wrong.
Quite interesting indeed.

As for the closeness of Yemeni Hebrew to Biblical Hebrew, I wouldn't find it all that surprising. Modern Hebrew as developed by Ben-Yehuda was based specifically on that spoken by Ashkenazi Jews, which was quite different from that spoken by Sephardic Jews of the period (which is the root of that Shabbat/Shabbos difference). There really is no reason whatsoever to think that the Ashkenazi had maintained the language more faithfully than the Sephardim, nor that either of them even remotely resembled ancient Hebrew, while the fact that Yemeni Hebrew would have interacted with other Semitic languages mostly rather than the Indo-European languages that European Jews were exposed to might explain why it could be more historically accurate. This is, of course, entirely speculation on my part.

Thanks for posting that reply to my preview email (which I do still fully intend to reply to, though I haven't found the time yet to do the reading necessary to give a well thought-out response!) though, I think it's got a lot of good content for this discussion (which is why I drew from that conversation for my previous post). The whole 'name of God' issue is quite a fascinating one, especially as it would seem that most modern Christians completely ignore—or are completely ignorant of—the Jewish origins of not only the debate, but their own religion!
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Maybe he's Popeye.
I said that in class as a student, got some laughs but the prof looked like he was going to faint.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You mean from a purely naturalistic perspective. Of course. That's what I'm saying. In order to conclude there is no evidence of God, you're saying evidence suggests something other than a God when evidence may indicate more than one "fact" or "truth". If you adhere strictly to a naturalistic presupposition, all evidences you see will affirm naturalism, but this is no more rational or reasoned than one who accepts multiple possibilities or one who concludes that all things are evidence of God.
Your supposition is incorrect. The rational person does not "choose" to be naturalist and simply paint everything with the brush of naturalism. The naturalist viewpoint is what comes out of our observation and reason.

This debate has been had a bazillion times over the course of centuries, books upon books have been written on it and I really don't know what I hope to accomplish here where far greater men have failed. Suffice it to say that it always ends with the the same problem: if you suppose that a creator made everything then you are still left with the question of who created the creator, and if the creator needs no creator then neither does the universe. Any creator would necessarily NEED to be more complex and more fantastic than that which he creates, which means that if this universe is too complex and amazing to happen by "accident", or by some naturalistic nonsense then any creator…being even more complex and amazing than his creation…would be even less likely to exist.

The origin of matter is unexplainable by natural law. It is by definition, supernatural. In spite of this, a naturalist must assume a natural mechanism pending discovery. They do this in complete confidence; faith.
By this definition, gravity was once a supernatural phenomenon.

In 50 years it has found absolutely nothing, but in spite of absolutely zero evidence of intelligent life elsewhere, you still seem willing to accept the concept as rational. Evidence of man on earth does not mean evidence of intelligence elsewhere. i.e. this is not a compelling argument. I brought it up because design and/or intelligence is detectable and useful in the sciences.
What I said was that SETI was BORN out of observation and reason and that evidence of man on earth is evidence of the POSSIBILITY of intelligent life elsewhere. We know we exist, therefore we know that life like we have on earth has happened at least once. Just as the fact that fish exist in one body of water is evidence that they might also exist in another. The same conditions on earth that make it possible for fish to exist in one lake, make it POSSIBLE for fish to exist in another. Just as the conditions in the universe have made it POSSIBLE for the earth to exist make it POSSIBLE for another planet similar to ours with intelligent life.

All that being said, regardless of how I view SETIs beginning, it probably should have died long ago and its continuation certainly indicates a degree of unwarranted faith on the part of those involved. This doesn't mean that their reasons for looking are invalidated, only that their methods probably are and that they should have moved on. IMO.

Exactly and since the dawn of mankind, he has always endeavored to learn about God. He has done so and often continues to do so based on his perception of the world in concert with his rationale.
Reason is the ONLY method we have to find truth, but reason is not automatic. You have to THINK.

