God vs gods

[Ken Cotton]

I'll start by saying I'm an agnostic, just to get that out of the way.

 

I generally tend to put forth the argument that atheism is silly, and has been co-opted by a movement directly opposed to capital G God. The judeo-christian God that exists as a monotheistic element of culture. There are many "non-believers" who form an entire non-belief system around God himself ( Himself I guess, hahaha ) but not around other supernatural elements like spirits, souls, etc. I think this is why a lot of Christians tend to think that a number of atheists they meet are just bitter.

 

None of that God stuff matters though, becase my argument has nothing to do with that god. My argument is more about classic pantheons of multiple gods, pagan type arrangements, worshiping powerful spirits, etc. In the greek and norse pantheons the gods weren't really like God, infinitely powerful and infinitely insightful. The gods were pretty mortal and flawed when compared to one another. Compared to human beings their fantastic abilities were more preternatural than supernatural, which means seemingly magical but simply not understood. A good way to envision a preternatural event is with the senses of some animals, or even an illusion done by a magician. Supernatural abilities are more powers/events that fundamentally defy physical laws, which can be called true magic.

 

True magic doesn't exist, of course. Magic is really just a word people use to cover things that are fantastic that they can't understand, just like miracles. The idea of preternatural gods and magic can lend itself to the theories of alien life involving itself in human affairs. I don't particularly believe that intelligent aliens have visited earth, but I am intrigued and attracted to depictions of the gods as aliens. The recent Noah movie for example that features God and the angels as effectively aliens wielding super advanced technology is a pretty cool take on a scientifically hollow story. The purpose of me mentioning this isn't to wrangle people back into religion or make excuses for religion by merging science and religion, it's just a personal observation.

 

 

I arrive then at my conclusion, which is that a god can simply be an entity whose nature and power are beyond understanding. The sun used to be a god to many people, because it was all-powerful and not well understood. We understand a lot about the sun now, but it is still pretty much the most powerful object we can relate to. Similarly, if ants had the capacity for reverence and worship, I think they would probably regard human beings as gods. Our capacities exceed their understanding and ability to change the world by so much that we are like the greek and norse pantheon compared to them. "Playing god" as a saying is given meaning because of sheer power and scope.

 

Deities then, should have their definition changed from supernatural entities to preternatural entities. This would satisfy the requirement of gods existing as physical forces in a physical universe, and also provide a reasonable rebuttal to atheism itself. Atheism would then be less about believing in spirituality or miracles, and more akin to whether or not one believes it aliens. Atheism wouldn't be a matter of not believing in the concept of gods, it would be believing that no entities sufficiently powerful or misunderstood existed in the universe worthy of that designation.

 

Let me know what you think!

[Jamesican]

Very, very, very good argument, sir. I do, however, disagree with you. The nature of God or gods is divine. They are outside time and its effects, so they aren't aliens. Aliens are physical beings (if they do exist). I couldn't counter your argument and say that all aliens with advanced technology are gods.

[dsayers]

Atheism would then be less about believing in spirituality or miracles, and more akin to whether or not one believes it aliens.

 

What does belief have to do with anything? Can willpower alone directly influence the physical world? If somebody says "I believe in (G/g)od(s)," they're saying to you that they think believing in something is enough. They're also saying that either don't understand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or they are unwilling to think about/examining something before forming an opinion on it, which is intellectual sloth. Which is how I view the conclusion of agnosticism. "How can I know that a 2D object can't be a square and a triangle simultaneously?" Please.

 

How do you compare aliens to deities/spirituality? Aliens would just be more of the same. The idea that in a universe so large that we would be the only intelligent life is virtually impossible. Whereas deities/spirituality is in direct opposition to everything we DO know about the universe. How do you liken the two?

[Ken Cotton]

Belief in gods then would not be an act of faith, it would be an act of deference. Traditionally more basic religions or belief systems didn't need to have faith in the concept of a god, the presence of the god was just well understood. The sun for example was considered to be a god and no one had to have faith in the sun's existence, they just had to abide by the cultural norms and structures established around the sun. The sun is a bad example for worship and sacrifice however, because it does not exhibit desires or issue directives.

