For those who have read or know of it, your analogy also brings Plato's Cave into mind. But of course thinking in such a way is justified to us because in your analogy we KNOW there's an available 3rd dimension. But from the Pacman's point of view, it's as good as making something up in one's mind. If Pacman for instance conducted several experiments, tracked the paths of the eating-things-whose-names-don't-come-into-mind-at-the-present-time, and realised their movements was due to a certain pattern or algorithm, he could then infer that there was something dictating their movements. If he then had a friend carefully monitor his movements throughout and then notice that he somehow moves away from the aforementioned-eating-unnamed-game-objects without seeing them in any way, he might draw another conclusion. And if a crisis (c/f: T. Kuhn) arose because of such observations that required a paradigm shift, only then would it be JUSTIFIED in believing in a 3rd dimension and "Matrix" explanation. Otherwise, instead of assuming something outside the world, Ockham's Razor should be utilised if no such need is required. (Note: Ockham's Razor - "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity") This is also why string theory is not taken seriously by many of the scientific society. On many occasions it seems too simple to attribute both sides of this argument to a blue pill / red pill analogy. But ultimately, humankind as its duty MUST embrace that which allows the race to progress intellectually and further stimulate social and academic evolution. To finish off with an analogy - science is like playing that hot/cold game. You know that game where someone hides something and you look for it and a friend calls out "hotter" or "colder" depending if you're getting near it? Science is taking one step at a time, slowly but surely reaching the unknown goal. If the unknown goal is where you first suspected it was then so much the better, but for the meantime it is much better to do what is simple and effective. That is the purpose of science - discount on necessity, embrace on necessity. It undermines everything we have worked for to base a blind belief that many find unjustifiable. Note: I'm on a holiday in China at the moment, it's 10:45 PM, I'm stuffed full of food, feeling mildly melancholic, and I'm not due to be back in Australia to hang out with my friends until the 4th of Jan.
I think what people are failing to understand and why this is being beating around the bush for so long is the concept of nothing coming from something. If nothing can come from something then show me it logically or prove it logically. If not, it has to be based on something greater. People speak of "God" as some living entity bound in this world. This is not the case based on the above assumption. This is why it is led to faith that if something cannot come from nothing then there must have been a something pre-existing to create something. How can God create Himself? God can't create Himself, He has to have always been there otherwise He is not God and there is some Higher power out there. Even if that is the case, then there is a fundamental higher power, so the argument for a "God" would hold. People say that science proves something, but the argument again is that this is God's science we're talking about. Who's to say God isn't real and permeates into our world just because we have natural disasters. The reason people have faith and everything is because there are things you can't explain that need a higher meaning. Those who have faith define this as God. You can state science and physics, but that doesn't prove the existence of a God that just proves that there's something at work in this world that makes things happen. We define God by the Christian philosophy. God may or may not be the Christian God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Think of South Park when they were arguing religion and they concluded Mormons had been right. We argue why something happened. It's something no one yet has been able to explain (ie the Big Bang) that's what faith is. You may not like it, it may not suite you, but it suits some, and just because you don't understand it or some people don't care to understand it and take it on faith doesn't mean it's not possible, and if you want to attribute it to something else that's your right, others will choose to base it on faith. In all, it's like that, we're arguing semantics of God's nature and capabilities rather than whether or not God exists.
Agree, God can exist for the sake of existence We always take God as a religous figure... God might be useless and might not be doing shit... But God could still exist.. Then some might say then "Why believe in God at all then?" But I think the real question is more like "Why not?"
Agree on that. I was always thinking IF god created us, why do god want us to believe in him ? We did't ask for the creation of all of this. God create us for what ? he create us because he want us to believe in him ? think logically why do he want to do that ? Yes, God could exist no doubt about that, but why do we need to believe in him ? Just because he created us ? so ? As i said we did't ask for all of this. But if religious doesn't exist, many problem will occur. Especially social problem, Think of it there's millions of people around the world believe in religious if someone somehow proves that religious is just an imaginary thing, it's a fake, Try to imagine yourself what will happen.