The god explanation comes from NOT logically thinking about the problem. It consists of "I don't know, therefore god did it." We have always had a choice of whether we want to think and use reason or whether we want to be mindless and reactionary, inventing explanations out of whole cloth or drawing conclusions based upon prejudice and ignorance. The fact that god, or more appropriately gods have been the conclusion man has drawn isn't evidence of reason being the source at all. Men have also historically lived under tyranny for most of history, is the due to reason? How about thousands of years of slavery around the world? Did that come out of reason too? We have a choice, and when we choose not to think, we get fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, communism, socialism, fascism, slavery, Pele in the volcanoes and god in heaven.

People also tend to follow blindly, or sometimes not so blindly, what beliefs happen to belong to the culture they were raised in, which isn't rational in the least.

You insist on talking about "proof" and "evidence" as if these concepts can only define one truth, one fact. One may look at code in DNA for example and think of its beauty, complexity, intelligence, and wonder at its craftsmanship. Others may take the discernible "information" within the DNA for granted, perhaps regarding it as nothing more than the product of a wholly natural, relatively clumsy phenomena. Both are motivated to learn more about it. There's no reason to conclude that one is less rational than the other. The difference is merely one of perspective.
I really don't know where trying to say with this "one truth" thing.

Something is either true, or it's not. There is either a god, or there is not. The universe is either the result of intelligent design, or there is another explanation. If something is true, then it is true. If there are two explanations for something then either one or both are not true.
( Last edited by smacintush; Mar 2, 2010 at 05:08 AM. )
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 01:15 AM
 
Big Mac: why do you spell God as G-d?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 01:53 AM
 
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 04:30 AM
 
However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.
So you're worried about us printing this thread and defacing the name "God"? Honestly, you'd be better off writing it the normal way if you are worried about this to prevent defacement out of spite or mockery.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 05:08 AM
 
For me it's more of an habitual form of reverence when it comes to translated forms of divine names. When I think or write about G-d I hyphenate out of respect for the one true G-d even though it's also a generic English term. I used to think it was futile to do so in profane circumstances, but it's religious practice that is meaningful to me so I usually adhere to it automatically. The defacement or destruction aspect is also an issue, but it's not why I commonly hyphenate.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Mar 2, 2010 at 05:32 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 07:52 AM
 
Getting back on topic....

The photo in the original post makes the guy at the board look pretty dumb, when I'm sure his intent was to make Christians look dumb.

If you believe that the name of your creator is Bill, and lack the ability to discern the actual "proper" name he wishes to be called, and then use that name in a disrespectful way, I'm guessing that the big guy isn't going to give you a pass on a technicality.

If you intend to use his name in vain, then in effect you have done so.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2010, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Your supposition is incorrect. The rational person does not "choose" to be naturalist and simply paint everything with the brush of naturalism. The naturalist viewpoint is what comes out of our observation and reason.
In that case, the rational person could not see beyond observation and reason, and therefore could not compel another to confirm or deny the existence of God. From what you are saying, your viewpoint is interested only on what we already know, and is therefore not able to extrapolate a conclusion about what we don't know. I fail to see how that argument is compelling one way or another.

If i have described your viewpoint incorrectly, then ebuddy's statement rings true as faith defines our confidence in what we can't observe directly.

This debate has been had a bazillion times over the course of centuries, books upon books have been written on it and I really don't know what I hope to accomplish here where far greater men have failed. Suffice it to say that it always ends with the the same problem: if you suppose that a creator made everything then you are still left with the question of who created the creator, and if the creator needs no creator then neither does the universe. Any creator would necessarily NEED to be more complex and more fantastic than that which he creates, which means that if this universe is too complex and amazing to happen by "accident", or by some naturalistic nonsense then any creator…being even more complex and amazing than his creation…would be even less likely to exist.
Based on what we think we know today, your logic works. Perhaps though, considering the amount we know we don't know, there is an innumerable amount of information we do not know or know of that could answer the questions posed by your logic. Quite simply, we don't know...and can only use our faith to answer such a question. Faith in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of science as it is today, or faith in something else.

By this definition, gravity was once a supernatural phenomenon.
Are you arguing otherwise? People have always correctly known the nature of gravity? Hell, even today, gravity is by definition supernatural, as we have not been able to discover the true mechanism of it.