 

Classic pantheons however, displayed thinking ability and personality. People wouldn't need to have faith if Thor appeared in front of them in order to follow the tenets of their belief system, they would just have to obey the orders of the god. In this way, god based belief systems are a survival mechanism akin to those of slaves or prisoners. Deference to authority while individual sects or people chisel away at the power and mystery of the gods, until either escape or revolt occur. Human beings are keen animals and one of the oldest elements of our nature is the idea of ascension. Throughout all of human history people have been enamored by the idea of human ascension to a state of godliness, from the earliest humans working stone tools and forming clothing to the most advanced modern transhumanist enthusiasts.

 

An alien race visiting earth with immense power and unrelatable technology could therefore assert itself as a god. The personality of the god would dictate the way it interacted with people. If it were a cruel or vain god then atheism would be a suicidal idea. The tyranny imposed by the god and the belief system structured around that tyranny would afford human beings a chance to observe their new god more closely. To learn about that god and one day overcome it. Gods then, as they have always been, are dictated by the amount of power they hold. It is possible we might encounter aliens well beneath us who reverse us as gods, and it is possible we will encounter the opposite. We should be prepared to measure our defiance relative to our capability then. In pursuing an atheist society, we must not learn the true lesson at the heart of early religion, which is caution.

 

Spirituality is just another expression of this. People who avoid haunted houses with a "better safe than sorry" attitude might rely on religion, but they also might rely on emerging scientific or metaphysical explanations. An argument can be made about how much of our aversion to allegedly haunted locations is socially constructed. However, human instinct is at times powerful, and the sensation of prickling hairs and subtle unconscious clues profound. Is it possible for a location of a brutal mass murder to be imprinted with the emotions of the event? In the way that radiation can cling to and be absorbed by things, can a concentration of human suffering and misery be absorbed by a place? Is that physically possible? What pheromones, thought patterns, subtle clues, etc can be left in a location to warn others of what occurred there? In this way we see how there is a -possibility- that will naturally separate the curious from the cautious.

[NotDarkYet]

"I generally tend to put forth the argument that atheism is silly"

 

'Silly' is not an argument.

[Kevin Beal]

I actually would prefer people believe in gods than be agnostics. All I can ever glean from agnostic arguments is some vague emotional argument that boils down to "it's arrogant to think you could know!"

 

But maybe those are just the agnostics I've talked to. Perhaps there are some rigorous logicians in your bunch.

 

At any rate, here's the debt debate I've ever seen (it fully addresses on your argument multiple times)

 

 

 

[dsayers]

Is it possible for a location of a brutal mass murder to be imprinted with the emotions of the event? In the way that radiation can cling to and be absorbed by things, can a concentration of human suffering and misery be absorbed by a place? Is that physically possible?

 

No, because emotions, suffering, and misery are neither physical nor external.

 

Let us suppose that ghosts exist. If ghosts exist, then they can either imprint upon our senses or they cannot. If they can imprint upon our senses, then we could measure and substantiate them. If they do not impress upon our senses, then for them to exist or not exist would be functionally identical.

 

Everything you're talking about can be summed up as "don't understand, so treat as if understood." This is anti-rational. If you think you know the answer, you stop looking for the right answer.

 

Also, aggression is highly inefficient. To suspect that a race could co-operate to the point of achieving interstellar travel and then try to dominate another planet doesn't follow. If they didn't come from Earth, then that means we'd have SOMETHING of value for them and they us. Learning how to communicate and trading would be far more beneficial and sustainable than trying to subjugate from light years away.

[Ken Cotton]

Emotions (suffering and misery) are completely physical. It's a complex phenomenon, and I'm not a neurologist, but there are doctors that understand the mechanisms of human emotion. If I hit you with a rock and that causes you pain and suffering, it's because of a series of physical actions and reactions have occurred to matter. A "haunted" location in this agnostic preternatural argument isn't a place that is occupied by non-real entities, it's a collection of subtle clues that cue fear or agitation in the human brain. Smell is a completely physical sense for example that is a lot harder to record than other sense indicators. I'm not saying people shouldn't learn, I'm saying we should take a more nuanced look at it.

 

Aggression isn't inefficient. Lions eat zebras and that's plenty efficient for them. There's no reason to assume that an alien race with the capacity of interstellar travel isn't going to be like a lion. A lion can run across the land and chase down a zebra. If an alien species is an imperialst species or something like a virus there's no reason to assume that it won't try to subjugate the earth. If a zebra could speak to a lion that wouldn't necessarily stop the lion from eating the zebra.

