"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[Tiberius]

Here's the Super Problem
We cannot comprehend what lies outside of our universe.

We have it on good opinion that "nothing" can exist outside of the universe.
Anymore than there's north of the north pole, or a time before time existed etc..
So all bets are off. The logic, physics and reason we apply in our universe
can't work outside of it. So we can't even begin to ask "What created God"
or "What created the machinery that created creation."

Why do these questions not apply to the universe? Why the need to invent some force apart from the universe to explain it.

 

[Tiberius]

No, because it makes sense to you now. It is more like - "What was I thinking..."

Regards
Mikkel

So I should be, "What was I thinking, not taking my phone with me when I went out in my childhood?"

You do realise that back then my phone was one of these, right...?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why do these questions not apply to the universe? Why the need to invent some force apart from the universe to explain it.

"God of the gaps" is a rather clever term. People use this ever shrinking God to
"explain" things which appear unexplainable. But that's got nothing to do with the
God of the bible.
There's a "natural" explanation for just about everything in the universe (with the
exception of weird things like the Near Death Experience etc..)

But how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of the universe for answers to this. And these answers
are not going to come from science.

 

[Thief]

and the actual irrational will be answered by God when we get 'there'

HOW did You become Self aware?
and was it needful to create to prove it to Yourself?

How else to say......I AM!

 

[Tiberius]

"God of the gaps" is a rather clever term. People use this ever shrinking God to
"explain" things which appear unexplainable. But that's got nothing to do with the
God of the bible.
There's a "natural" explanation for just about everything in the universe (with the
exception of weird things like the Near Death Experience etc..)

But how can a universe create itself when it doesn't exist? And for what reason?
We are forced to go outside of the universe for answers to this. And these answers
are not going to come from science.

I could ask the same question of God...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can define the superscientist such that if we found a real candidate we'd be in a position to determine whether it was a superscientist or not. Ditto with the multiverse. But otherwise with God, who lacks the coherent definition of the other two.

So it was possible to imagine that the Higgs boson was real ─ to imagine a real Higgs boson ─ and it's possible to imagine a real multiverse and a real superscientist. Imagining them to be real doesn't make them real in fact, as you say. But it's not possible to imagine a real God because the necessary quality "godness" is undefined.

You have to explain how you can observe a multiverse.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So I should be, "What was I thinking, not taking my phone with me when I went out in my childhood?"

You do realise that back then my phone was one of these, right...?

Yes, but that is objective. I get your point, but here is the problem.

At time X you held a moral system Z
At time Y, now, you hold a moral system non-Z as W.

Please apply rational to that.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

You have to explain how you can observe a multiverse.

First you work out what the clues, if any, suggest it might be. You could (to take one of many possibilities) start with the hypothesis that I do, that it's the source of all the energy from which our universe is made, laws, dimensions, matter and all. Could it contain branes? If so, what would that imply? If not, what would that imply? Scraps of information, a great deal of inference, the devising of a model. As you've said all along, and I've agreed all along, the model is untestable, falsifiable within the testing regime but not falsifiable in the field, hence not a theory. But assuming one did this, and assuming it resulted in a model preferred to the options, one could imagine a real metaverse on that basis, knowing that the imagining may very well be wrong, maybe utterly wrong, maybe not utterly wrong.

But what one has done in that process is imagine a real metaverse, and on that basis try to work out what it could be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First you work out what the clues, if any, suggest it might be. You could (to take one of many possibilities) start with the hypothesis that I do, that it's the source of all the energy from which our universe is made, laws, dimensions, matter and all. Could it contain branes? If so, what would that imply? If not, what would that imply? Scraps of information, a great deal of inference, the devising of a model. As you've said all along, and I've agreed all along, the model is untestable, falsifiable within the testing regime but not falsifiable in the field, hence not a theory. But assuming one did this, and assuming it resulted in a model preferred to the options, one could imagine a real metaverse on that basis, knowing that the imagining may very well be wrong, maybe utterly wrong, maybe not utterly wrong.

But what one has done in that process is imagine a real metaverse, and on that basis try to work out what it could be.

How do observations in the field in this universe come from the multiverse?

 

[blü 2]

How do observations in the field in this universe come from the multiverse?

I gave my suggestions before ─ deductions and modelings.

But the point is, one sets out to imagine a real metaverse. So as far as possible the constraints of reality will both limit the imagining and suggest further imagining.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I gave my suggestions before ─ deductions and modelings.

But the point is, one sets out to imagine a real metaverse. So as far as possible the constraints of reality will both limit the imagining and suggest further imagining.