What I said was that SETI was BORN out of observation and reason and that evidence of man on earth is evidence of the POSSIBILITY of intelligent life elsewhere. We know we exist, therefore we know that life like we have on earth has happened at least once. Just as the fact that fish exist in one body of water is evidence that they might also exist in another. The same conditions on earth that make it possible for fish to exist in one lake, make it POSSIBLE for fish to exist in another. Just as the conditions in the universe have made it POSSIBLE for the earth to exist make it POSSIBLE for another planet similar to ours with intelligent life.
Just as all of these things you describe quite POSSIBLY were by design. The argument that we know we exist is an irrelevant comparison to things we simply don't know. Defining what is POSSIBLE is well beyond the small percentage of the Universe (and quite POSSIBLY beyond) we can see and observe. Your argument is basically saying that if we can't see it, then it is unreasonable/irrational to assume its POSSIBLE.
All that being said, regardless of how I view SETIs beginning, it probably should have died long ago and its continuation certainly indicates a degree of unwarranted faith on the part of those involved. This doesn't mean that their reasons for looking are invalidated, only that their methods probably are and that they should have moved on. IMO.
Perhaps the same could be said of your viewpoint, or mine, someday. But with that paradigm, we would cease to learn new things without directly interacting with them.


Reason is the ONLY method we have to find truth, but reason is not automatic. You have to THINK.
Unfortunately, THINKING about what we already know does not allow us to accurately extrapolate what we don't know. Hence faith...faith in our scientific methods, faith in God, faith in the fact that when you wake up tomorrow, the Universe will not implode on itself and we will cease to exist. I dare you to prove that it won't.
The god explanation comes from NOT logically thinking about the problem. It consists of "I don't know, therefore god did it." We have always had a choice of whether we want to think and use reason or whether we want to be mindless and reactionary, inventing explanations out of whole cloth or drawing conclusions based upon prejudice and ignorance. The fact that god, or more appropriately gods have been the conclusion man has drawn isn't evidence of reason being the source at all. Men have also historically lived under tyranny for most of history, is the due to reason? How about thousands of years of slavery around the world? Did that come out of reason too? We have a choice, and when we choose not to think, we get fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, communism, socialism, fascism, slavery, Pele in the volcanoes and god in heaven.
If you have faith that these things you say are true (I even share your views on most of what you said!) then more power to you...That said, don't confuse your faith in these "facts" with actual fact. It is ultimately far more wise to understand how much you don't know, and further how much you don't even know you don't know vs the faith in what you think you do know.
People also tend to follow blindly, or sometimes not so blindly, what beliefs happen to belong to the culture they were raised in, which isn't rational in the least.
Perhaps one true constant has different expressions in different cultures and different times. Prove as fact otherwise.



Something is either true, or it's not. There is either a god, or there is not. The universe is either the result of intelligent design, or there is another explanation. If something is true, then it is true. If there are two explanations for something then either one or both are not true.
Its either black or white? As a proponent of science your tendency to speak in absolutes is surprising, given how often science itself has taught us that such logic is flawed.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 04:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
In that case, the rational person could not see beyond observation and reason, and therefore could not compel another to confirm or deny the existence of God. From what you are saying, your viewpoint is interested only on what we already know, and is therefore not able to extrapolate a conclusion about what we don't know. I fail to see how that argument is compelling one way or another.
I don't know where you get that.

There is nothing preventing us from extrapolating, but it should be logical. We must act on what we know first, failing that what is probable, failing that…it may be better not to act or if you MUST, an educated guess is perfectly OK because that's all you have.

It is my view and the view of many others that the god hypothesis has a very low probability and because of the reasons I mentioned in my other post doesn't really solve the question, it creates more.

Based on what we think we know today, your logic works. Perhaps though, considering the amount we know we don't know, there is an innumerable amount of information we do not know or know of that could answer the questions posed by your logic.
Sure, that could happen or it may never happen…but right now there is no evidence for god and there is no reason to believe that the discovery of such evidence is imminent or even probable.