[luxfelix]

Emotions (suffering and misery) are completely physical. It's a complex phenomenon, and I'm not a neurologist, but there are doctors that understand the mechanisms of human emotion. If I hit you with a rock and that causes you pain and suffering, it's because of a series of physical actions and reactions have occurred to matter. A "haunted" location in this agnostic preternatural argument isn't a place that is occupied by non-real entities, it's a collection of subtle clues that cue fear or agitation in the human brain. Smell is a completely physical sense for example that is a lot harder to record than other sense indicators. I'm not saying people shouldn't learn, I'm saying we should take a more nuanced look at it.

 

Emotions have both energetic (rhythmic) and chemical signatures which can be measured (from what I understand, everything psychological/subjective has a biological/objective parallel.).

 

The work of Dr. Masaru Emoto and the Institute of Heartmath, as well as the Phantom DNA Effect (and others) seem to support your suggestion that something of the event could be imprinted on a space, and/or those aware of the event, to produce an uncanny or "haunted" result.

 

(It should be noted that some of the previous sources are considered pseudoscience, so take them with a grain of salt?)

 

I bring these up because, in a mode tangential to this thread, it really comes down to dsayer's question, "Can willpower alone directly influence the physical world?"

 

I also bring these up because, I recognize a progression of thought something to the following degree: (G/g)ods(s) do not/did not exist, that they were misunderstood natural phenomena/foreign/forgotten technology, that whatever power exhibited can be studied/developed/re-engineered to attain (transhumanist?) apotheosis (insofar as applied knowledge is power).

[dsayers]

Yes, I am aware that emotions are biochemical and therefore comprised of matter and energy. The point is that there's no "your suffering" without YOU. If you have a traumatic experience, that's within YOU, not the place you happen to be at in the moment. If you die there's no longer such a thing as "your experiences."

 

You're trying to explore the possibility of spirituality from the starting point that spirituality is real. It's called begging the question.

 

Your use of animal kingdom references to prove how creatures with the capacity for reason interact is of no use. Aggression is inefficient. No need to take my word for it. Look at your own life...

 

You eat to stay alive and you live in a tax farm (country). Let us suppose for the sake of argument that your tax farmers steal X% of your productivity and it just so happens that you spend X% of your productivity on food. In order for the people who offer food (restaurants, markets) to get X% of your productivity, all they have to do is provide the food that you want. In order for the people who want to steal that X% and not risk harm to themselves, they have to set up an elaborate system whereby they mangle the language, control the minds of children, trick the adults into dependency, threaten all of the above with violence, build large buildings within which to punish those who do not submit, prop up themselves and their agents as being in a different moral class...

 

One of these approaches is significantly easier AND inspires you to continue to engage in it if you had the choice.

 

Let's look at what we know of space travel. When State space programs first began, they had the boon of the initial theft of their tax cattle (an unsustainable practice). Due to this, they had remarkable results at first. Fast forward a number of decades and State run space programs are being blown away by their private sector counterparts. So much so that here in the US, the State space program is availing themselves of private space efforts because it's already being developed. Please note that this is not some parallel since space travel is exactly what you're talking about.

[Sal9000]

An alien race visiting earth with immense power and unrelatable technology could therefore assert itself as a god. The personality of the god would dictate the way it interacted with people.

 

One  religion started in a similar way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult for details.

[Ken Cotton]

The idea of cargo cults is interesting. It's a fascinating phenomenon.

 

I think in essence what I'm suggesting is that we as a race and society retain the capacity for religion as a precautionary tool. We might one day encounter a situation where we need to feign ignorance, which requires practice. It is not so much the suggestion that religion in the sense of believing falsehoods is intellectually valid, but rather that a structure of appeasement to a higher power is pragmatic. For the sake of posterity I do not believe we should concern ourselves with things disproven, but that we should bide our time against threats that proven. Even the nicest god or most benevolent dictator is defined by a power disparity and the willingness to decisively crush opposition.

 

Therefore, we cannot allow ourselves too much pride and arrogance in unfettered atheism, lest we forget deception.

[dsayers]

What are you saying? Are you saying that we should believe in a deity because the risk of not and being wrong is disastrous while believing in one when there isn't is "harmless"? Or are you saying that you're going to believe in a deity no matter what and have abandoned the facade of intellectual exploration in the face of sound refutation?

