IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now page 62

1774 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:Apparently they’ve never run into any ex-buddhists, who would happily piss on their former religion for you, just as ex-Christians piss on their former religion.

I’m no Buddhist expert, but aren’t they supposed to be kind of “go with the flow” Zen in their outlook and spirituality? I have a friend who’s Buddhist, and I can’t picture him hating on any religion, current or former, just because he doesn’t have it anymore.

The way I see religion, in terms of how froggy it’s members get, ranges something like this:

Buddhist -—> Mormon/Christian -—→ Scientology

With the latter being the most easily offended and liable to take combative measures.

(Edit: I forget to include extremist Muslims in graph. They’re an outlier to the right of Scientology; off the charts nuts.)

 
Flag Post

Here’s one

and another

I usually hate youtube links but this one’s good.

People have a funny idea about buddhism because of orientalizing myths about what they believe and practice. Amusingly Islam used to be described alongside buddhism for ‘cool eastern religions’ because of stuff like sufism. What people assume to be representative of the majority of the religion is often a minority aspect that’s just been (over-)generalized to fit the whole. I knew a lady friend who thought hinduism was the shitz, based entirely on her reading stuff like the bhagavad-gita and blindly assuming that a religion that could produce that must be light-years better than our boring western alternatives. I still lol over that.

I don’t know your friend, but if he were to suddenly come down with a spiritual crisis and decide it’s all been a meaningless waste of time (I like the one testimonial link where the guy hates on memorizing sutras), I guarantee you he’ll be pissing a gushing fountain on his former belief system. Deprive anyone of a belief system they’ve faithfully followed for years, maybe even for their entire life, and they’ll be angry at themselves and the ideology they clung to.

On the other hand, it eventually wears off (or ought to, if people weren’t such brats about it), so perhaps ex-buddhists can get over it more quickly than the norm.

 
Flag Post

Well i believe there is only one god that is the creator of this world.There are more than Zillions of people in this world.If god listens to everyone then the world will surely be destroyed.What happens is for good.For example when you are small and you dont know about fire.But after being getting burnt by it makes you realize that it is dangerous.Thus what happens is for your good.Thus these destructions let people know that destruction is not good and we should avoid it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rajesh1999:

Well i believe there is only one god that is the creator of this world.

Then what about mars? Was that made by Ares?

There are more than Zillions of people in this world.

Seven billion. Is that really such a difficult fact to know?

If god listens to everyone then the world will surely be destroyed.

Why? He’s omnipotent and omniscient, so he would already be listening by default, and him listening wouldn’t change anything.

What happens is for good.

The flood gates have been opened.

For example when you are small and you dont know about fire.

I will have you know I’m quite average sized.

But after being getting burnt by it makes you realize that it is dangerous.Thus what happens is for your good.

Because you can’t learn anything without direct experience.

Thus these destructions let people know that destruction is not good and we should avoid it.

No shit. Yet there are things, namely natural disasters, that cannot be avoided so easily. Following the logic of you previous analogy, it would be like if you were at a summer camp and in the middle of the night there was a lighting storm and it started a forest fire near your camp. Sure, you could be awake, or people wake up and try to stop the fire, but the only “good” thing you could learn from that experience would be to never go to summer camp again. Hell, forest fires are themselves a natural disaster.

 
Flag Post

Wait, you had to burn yourself before you realised fire could be dangerous? The fact that burns anything it touches wasn’t enough for you?

Your first encounter with ball lightning should be interesting. You’ll see the devastation following in its wake, and you won’t realise its dangerous until you reach out to touch it with your bare flesh…

For that matter, try a tornado. How can it be dangerous? Just because it demolished three houses and half a road doesn’t make it dangerous. Not until you touch it and it hurls (hopefully) you or more likely bits of you through the air, will you consider it to be dangerous.

 
Flag Post

Who said the world is broken?

 
Flag Post

I’ve had a good think and realized that my primary hangups with the whole “god” concept are:

  • The installation of such entities as authorities over at least one aspect of life/nature/the universe
  • The character of such entities as alleged in “holy” scripture, esp. as regards their use of power, the expectation of worship, and the violent retribution against dissent to their authority.
  • The bare assertion of such entities’ existence being taken as fact, on pain of isolation, death, or worse, reinforced by many generations of cultural tradition.

I must admit that these stem from personal experience; I ill tolerate anyone who abuses their power and easily grow frustrated whenever I haven’t the power or resources to challenge them. My struggle in life is keeping that frustration to a minimum, not letting it devolve into bloodthirsty hatred of anyone I might perceive as agents of a tyrant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Gotta love ‘The Problem Of Evil’ argument.

I’m a Hard Determinist, and as a result I have never heard an answer to this problem from theists, nor am I able to come up with one myself. As a result, for this reason (and others), I am an atheist.

I think you mean, you’ve never heard an answer that fits with your silly philosophy, which is a rather different thing.