Are you arguing otherwise? People have always correctly known the nature of gravity? Hell, even today, gravity is by definition supernatural, as we have not been able to discover the true mechanism of it.
If you arguing that gravity is supernatural, then what we have is a semantic argument about the definition of supernatural which doesn't really further the debate. Gravity is a natural force that is observable, measurable, predictable and explainable. To refer to it as "supernatural" is pretty silly.

Unfortunately, THINKING about what we already know does not allow us to accurately extrapolate what we don't know.
Um, sure it does…or it at least gives us a starting point to learn more. If we are not thinking in terms of what we already know, we are just guessing or making things up. Hence god.

Hence faith...faith in our scientific methods, faith in God, faith in the fact that when you wake up tomorrow, the Universe will not implode on itself and we will cease to exist. I dare you to prove that it won't.
You dare me to prove it?

It is ultimately far more wise to understand how much you don't know, and further how much you don't even know you don't know vs the faith in what you think you do know.
Perhaps you misread what I am trying to say, because this advice is much better given to the devoutly religious.

Perhaps one true constant has different expressions in different cultures and different times. Prove as fact otherwise.
There is that word again…proof. Why are you talking about proof? I'm neither offering proof nor suggesting that proof is probable or even possible. I am arguing that when there is no proof of something, blind faith in a hypothesis (god) with no evidence and logically speaking a very low probability of being accurate is not the rational conclusion.

Its either black or white? As a proponent of science your tendency to speak in absolutes is surprising, given how often science itself has taught us that such logic is flawed.
Not everything, but most things and most specifically in the broad scope of this discussion. Yes, that's what I am saying. (you don't really want to go into Schrödinger's Cat do you?)
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 01:26 PM
 
This was coincidentally on xckd today.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Big Mac: why do you spell God as G-d?
You can fool God by using a hyphen or asterisk. It just completely baffles Him.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
This was coincidentally on xckd today.
Either one has just as much credibility.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2010, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
This was coincidentally on xckd today.
As soon as I saw the comic I thought to myself, "I should post this in that thread unless OlePigeon already has."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2010, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Your supposition is incorrect. The rational person does not "choose" to be naturalist and simply paint everything with the brush of naturalism. The naturalist viewpoint is what comes out of our observation and reason.
The rational person did not "choose" to believe in God then proclaim "God did it". The theistic viewpoint is what comes out of our observation and reason. I'd submit the birth of inquiry and science itself as evidence of this fact.

Suffice it to say that it always ends with the the same problem: if you suppose that a creator made everything then you are still left with the question of who created the creator, and if the creator needs no creator then neither does the universe. Any creator would necessarily NEED to be more complex and more fantastic than that which he creates, which means that if this universe is too complex and amazing to happen by "accident", or by some naturalistic nonsense then any creator…being even more complex and amazing than his creation…would be even less likely to exist.
Conversely, if matter can arise from nothing, perhaps God was the result of purely natural phenomena. After all, complex life blossomed through what is assumed a purely natural mechanism manifested in you and I communicating across the country on machinery we created. Life is full of chicken/egg questions, there's no reason to limit the vastness of understanding to a singular truth or fact, then conclude the other is irrational. This is more akin to simpleton thinking than rationale.

By this definition, gravity was once a supernatural phenomenon.
It may be as determined by a theologian who assumed this phenomenon would be measurable due to a calculable design.

What I said was that SETI was BORN out of observation and reason and that evidence of man on earth is evidence of the POSSIBILITY of intelligent life elsewhere.
A science that seeks to detect signals of intelligence, a language or code of sorts is rational and evidence-based while we're reading and mapping the human genome. That's interesting to me. Like you said; we've been at this for thousands of years. IMO, there's no reason to expect anything other than the function of reason filtered by presupposition.

We know we exist, therefore we know that life like we have on earth has happened at least once.
Absolutely everything we know of has happened at least once.