[Ken Cotton]

I'm saying that if an entity with deific qualities shows itself, we need to be able to emulate genuine worship until we know enough about it or have enough power to unseat it. If you do not have agnosticism as a tool in the toolbox, you have less options for resolving the power dynamics between deities and mortals.

 

Suppose that in 100 years, religion no longer exists. The capacity for religion no longer exists. People have forgotten how to worship the same way most people have forgotten how to milk cows and stuff. Then, an alien being arrives with seemingly magic powers, able to do amazing things beyond our understanding. If the human race asserts to that being that it is mortal, irrelevant, etc, they might face extinction. The reasonable voices that assert this could be completely destroyed leaving only a mentally feebler element of humanity that is driven to blind theism. Human beings who legitimately forget rational modes of thinking or are raised in captivity to regard the being as a true supernatural entity and not a preternatural one.

 

With agnosticism in the toolbox, people will be able to obscure their rational breakdown of a deity with feigned reverence. The same way that if you are a prisoner, you need to obscure the fact that you're watching the guards or forming an escape plan. Simply running at the gates or openly oogling the guards and their guns is a sure way to get yourself killed or isolated. Agnosticism is the tool that can allow you to steal glances and formulate a plan.

[luxfelix]

Even with vastly superior technology(?), leading the Aztecs to view them as gods, Hernán Cortés and company (arguably) could not have conquered the natives without the superstitions and political divisions already present.

[dsayers]

If you do not have agnosticism as a tool in the toolbox, you have less options for resolving the power dynamics between deities and mortals.

 

Pretending to not be able to know if deities exist will aide us in a fictional reality where deities do exist? If you say so.

 

Agnosticism is a conclusion. Conclusion meaning the end of consideration. Conclusions are not tools. Tool meaning a device which enables us to something we couldn't do (as efficiently) without it. The only thing the conclusion of agnosticism (or theism or atheism) does is free up time and mental energy in considering whether deities exist. Or put more generally, the only tool role a conclusion fills is freeing up time and energy spent considering the subject matter the conclusion sums up.

 

I think maybe if you spent less time trying to make unprincipled conclusions fit, you'd have greater mental dexterity and be able to see through some of these increasingly awful assertions you're making. You really do come across as a troll in this place.

[Ken Cotton]

Well compared to a human a deity would definitely need more than a suit of armor and a gun. I don't think ants would be inclined to deify beetles just because they were a bit bigger and a bit better armored.

 

With Cortes, if you have theists saying YAY ITS GOD, agnostics saying I DUNNO LETS CHECK IT OUT and atheists saying HE'S JUST A DUDE DON'T LISTEN TO HIM, I think that the middle ground is the safest option. The trend seems to be that new atheists are very vocal and adament against deities in every way shape and form, which is what I think presents the most risk. I don't know if human beings have ever been visited by aliens or not that said they were gods or were perceived as gods, but I do know that deference is a useful skill in the face of a superior power.

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm saying that if an entity with deific qualities shows itself, we need to be able to emulate genuine worship until we know enough about it or have enough power to unseat it.

 

It will never happen. Such as being would not be a deity, just an alien. You should probably be trying to logically argue that aliens exist instead and that they have the capacity to enslave us, which is similarly impossible, but for different reasons.

 

Copy-pasted from previous God thread: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42309-what-would-convince-me-that-god-exists/

 

 

 

The biblical definition of "God" cannot not logically exist because the very definition is self-detonating in every respect. God is described as a consciousness that is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and ethereal.

 

1. The universe is made up of matter, which has mass and volume, so God cannot be ethereal if we are to prove that he exists empirically. He can never be detected.
2. If God existed before the universe began (LET THERE BE STUFF!), he cannot be part of the universe, by definition. He existed before anything could possibly exist. See point one.
3. Putting point one and two aside, if we assume God really does exist in the universe with all the stuff, we have to deal with the paradox of omnipotence. Can an all-powerful deity create an impossible task, like creating a mountain that he cannot erode? If so, then he's not really omnipotent. If not, then again, he's not infinitely powerful.
4. Omniscience, or all-knowing, is also a self-detonating concept and cannot be applied to any consciousness. For example, if God knew everything, he would also be aware of ignorance. To be aware of ignorance, you have to admit there are limits to your knowledge. Therefore, God cannot know everything and is not omniscient.