If you remove the word silly, you’re reiterating exactly what I said. I think it’s clear that, when I said “I have never heard of an answer to this problem”, I am implying that I haven’t heard an answer that addresses the issues raised by Hard Determinism.

Regardless, please elaborate, why is Hard Determinism silly?

 
Flag Post

Well I guess it depends on what god you’re talking about. I’ll assume the god of Christianity as well arguable with Islam and Judaism. But anyway, in the bible it often states how god is a loving higher power. 1 John 4:8 “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” New International Version (NIV). I will end this message with this quote- “You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a god who simply watches it and says ‘when you’re done, I’m going to punish you.’ If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your god.” -Tracie Harris

 
Flag Post

This question ties back into free will. If God made everything better, someone would wonder why he didn’t make it even better, etc etc etc, until it was a perfect utopia. That would only be possible if He took away free will. If He does that, then he takes away the option to disobey Him. That would also rid the world of love, since love has to be voluntary. This whole topic comes because people don’t think through the implications of their criticisms of God.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

This question ties back into free will. If God made everything better, someone would wonder why he didn’t make it even better, etc etc etc, until it was a perfect utopia. That would only be possible if He took away free will. If He does that, then he takes away the option to disobey Him. That would also rid the world of love, since love has to be voluntary. This whole topic comes because people don’t think through the implications of their criticisms of God.

But he effectively does take away free will. If you disobey him you are punished.
So why is an utopia with everyone living in blissful ignorance so out of the question? I mean, what purpose does free will have if all it really is good for is to serve as a tool so that big sky daddy can punish some fools? Make a choice between love and not love instead of covering the whole spectrum between love and hate. Juts end the scales at indifference.

And how doe things like natural disasters and so one come into play here? How does starving to death relate to your free will? Should those people just decide not to starve to death, or what?

 
Flag Post

Consequences to your actions, which He says He will accept on your behalf if you ask Him to, is not “punishment”, and calling it that is biased. Further, even if it were punishment, that doesn’t mean you don’t have free will. Do you understand what free will is?

Finally, I’d rather have free will than be live in blissful ignorance. Would you rather be a robot than live with the burden of consequences for your actions? Come on man.

 
Flag Post

It is perfectly possible for a robot to have free will, you know. Very poor analogy.

All free will is good for as EPR says, is that God has a target to meet. X% of humans to be sent to hell. Free will allows him to select a percentage to go to hell. He knows which % in advance, because he knows which choice they will make.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:It is perfectly possible for a robot to have free will, you know.

Could you qualify this with something please.

 
Flag Post

Ok, it is perfectly possible for a robot to have a mind of its own, and to make decisions entirely of it’s own. To make choices that were not explicitly programmed into it.

A good example would be the otherwise driverless robot cars currently on US roads. It would not be possible to program into them what to do in every possible circumstance they might meet. So they must rely on their own free will and judgement should a strange situation come up, as to what to do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ok, it is perfectly possible for a robot to have a mind of its own, and to make decisions entirely of it’s own. To make choices that were not explicitly programmed into it.

A good example would be the otherwise driverless robot cars currently on US roads. It would not be possible to program into them what to do in every possible circumstance they might meet. So they must rely on their own free will and judgement should a strange situation come up, as to what to do.

The driverless robot cars follow specifically programmed directions, and instructions for each scenario. You can look all the way down to the 1s and 0s, and every bit of logic is programmed. Nothing is inspired. Nothing is imagined. There is no “mind”, just a set of mathematical parameters. Try again.

 
Flag Post

The driverless robot cars follow specifically programmed directions, and instructions for each scenario. You can look all the way down to the 1s and 0s, and every bit of logic is programmed. Nothing is inspired. Nothing is imagined. There is no “mind”, just a set of mathematical parameters. Try again.

Except she just said that’s not how it should be done, unless I misread.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

The driverless robot cars follow specifically programmed directions, and instructions for each scenario. You can look all the way down to the 1s and 0s, and every bit of logic is programmed. Nothing is inspired. Nothing is imagined. There is no “mind”, just a set of mathematical parameters. Try again.

Except she just said that’s not how it should be done, unless I misread.

You misread. She is saying the google car has free will to decide what it wants to do. That’s just blatantly false. The google car follows programmed instruction.

 
Flag Post

He didn’t misread. The cars do not and cannot follow specifically programmed instructions. There is no way of programming “at 11:15, a child is going to run out into the street. You will need to apply 15% brakes to avoid this child” or “there will be a mexican standoff at this junction between three cars and a truck. Here are the precise decisions the human drivers are going to make and the routes their vehicles will take and at which times. Follow this course to avoid an incident.”

Instead whilst the car is told what the destination is, and which places to stop off at on the way, it must pick its own route, and it must react in real-time to changes. Changes such as a poor driver all over the road in front of it, a child running out into the road, an animal running out into the road, unplanned for roadworks, traffic jams and various idiot road users, that never could have been anticipated.

