Accelerating Future

Reasoning With God Friday, Mar 27 2009 

images and philosophy Michael Anissimov 4:40 pm

Trackback URI

13 Responses to “Reasoning With God”

1. MCP2012 says:

   March 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

   Good one, Michael. ;)

   Reply
2. Khani says:

   March 28, 2009 at 1:40 pm

   Michael, it is time to berate you. Listen, you wayward lout, and come to your senses. You and me both know it is not ‘love’ (this overrated monkey derivative instinct) that drives god, it is hunger. We both know His name (wiggles fingers under mouth) and His plan – and it is hunger. He has ordained there be a callibrated set of conditions which cause the emergence of meme clouds – because that is how He feeds. We are the main course. There is nothing benevolent about this universe.

   Now having said that, on with business.

   Reply
3. Michael Anissimov says:

   March 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm

   There is no God.

   Reply
4. dharmicmel says:

   March 28, 2009 at 5:29 pm

   yes there is; look in your mirror

   Reply
5. dharmicmel says:

   March 28, 2009 at 5:49 pm

   addendum: see: Lester Del Ray’s Evensong in Harlan Ellison’s Dangerous Visions
   from Wiki: “This is described by its author as an allegory. It details the capture of a being, identified at the end of the story as God, by Man, which has usurped God’s power.”
   now you know why there is no God, and why there is now

   Reply
6. Lincoln Cannon says:

   March 29, 2009 at 7:35 am

   The same criticism can be applied to esthetics generally, and yet we recognize the value of esthetics, within its domain.

   Reply
7. Loren Bergeson says:

   March 29, 2009 at 6:27 pm

   I hope someday we can get past letting ourselves be defined by the supernatural theists. To do so, we have to get past the idea of atheism (i.e. not theists). There is so much in Reality (the universe and life) that is worthy of worship, we shouldn’t let the supernatural theists be the ones who define that which is to be worshipped (or not).

   The following blog has some pretty good ideas on this:

   http://www.faithprogression.com/2009/03/what-is-god.html

   Reply
8. Roko says:

   March 30, 2009 at 1:34 am

   > The same criticism can be applied to esthetics generally

   The difference between aesthetics and epistemology is a big one.

   If you say “ice-cream is nice”, I can neither agree nor disagree with you – what you are saying is your subjective opinion.

   If you say “god created the world 6000 years ago (which, *I hope* you are intelligent enough not to believe), then I really can disagree with you.

   Reply
9. Belisarius says:

   March 30, 2009 at 8:10 am

   The existence of the Vatican Observatory ( http://vaticanobservatory.org/ ) is evidence that a particularly large Christian organization is deeply interested in world-class scientific research and inquiry.

   Reply
10. Nasty beasts indeed. says:

    March 30, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    I’m pretty much a theist or a deit or whatever , but that picture is genious…
    more people should see this sadly it doesn’t do much in the avg person but create antagonism.

    Reply
11. doowop says:

    March 31, 2009 at 6:39 am

    Science can answer how the sun works, not why it exists.

    Reply
12. Vladimir Nesov says:

    March 31, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Roko: that’s not very accurate: there is fact of the matter in whether ice-cream is Linkoln::nice, and whether it’s Roko::nice. You want to do, to determine what is Roko:right, it doesn’t clash with factual strength of the statements.

    Reply
13. Roko says:

    April 5, 2009 at 6:20 am

    “there is fact of the matter in whether ice-cream is Linkoln::nice, and whether it’s Roko::nice.”

    – yup, I agree. But no-one **ever** disagrees about what is person-x::nice – we just take each others’ words for it. The criticism that lincon made does not apply. Aesthetics != Epistemology, though it is reducible to it, as you point out.

    Reply