In summary, if you can't apply logic, physics, or any rational definition to God, he is synonymous with non-existence. Therefore, no one can ever objectively prove God exists. No possibility of God is the default position.

[Ken Cotton]

Please outline how a vastly superior alien entity cannot exist.

[Kevin Beal]

Please outline how a vastly superior alien entity cannot exist.

Just curious. Have you watched the debate I posted? This question is addressed in some depth.

[Ken Cotton]

Just curious. Have you watched the debate I posted? This question is addressed in some depth.

 

If you wanted to understand what is wrong with your argument, but didn't look into the videos that I promised addressed it in depth, then is it just that you wanted to argue with people? Nothing wrong with that, but it's just good to be honest about it in case people don't want to waste their time.

 

Kevin Beal, sorry for not addressing you specifically I was on my way out of town.

 

I did watch the video in its entirety, Though I thought that Johnson or whatever his name was wasn't addressing my point. He seemed to stress that there was an unknowable unknowable. A 2+2=5 because of some magic that can -never- be known. My point isn't that there is a magical 2+2=5, my point is that we need the ability to live in deference to that which is not understood. We cannot arrogantly proclaim to a higher power that 2+2=4 and be destroyed, if confronted by a 2+2=5. Nor can we succumb to the fully blind worship of 2+2=5, forgetting our logic and learning ability. Agnosticism, or the professed not knowing of the unlearned or unknowable, is I think the best answer.

 

We cannot say with 100% assuredness that deities in the preternatural sense don't exist. Nor can we say 100% that they do exist. An agnostic is asked a question about deities and says "I don't know.", when you don't know the correct answer, I don't know is a good answer.

[dsayers]

As a man who is allergic to brevity himself, I must say that it's hard to take you serious because you never seem to be able to say something directly. A kind of mysticism if you will.

 

NOBODY is suggesting that we know everything. The conclusion of atheism is one that best describes the real world. If tomorrow, testable, provable, repeatable evidence substantiates the existence of a deity, then atheism would no longer best describe the real world.

 

When you wake up in the morning, you can't know for sure that the floor is suddenly not solid, leaving you to fall to your death just getting out of bed. You get out of bed anyways because until such an occurrence, the consistency of matter has been a constant to you for as long as you've had the capacity to interpret such things.

 

You're essentially saying that it is certain that nothing can be certain. Performative contradiction aside, you would essentially become Buridan's ass, perishing from indecision.

[Ken Cotton]

No, I'm not.

 

If you look at that debate, Stefan says that the appearance of a deity would be "just a dude". If you tell a vain, vengeful deity-like being that it's just a dude, it will probably kill you. Our historical accounts of deities implies that telling them they are "just a dude" would result in them killing you. Our historical evidence of mortal, human kings shows that if you tell them they're "just a dude" many of them will kill you.

 

The only method of confronting a deity without a drastic loss of human life is fostering agnosticism. The common belief among mankind that a deity ( with a revised definition to the preternatural, not supernatural ) can exist. Not telling an alien "you're just a dude" and getting killed on the spot. Not telling an alien it's the god of the universe and it should be able to freely kill us because we're just pond scum compared to it. Telling ourselves "I don't know" and bending to the whim of a vastly superior entity, long enough to learn its habits and traits.

[dsayers]

If you tell a vain, vengeful deity-like being that it's just a dude, it will probably kill you.

 

I totally rolled my eyes.

 

I know that as I'm walking down the street, the most important thing on my mind is that every ant I walk past reveres me for the thorax-crushing potential that I wield such that should they not, I will take time out of my day to squash every last one of them. /sarcasm

 

So a deity's default position is to kill, an alien's default position is to kill, violence is part of being human, violence against humans is okay and differentiating them from animals is arbitrary... How is that you're posting here instead of killing everybody you can get a hold of and/or fending off the murderous advances of everybody whose line of sight you cross? You're not living your values which means either you're lying to yourself or you are lying to us.

[Ken Cotton]

I'm a high functioning sociopath. The main difference between me and any other killer is the fact that I can lead a relatively normal life and that I don't have a pressing need to kill people. People to me are more or less like any other animal. I can imagine myself at a butcher table with cows and people with little functional difference. That doesn't make me inclined to kill people, it just means that I don't view other people with any special value. There are a variety of hurdles to overcome with hurting people, such as the immediate physical reaction, the social risks, and the personal risks. When I see films of people being killed, in car accidents, blown up, etc, it doesn't trigger feelings in me of fear, anger, or sadness.