Thus the artificial mind must make its own decisions and exercise its own free will in determining, often in a split-second, exactly which action to take.

 
Flag Post

You’re wrong. The car DOES follow pre programmed information. For instance, if something is in the road, it can sense that it is in the road, and then follows the programming that says to stop instead of hitting it. In essence, the car cannot decide that it wants to run over the child, ignore its programming, and run over the child. The car has no free will. It follows programming. Similarly, when a missile is fired, with pre programmed information as to its target destination, it cannot exercise free will and decide that it instead wants to go out for coffee and biscotti. You really really need to learn the difference between “free will” and “pre programmed”. They are in fact opposites. In fact, there is no inanimate object which displays free will. Further, there is some debate if even life has free will, or if we are slaves to destiny. Usually I argue that life has free will. I’ve never EVER heard anyone argue the opposite, that inanimate objects have will.

I remember you now vika. Only you would make these claims. I’ve never talked to anyone so unknowledgeable on such a broad array of topics, with such a passionate insistence that they understand something. I’d have recognized you behind your computer, even if you had changed your screen name.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

You’re wrong. The car DOES follow pre programmed information. For instance, if something is in the road, it can sense that it is in the road, and then follows the programming that says to stop instead of hitting it.

Incorrect. If it did this, it would run the risk of causing a pileup, as something behind would not factor into the equation.

In essence, the car cannot decide that it wants to run over the child, ignore its programming, and run over the child.

In a difficult situation it could choose to as the least worst possibility.

The only reason it has that constraint is it has free will within constraints – the constraint being it must drive as well as it can in a dynamically changing environment. But it must weigh up and decide for itself what to do as the variables start to mount. This is why it has a neural net in the first place. So it can make such decisions.

A missile is different because it has no neural net on board. Some modern pilotless planes have this AI. They are then able to react to atmospheric conditions intelligently, reading the variables and making a judgement call. The aim for such is to have them make judgement calls if engaged by enemy defenses as well, but we have not successfully created a neural net that complex without it turning neurotic, yet.

In fact, there is no inanimate object which displays free will.

Anything with a mind is not an inanimate object.

Further, there is some debate if even life has free will, or if we are slaves to destiny.

I know, I’ve proven several times in this thread that we do not have free will, with the experimental data to back me up. It’s an inconvenient argument so it gets ignored by many. All the ‘free will’ is data crunching done by the non-conscious elements of the brain. We, the conscious elements are then told what the action we will take is going to be. We don’t get a say in it. That has been proven experimentally, and repeatedly.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Incorrect. If it did this, it would run the risk of causing a pileup, as something behind would not factor into the equation.

You are literally ignorant. That’s all there is to it. Here, watch this, and cease to be ignorant:
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/cogsci-2011/interview-with-judea-pearl

It’s like arguing with a 5 year old.

 
Flag Post

Vika? What do mean we don’t have free will? If something happens that I wasn’t expecting then I would react to it. Unless I knew the future and somehow already decided I was going to do something before it happened you can’t say we don’t have free will.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Immortal7777:

Vika? What do mean we don’t have free will? If something happens that I wasn’t expecting then I would react to it. Unless I knew the future and somehow already decided I was going to do something before it happened you can’t say we don’t have free will.

Apparantly, you do not have free will but the google car does. It’s painful to read her posts. It literally hurts my brain. I get a headache from this much mumbo jumbo.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Immortal7777:

Vika? What do mean we don’t have free will? If something happens that I wasn’t expecting then I would react to it. Unless I knew the future and somehow already decided I was going to do something before it happened you can’t say we don’t have free will.

Actually we can. Your brain reads the variables, accesses memory of past events and makes a decision. You, the mind running in just part of that brain does not have any input into this process. The rest – essentially a number crunching machine – makes the judgement calol, if you like you could say according to its programming, then informs you what your decision is going to be.

We know this, because barring instinctual and reflex actions (which don’t involve your mind at all), the brain has made its decision 7-10 seconds before you are aware what this decision is. We can see it in EEG and fMRI scans, the activity flow. Your body then proceeds to carry out this decision, a few fractions of a second after your conscious mind was made aware of it. Thuis you have the illusion that it was your decion.

Your role in this process would seem to be from supposition, to analyse the decision and its results, using your ability to work with abstract concepts, something the rest of the brain lacks, and only your mind has. You then send this information back to the raw data crunching systems, to influence the next decision they make.

So you’re more of an observer of the process than an active participant. If there is free will, its not yours. It’s just data being crunched and analysed by the part of the brain you have no actual control over.

In addition, this is why all the AI cars – not just the Google model – that met the requirements of the Urban Challenge for driving back in 1997, I think it was, have free will. They’re reacting as best they can according to the data, just the same way as our brains do.