Just as the fact that fish exist in one body of water is evidence that they might also exist in another. The same conditions on earth that make it possible for fish to exist in one lake, make it POSSIBLE for fish to exist in another. Just as the conditions in the universe have made it POSSIBLE for the earth to exist make it POSSIBLE for another planet similar to ours with intelligent life.
We've been attempting to detect a signal of intelligence from outer space for over 50 years and while absolutely nothing has been found, this does not hamper reason, rationale, or science nor is it necessarily irrational to continue looking even though it is nothing more than faith in life elsewhere that would drive one to do so. We might find this life by detecting a discernible signal of intelligence; evidence of some deliberation over purely natural noise. Perhaps a language or code. We look to the stars while reading and mapping DNA. This inherent ambition does not surprise me. Just as the existence of fish in one body of water is evidence they might exist in another (an acceptable premise with regard to the search for extra terrestrial life in your view) we are also evidence of industrious creation. Why only fish?

All that being said, regardless of how I view SETIs beginning, it probably should have died long ago and its continuation certainly indicates a degree of unwarranted faith on the part of those involved. This doesn't mean that their reasons for looking are invalidated, only that their methods probably are and that they should have moved on. IMO.
... or continue to find more effective means of detection. There is educational merit to the endeavor after all.

Reason is the ONLY method we have to find truth, but reason is not automatic. You have to THINK.
That's all I'm askin'.

The god explanation comes from NOT logically thinking about the problem. It consists of "I don't know, therefore god did it." We have always had a choice of whether we want to think and use reason or whether we want to be mindless and reactionary, inventing explanations out of whole cloth or drawing conclusions based upon prejudice and ignorance. The fact that god, or more appropriately gods have been the conclusion man has drawn isn't evidence of reason being the source at all. Men have also historically lived under tyranny for most of history, is the due to reason? How about thousands of years of slavery around the world? Did that come out of reason too? We have a choice, and when we choose not to think, we get fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, communism, socialism, fascism, slavery, Pele in the volcanoes and god in heaven.
Science and thinking has brought us eugenics, the atom bomb, chains to bind slaves, etc... I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are these the product of your rationale and reason? There is absolutely zero to suggest that the theistic scientists of our past were content to say simply; "God did it". This is a popular talking point usually uttered by what I can only describe as folks with an apparent discomfort in their own skin; certainly not an evidenced-based, rational conclusion. The indictment is far too unidirectional to be evidence-based or rational. It's just opinionated.

People also tend to follow blindly, or sometimes not so blindly, what beliefs happen to belong to the culture they were raised in, which isn't rational in the least.
Sometimes they do a complete 180 from the faith of their upbringing and still remain faithful. You have no clue how the majority of non-faithfuls have come to their world views, blindly, influenced, or otherwise. I don't know why people insist on disparaging statements about others as if those traits are somehow unique to the object of their peculiar disregard.

Something is either true, or it's not.
It is true that this discussion is fruitful. It is true that this discussion is wasteful.

A pile of rocks has collected at the base of a hill. Debris gives evidence to the truth that those rocks rolled down the hill to their present state. It is true that those rocks were pushed from the top of the hill. Nothing is as black and white as you suggest; neither science nor faith. All these things are expressed in degrees of certainty that occur within a continuum of presupposition and perspective. I see absolutely no evidence of superior reasoning, intellect, or rationale in this apparent degree of rigidity.
ebuddy
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2010, 01:15 PM
 
Woosh... That's allot to go through...

Anyway I skimmed mostly so forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Did anyone consider that Name in the old testament mean so much more than name? It means his name his works his nature his character. It's used as the representation of someones entire being.

Just thought that might be relevant to this thread... do continue.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Splinter View Post
Woosh... That's allot to go through...

Anyway I skimmed mostly so forgive me if someone already mentioned this. Did anyone consider that Name in the old testament mean so much more than name? It means his name his works his nature his character. It's used as the representation of someones entire being.



Just thought that might be relevant to this thread... do continue.

Very true, very true. God is not His name, it is what he is.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 09:49 PM
 
or, "taking the Lord's name in vain" means using it for certain types of Theurgy, and has nothing to do with profanity or conversation.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2010, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
or, "taking the Lord's name in vain" means using it for certain types of Theurgy, and has nothing to do with profanity or conversation.
I thought it was putting fish emblems on your car.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:14 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,