 

If a superior alien race of robots or bugs shows up and subjugates the earth, demanding servitude and reverance like the old kings appointed by gods... people will need to offer that up in a convincing manner. The state ( a bunch of violent parasite control freaks running a docile herd of servitors ) has managed to subjugate this much of the known world, I'm not sure what makes the idea so unbelievable. The state and traditional power hierarchies are closer to establishing a single world government than any other force known to history. States have made further progress into space than any private enterprise. The idea that the free market can do better than the state at the idea of interstellar domination when the state can't even muster the strength to exist on a single planet is absurd.

 

You're choosing to ignore the thought experiment or suggestion about power dynamics and how to formulate a survival and overall overthrow strategy to focus on personal details about myself. If you feel as though my suggestion of agnosticism as a convincing form of false theism being a valuable tool is wrong, feel free to come up with a convincing reason as to why and post it. Otherwise, I advocate having as many tools available to society as possible to combat a number of varied threats.

[J. D. Stembal]

Please outline how a vastly superior alien entity cannot exist.

 

It's not so much that they logically cannot exist somewhere in the universe, but that the odds that they exist and have faster than light space travel in order to visit Earth makes your claim impossible or near enough to impossible to exclude it ever happening. Slap the suggestion on top of it that they would come to Earth to subjugate the human race and want us to worship them like gods, and it is now a concrete impossibility. A successful space faring race would be peaceful traders and not interplanetary warmongers. Ever notice how humans fight wars all the time, but we don't have commercial interplanetary space travel yet?

 

I read a book about the theory of live existing in the universe in high school, but I cannot remember the title right now. If I remember it, I'll let you know. 

[Ken Cotton]

Those are baseless assumptions. Human beings achieved space flight essentially because of advances in rocket technology that resulted from a desire to kill each other with rockets more effectively. Prior to the rich history of ranged warfare, something like rocket travel would be immensely unprofitable. In fact, the only reason the space program has lived as long as it has and done what it has is because states have used FIAT currencies to completely ignore traditional costs. If we were working within the confines of a free market with a finite money supply space travel would never become affordable enough or enticing enough to be pursued.

 

You're also making the mistake of assuming that any alien race we encounter is going to be human like. For all we know, one day we might encounter space squids or space bugs. Science fiction is full of different ideas and thoughts about what creatures could exist in the universe. It doesn't apply to agnosticism, but for all we know the first alien lifeform we encounter could be an extremely destructive virus that rips through human beings and makes us extinct.

[Kevin Beal]

Are you aware that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive?

 

If I, as an atheist, accept that bug badass advanced aliens exist who would appear magical to me, does that make me an agnostic?

 

Were you diagnosed by a professional as a sociopath, or is this your own belief?

[dsayers]

Human beings achieved space flight essentially because of advances in rocket technology that resulted from a desire to kill each other with rockets more effectively. Prior to the rich history of ranged warfare, something like rocket travel would be immensely unprofitable. In fact, the only reason the space program has lived as long as it has and done what it has is because states have used FIAT currencies to completely ignore traditional costs. If we were working within the confines of a free market with a finite money supply space travel would never become affordable enough or enticing enough to be pursued.

 

Are you aware that you've just contradicted yourself? Not only is private space travel a reality, but in the US, NASA actually plans on (if not already doing so) making use of private spacecraft since it's cheaper than continuing to developing their own. The reason for this is because the theft that allowed State space programs to begin were unsustainable. While not exactly a proof that visitors would be traders and not aggressive by default, it's a damn fine case for it.

 

Are you aware that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive?

 

I'm not aware of this. Isn't this like saying that it's possible for a light switch to be both in the off and the middle (neither off nor on) position simultaneously? How does one simultaneously NOT believe in a deity and believe that they cannot know whether or not a deity exists?

[J. D. Stembal]

Those are baseless assumptions. Human beings achieved space flight essentially because of advances in rocket technology that resulted from a desire to kill each other with rockets more effectively. Prior to the rich history of ranged warfare, something like rocket travel would be immensely unprofitable. In fact, the only reason the space program has lived as long as it has and done what it has is because states have used FIAT currencies to completely ignore traditional costs. If we were working within the confines of a free market with a finite money supply space travel would never become affordable enough or enticing enough to be pursued.