If religion didn't exist there would be alot less social problems. Fuck... imagine if christianity wasn't around and the crusades never occured; or if Judaism and islam were never invented. Millions of deaths could have been avoided had people realized that 'killing in the name of god/allah' was just a messed up fucking reason to end another human being's life. fuck, its still going on today... just look at Israel and Palestine. Human beings as a race are a bunch of intolerant assholes, and we've been this way for thousands of years. There's no way to say whether the world would be a significantly better place without religion, cuz people would still be dicks and would still kill each other for more tangible reasons like resources and probably racial differences, but im pretty sure overall there would be a lot more people alive without the concept of God to justify holy wars and inquisitions.
^ then there would not be law and justice as we know it today all the laws that were created in the past are basis of our currently law, and it in turn is based upon religion. you could say without religion, there would not be law and order
thats just speculation. We'd have laws based on natural order and logic rather than religious tenants. To say that the world would just be complete anarchy without religion is kinda ridiculous unless you're assuming that human beings have no common sense or intelligence. I personally have no religious beliefs and i still consider myself to be a moral person, however i live according to my own rules of right and wrong, which i've developed due to life experience and not specifically christian doctrine. A belief in an all powerful imaginary being isn't required to assure a lawful society, just do some reading on Taosim and the taoist way of life, which was practiced in asia for over 2 thousand years. It stresses compassion, humility, and moderation, and its tenants are derived from philosophy and nature rather than a fear of a malevolent god. I have to admit that religion has produced a great deal of scientific advancement for example, the Gutenberg bible. But in this day and age it seems that we've reached a point where science and religion are at loggerheads and one will eventually need to bow to the other in order to advance, see: creationism, stem cell research. I suppose i should add that i dont believe that its possible for humanity to have developed without religion. Its human nature to fear the unknown and one of the biggest unknowns is what will happen after we die. Fear inspires a great deal of creativity in people and, in order to address these fears, human beings accross the world created their own stories and tales which eventually developed into religions dictating what ultimately occurs in death.
Hmm sry i did't make this clear, i mean nowadays not old times. Just like When you woke up and your dad come along and said to you that he's not you dad. How will you react ? well maybe positive but negative are also possible cause you fell you are lied, being fooled. Wow, aw now that's bad real bad, A society without Law and justice will be a chaos.
I don't know about other religions, but Catholicism and Christianity is a direct opposition to Darwinian theory. I agree with the theories of a religion (moral values etc.) but Darwinian theory, in my opinion, trumps the fact that God created everything in the world.
Quick intrusion just to be fair tens of thousands of people all over the world every single year see UFOs that defy human capabilities. Not to mention NASA astronauts sightings in space up till the most recent launch if I recall correctly. So the odds of intelligent life out there in the universe existing is at the moment greater than the existence of God. Even if just one of those sightings were real aliens would still be at better odds.
Yea the whole point of an analogy is to let someone hear a opinion or idea from the perspective of someone other than themselves. Hence the pacman analogy was used to put us in a perspective of "if we were the greater entity looking down at the ones we created" For all the results of Pacmans experiments and what not the end does not have to entail that there must be a 3rd dimension or that they were created. Some Pacman could assume that the pre programmed movement of the squid things were just because it was "natural" "instinct" or "Just because." Its the same as us in reality, animals behave in a certain way and yet our explanation of why they do are many. What is the ultimate truth? maybe we will never know. And that is the reason why Science cannot prove whether God exists or not because for the most part science deduces and you cannot prove something that is out of your "screen" (pacman) I mean some people could say that there belief in God is because of certain things they experienced i.e miracles. While others who recieved the same experience may attribute it to luck. In the end there is no proof, there is no spoon, there is nothing except our opinions on this subject and each opinion has a different weight on anothers mind. Our perceptions create our truths, how do you know that the colour you and i call red really looks the same to either of us? so it is with peoples belief in God it is not maths, it is not 1+1=2. So I own this argument, there is no need to talk about it anymore because it will never conclude. The truth is no one knows, and even if they did know they cannot explain it 100%
God by definition exists outside of what we can define by natural laws and hence we have a definition for supernatural. For example, a miracle is something that happens outside of what we can explain or else it would not be termed a miracle.
spirits are a form of energy, just that they are not visible to the naked human eye because of their frequencies goes outside the limit of the visible spectrum.
proof 1 , 2 and 3 = story made by humans. scientific >> if god doesnt exist....y there is earth? izzit jz an imagination of us? religion >> many story of god are made to attract ppl to follow their religions. ( i dun think they even know who really is the God ) common sense >> god does exist...our existance is the proof. but i dun think God exist as wat religions stories.
