General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

All theories are approximations. Some fit better with the observed data than others. A good theory outlines it's own limitations, fits with the observed data and allows you predict the result of future experiments. A theory that does not predict the results of future experiments is worthless. Just because we don't like or understand a theory does not make less relevant.

A theory has to be rejected if it claims to explain something - but the observed data tells a very different story.

The theory of evolution is an example of a good theory. Most religions have tried to explain the same events but so far all attempts has been refuted. Some day we may discover a new and better theory of evolution. One that includes a God-like component.

An example of a worthless theory would be. Before the big bang was only God. Then God decided that he wanted to start evolution and he exploded. God is the sum of all things in the universe. God is evolution. The reason it is worthless is because it cannot be verified and it does not predict anything new that is not already predicted by the theory of evolution.

Okay, going to leave the thread for a while and do other things, but thought to leave an interesting thought experiment on hell.

Punishment is used as a corrective measure; to shape future behavior. Sometimes we'll use punishment to shape other people's behavior (as in enforcing social norms and the like). The point is that the punishment itself is used as a teaching or correcting mechanism.

Hell is allegedly punishment for "not believing" or some other act (or failure to act) within this life time. It's duration is allegedly eternity. If the duration is eternity then Hell itself becomes an oxymoron in that it fails to act as proper punishment because it cannot act as punishment at all in that the punished have no chance to correct their mistake. Hell can only be viewed as torture with no actual goal in mind. The reason is because there's no future behavior to shape. No redemption will be available after said punishment is inflicted.

Therefore Hell cannot be used as punishment, because no corrective behavior is being sought.

But when you view Hell as a human construct to keep the masses in line, then the threat absolutely serves this purpose. Therefore, either Hell is man made fiction, or God is an evil torturer that inflicts suffering with no goal for doing so.

I think I'm going for the man made fiction part.

It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all.


end of

I should have added that the theory is good because it was disprovable. I guess I took it for granted.

What a theory claims should always be testable, and the theory dismissed if, even if a thousand tests confirm it, it's wrong only once. I.e. if the theory says Aces will win against KK all-in pre-flop every time, it doesn't matter how many times the aces win. If the kings win even once, the theory is disproved.

@Sneakers

I think I have said it simple enough, so I am not sure where anyone would believe I make any "argument for a god" or against. I said that if I had to be "labeled", I am closest to being "agnostic".
I guess that is my best attempt to be neutral on the subject.

i guess i'm just confused about agnosticism. it seems to me a silly PC move of simply not wanting to be full on "god haters." but it's functionally the same as atheism. agnosticism seems like it's saying both sides can be correct (unknowable), so it tries to be on both sides and no sides.

maybe agnosticism is just too meta for me.

All theories are approximations. Some fit better with the observed data than others. A good theory outlines it's own limitations, fits with the observed data and allows you predict the result of future experiments. A theory that does not predict the results of future experiments is worthless. Just because we don't like or understand a theory does not make less relevant.

A theory has to be rejected if it claims to explain something - but the observed data tells a very different story.

The theory of evolution is an example of a good theory. Most religions have tried to explain the same events but so far all attempts has been refuted. Some day we may discover a new and better theory of evolution. One that includes a God-like component.

An example of a worthless theory would be. Before the big bang was only God. Then God decided that he wanted to start evolution and he exploded. God is the sum of all things in the universe. God is evolution. The reason it is worthless is because it cannot be verified and it does not predict anything new that is not already predicted by the theory of evolution.

wow, that was one of the most lucid explanations of science i've read in a while. GO IMPROVA!


and mastertex said....

Another point is- Science has been wrong many many times and will be again many many times. So why say it is the truth somewhere on that time line? Seems like a bad bet.

but it's OK if science is wrong. we can only learn through mistakes. when theories are wrong in science, those theories get discarded because it would be irrational to keep trying to put squares into triangles. but there is no "truth" in science the way you're thinking. truth belongs in the realm of religion and politics and religion, not science.

"The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."
- Karl Popper

this is to me the most honest way to think about and investigate the world. in contrast, when bad things happen in religion, it's simply "god's will" and there is no allowance for critical thinking or even adjustment of the theory so it doesn't happen again in the future.

I am agnostic too, because the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite. Saying there is or isn't a God is basically saying you know everything about the universe.

@Sneakers
i guess i'm just confused about agnosticism. it seems to me a silly PC move of simply not wanting to be full on "god haters." but it's functionally the same as atheism. agnosticism seems like it's saying both sides can be correct (unknowable), so it tries to be on both sides and no sides.

maybe agnosticism is just too meta for me.

I tend to think of the difference between atheism (being anti-theist) and agnosticism as being the difference between thinking "believing in an omnipotent/omnisicent deity is bad for you, it limits yourself in ways that aren't good for you" and thinking "whether or not a deity exists is irrelevant, it's the wrong question, like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".

Not trying to speak for anyone who's identified themselves as either an atheist or an agnostic itt, just the way I think of it.

Isn't the issue just that religion is the one thing that science can't be specifically applied? I mean yeah, you can use science to try and disprove certain things that some religions practice or talk about, but you can't use science to disprove the claims of what Jesus did while on Earth. Of course you can say the things reported are physically/scientifically almost impossible, but so are things like stories of Nicholas Alkemade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade Of course the dude fell into trees and snow, but if 1,000,000 people fell from the same height into the same trees, etc, what's the over under that they would die? (and I think you know what I'm saying, so please refrain from saying "if 1,000,000 people fell the same way, they would all live because he did") There are clearly events that happen that just can't be explained by science/math 100% of the time. So someone who believes in God chalks up miracles like this to divine intervention while the next guy chalks it up to dumb luck. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I think people misunderstand atheism and agnosticism. I am atheist and agnostic. I don't believe in the existence of any deities, and I acknowledge that it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (this doesn't make the claim that he exists any less absurd).

What is really the difference between saying that the possibility for the existence of God is zero, and saying that the possibility for the existence of God is more than, but practically indistinguishable from, zero? I wouldn't say that I'm agnostic about Santa Claus, even though the same thing could be said about him. So why would I claim that I'm agnostic about God? I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't believe in God. This is why I should identify myself as an atheist and not an agnostic.

So separate question, if we're taught to believe in Santa Claus by our parents, obviously we hit a certain age where we're able to rationally come to the conclusion that Santa Claus is not real. So do you think that some people just never are able to do that for themselves when it comes to God?

The story of God is compelling even as an adult, but as an adult you don't need Santa Claus to bring you gifts... you can buy whatever you want!

(This is obviously a simplification )

Difference is that religions place the seeds to discredit doubt. If you begin to doubt, it's really satan trying to steal your salvation. Stuff like that. Makes it really hard for people to escape the thought prison, IMO

So separate question, if we're taught to believe in Santa Claus by our parents, obviously we hit a certain age where we're able to rationally come to the conclusion that Santa Claus is not real. So do you think that some people just never are able to do that for themselves when it comes to God?

What if we are taught from birth that if we don't believe in Santa Claus we spend an eternity in Hell after we die?

What if we are taught from birth that if we don't believe in Santa Claus we spend an eternity in Hell after we die?

Aren't kids told that if they don't believe or be good, they won't get presents? Eventually they/we grow up to understand that our parents are full of $***. Maybe weak minded individuals are screwed, but for someone that can think on their own like me, I still made the decision that I believe in God and not because I was afraid I would go to hell if I didn't.