 

You're also making the mistake of assuming that any alien race we encounter is going to be human like. For all we know, one day we might encounter space squids or space bugs. Science fiction is full of different ideas and thoughts about what creatures could exist in the universe. It doesn't apply to agnosticism, but for all we know the first alien lifeform we encounter could be an extremely destructive virus that rips through human beings and makes us extinct.

 

On one hand you are arguing that rocket technology and space flight are unprofitable to develop, and then on the other hand arguing that alien arthropods would find faster than light space travel profitable enough to make it all the way to Earth to eat or enslave us. Why would space bugs find this behavior profitable if we do not?

 

If space travel is not profitable, why develop it in the first place?

[Kevin Beal]

I'm not aware of this. Isn't this like saying that it's possible for a light switch to be both in the off and the middle (neither off nor on) position simultaneously? How does one simultaneously NOT believe in a deity and believe that they cannot know whether or not a deity exists?

Atheism - do I believe that any gods exist?

Agnosticism - do I know if any gods exists?

 

It's asking two separate questions. There are 4 combinations of these:

1. Agnostic Atheism (Weak Atheism)

2. Gnostic Atheism (Strong Atheism) <- the only rational position

3. Agnostic Theism ("I don't know, but I believe it")

4. Gnostic Theism ("I know there is a god")

 

An agnostic is not someone who believes you cannot know anymore than an atheist is someone who knows for certain there is no god. It's too specific to be a logical distinction.

[Ken Cotton]

Are you aware that you've just contradicted yourself? Not only is private space travel a reality, but in the US, NASA actually plans on (if not already doing so) making use of private spacecraft since it's cheaper than continuing to developing their own. The reason for this is because the theft that allowed State space programs to begin were unsustainable. While not exactly a proof that visitors would be traders and not aggressive by default, it's a damn fine case for it.

 

 

I'm not aware of this. Isn't this like saying that it's possible for a light switch to be both in the off and the middle (neither off nor on) position simultaneously? How does one simultaneously NOT believe in a deity and believe that they cannot know whether or not a deity exists?

 

Are you aware that you've just contradicted yourself? Not only is private space travel a reality, but in the US, NASA actually plans on (if not already doing so) making use of private spacecraft since it's cheaper than continuing to developing their own. The reason for this is because the theft that allowed State space programs to begin were unsustainable. While not exactly a proof that visitors would be traders and not aggressive by default, it's a damn fine case for it.

Well, something can easily become profitable after the initial first step and investing issues are taken care of. The biggest obstacle to a new business or product is getting people to invest. If you can just force people to invest, you have a lot more room for failure. If you need to subsidize your own failures personally it's a lot harder. The space program was also under attack countless times politically simply because it was deemed unprofitable. It may be that interstellar travel is almost statistically impossible and that we're confined to our solar system. Only time will tell for that one. Now that state funded programs have dumped billions of dollars into resolving most of the issues ( as well as many human lives ) its certainly a lot easier and profitable for independent business to get on board and utilize that technology.

 

 

On one hand you are arguing that rocket technology and space flight are unprofitable to develop, and then on the other hand arguing that alien arthropods would find faster than light space travel profitable enough to make it all the way to Earth to eat or enslave us. Why would space bugs find this behavior profitable if we do not?

 

If space travel is not profitable, why develop it in the first place?

I'm arguing that it isn't really profitable as far as peaceful applications are concerned. There are uses for rocket technology, satellites, and aerodynamic advances in general obviously. However, many aspects of our space programs are entirely driven by scientific pursuits and don't necessarily have a good economic result. We might learn about the composition of the moon or a comet without ever really developing an economic use for that knowledge. That would essentially be the practice of finding the most expensive trivia answers in human history. What is the moon made of? Sure we know, but, was knowing really worth the billions of dollars it cost to find out?

 

This shouldn't be mixed up with conquest. Conquest while considered abhorent by modern standards is not necessarily inefficent or economically unviable. *If there are 100 units of resource at 50/50 or 40/20/40 and you spend 10 of your units developing advanced weapons technology, you might be able to secure the other 50 or 60. This would be a gamble of course, because it's entirely possible that your investment fails and your occupation/conquest is stopped. If you are an alien race that doesn't really care about other races ( as we've seen displayed among humans over subspecies differences like color ) it's entirely reasonable to think you might commit acts of planetary genocide. This could be considered completely reasonable in profitable in the same sense that we overrun and develop the natural habitats of many different kinds of animals.