Yeah, but it is not a given that you even in theory can show a real metaverse? Check and start there. Understand knowledge just as human mobility and ask if it has limits and how that plays out again in theory for the ability to check.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but it is not a given that you even in theory can show a real metaverse? Check and start there. Understand knowledge just as human mobility and ask if it has limits and how that plays out again in theory for the ability to check.

None of that helps God, however.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, but that is objective. I get your point, but here is the problem.

At time X you held a moral system Z
At time Y, now, you hold a moral system non-Z as W.

Please apply rational to that.

Regards
Mikkel

Information and technology changes. It makes sense that we change our worldviews to incorporate such changes.

Please tell me how you thank that is irrational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Information and technology changes. It makes sense that we change our worldviews to incorporate such changes.

Please tell me how you thank that is irrational.

Now you lost me. Please explain more.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Now you lost me. Please explain more.

Regards
Mikkel

When I was a kid, it was irrational for me to consider taking my phone with me when I went out because the phone required a physical connection to the phone network in order to function. If I removed it from my house, the phone would no longer work. So I could not use the phone if I took it, and the phone would be rendered utterly useless.

Now, with technological changes, that limitation no longer applies. My phone can function quite well without a physical connection to the phone network, so the idea of taking it with me when I go out is a good one, since I have access to communication should I need it, as well as all the other functionality my phone provides.

So, when I was a kid, it would have been irrational to consider taking my phone with me, because it would serve no purpose and hinder me, since I would be carrying a useless device with me.

Now it is more irrational for me to leave my phone behind, since it would deny me the use of a powerful tool.

Change in technology has changed what is irrational and what isn't, yet my choices now and my choices when I was a kid regarding the taking of the phone were still perfectly rational at the time. It was still rational of me to leave the phone at home when I was a kid, since the technological advances that make such a choice irrational now did not exist back then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I was a kid, it was irrational for me to consider taking my phone with me when I went out because the phone required a physical connection to the phone network in order to function. If I removed it from my house, the phone would no longer work. So I could not use the phone if I took it, and the phone would be rendered utterly useless.

Now, with technological changes, that limitation no longer applies. My phone can function quite well without a physical connection to the phone network, so the idea of taking it with me when I go out is a good one, since I have access to communication should I need it, as well as all the other functionality my phone provides.

So, when I was a kid, it would have been irrational to consider taking my phone with me, because it would serve no purpose and hinder me, since I would be carrying a useless device with me.

Now it is more irrational for me to leave my phone behind, since it would deny me the use of a powerful tool.

Change in technology has changed what is irrational and what isn't, yet my choices now and my choices when I was a kid regarding the taking of the phone were still perfectly rational at the time. It was still rational of me to leave the phone at home when I was a kid, since the technological advances that make such a choice irrational now did not exist back then.

I was asking about morality and you answer about technology. We are talking past each other.

 

[Tiberius]

I was asking about morality and you answer about technology. We are talking past each other.

Why do you think a change in morality can't be explained by a change in information, just as the change in views about technology occured?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you think a change in morality can't be explained by a change in information, just as the change in views about technology occured?

Because apparently e.g. killing another human can't both be right and wrong. Or slavery is both bad and good.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Tiberius]

Because apparently e.g. killing another human can't both be right and wrong. Or slavery is both bad and good.

Regards
Mikkel

Well, leaving aside the fact that there is no objective morality, only subjective, it is certainly possible to have a change of information change this.

For example, if I said that pushing a button would kill a particular person, then you (and most other normal people) would refuse to push it.

But then if I told you that the person who would die was about to kidnap, rape and then slowly torture two five year old girls, and he has already raped, tortured and killed many other children in the past, all of a sudden pressing the button seems a lot more reasonable.

You may not be able to do it, and I honestly don't know if I could, but I know there are a lot of people who would refuse to kill an innocent person, but would happily press the button for the second guy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, leaving aside the fact that there is no objective morality, only subjective, it is certainly possible to have a change of information change this.

For example, if I said that pushing a button would kill a particular person, then you (and most other normal people) would refuse to push it.

But then if I told you that the person who would die was about to kidnap, rape and then slowly torture two five year old girls, and he has already raped, tortured and killed many other children in the past, all of a sudden pressing the button seems a lot more reasonable.

You may not be able to do it, and I honestly don't know if I could, but I know there are a lot of people who would refuse to kill an innocent person, but would happily press the button for the second guy.

Yeah, but tell me which one is rational in your examples. In these cases what is rational or not changes based on subjectivity.

Regards
Mikkel