 

*This situation is meant to reflect say two equal warring states for 50/50, or say two equal states that come across a new unclaimed resource, for the 40/20/40 example.

[dsayers]

@Kevin: That's not my understanding of what those labels mean. This is one of the reasons I try to refrain from using or self-applying labels.

 

At any rate, on the off chance that my grasp of those labels was faulty, I looked them up. According to dictionary.com (whatever that's worth), agnosticism denotes uncertainty and atheism denotes certainty.

 

On a side note, while I discourage the use of labels in general, atheism and anarchism are among my pet peeves. Even dictionary.com say atheism is a disbelief in God. It's like saying a mathematician disbelieves in 2+2=5. It makes it seem as if theism is the origin and atheism is the variance. As if the onus is upon the "disbeliever" to prove an absence (logically impossible).

[Kevin Beal]

I love labels, personally. I feel zero compunction using them. And I don't know what a "self-applying label" is. Labels don't apply themselves, obviously.

 

People use words differently and I'm not about to tell you that your definition is wrong. I'm just telling you how I use the words and how it makes most sense to me.

[J. D. Stembal]

Well, something can easily become profitable after the initial first step and investing issues are taken care of. The biggest obstacle to a new business or product is getting people to invest. If you can just force people to invest, you have a lot more room for failure. If you need to subsidize your own failures personally it's a lot harder. The space program was also under attack countless times politically simply because it was deemed unprofitable. It may be that interstellar travel is almost statistically impossible and that we're confined to our solar system. Only time will tell for that one. Now that state funded programs have dumped billions of dollars into resolving most of the issues ( as well as many human lives ) its certainly a lot easier and profitable for independent business to get on board and utilize that technology.

 

 

I'm arguing that it isn't really profitable as far as peaceful applications are concerned. There are uses for rocket technology, satellites, and aerodynamic advances in general obviously. However, many aspects of our space programs are entirely driven by scientific pursuits and don't necessarily have a good economic result. We might learn about the composition of the moon or a comet without ever really developing an economic use for that knowledge. That would essentially be the practice of finding the most expensive trivia answers in human history. What is the moon made of? Sure we know, but, was knowing really worth the billions of dollars it cost to find out?

 

This shouldn't be mixed up with conquest. Conquest while considered abhorent by modern standards is not necessarily inefficent or economically unviable. *If there are 100 units of resource at 50/50 or 40/20/40 and you spend 10 of your units developing advanced weapons technology, you might be able to secure the other 50 or 60. This would be a gamble of course, because it's entirely possible that your investment fails and your occupation/conquest is stopped. If you are an alien race that doesn't really care about other races ( as we've seen displayed among humans over subspecies differences like color ) it's entirely reasonable to think you might commit acts of planetary genocide. This could be considered completely reasonable in profitable in the same sense that we overrun and develop the natural habitats of many different kinds of animals.

 

*This situation is meant to reflect say two equal warring states for 50/50, or say two equal states that come across a new unclaimed resource, for the 40/20/40 example.

 

How is planetary genocide profitable? If you are suggesting that peaceful programs such as the moon landing are unprofitable, why fund them? How does using science and technology for war make the research any more profitable?

 

Take the Manhattan Project, for example. It cost $30 billion in 2012 dollars. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/

 

At least 220,000 Japanese died in the nuclear blasts, and subsequent fallout. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

 

I don't think anyone has an estimated calculation of the costs the blasts incurred in property damage.

 

It's frustrating that there are so many nuclear apologists on the web that attempt to calculate how many total lives the two bombs saved, presuming the war would continue indefinitely without an invasion of the main islands. This is entirely false. Japan was falling apart and morale was terrible. Japan surrendered with the condition that the Emperor stay in political power, but the US refused the terns. They had already spent $2 billion on four prototype bombs. They had to have a live test detonation on civilians to show off to the Russian who were also looking to enter the war against Japan.

 

Do the benefits of offensive nuclear technology outweigh the costs? How does nuking the entire surface of a planet as an invading alien species make any profit sense whatsoever?