As part of the core studies that every school that receives funding from the state is required to define pseudo-scientific theories as scientific facts
The British government imposed a ban on the study of creationism as a science in all schools subject to its supervision, as well as in academic institutions and colleges.
Educational institutions funded by the state (including religious educational institutions - Christians, Muslims and Jews) will not be able to define as science a number of pseudo-scientific fields.
The most prominent field is of course creationism, which is defined as "any doctrine or theory that holds that a natural biological process cannot be responsible for the history, diversity and complexity of life on Earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution."
Later it is noted that this idea was rejected not only by the scientific community but also by the mainstream churches. "Creationism is not compatible with the scientific consensus or with the vast body of solid scientific evidence, it is also not based on a precise and consistent scientific method, and therefore it is not possible to present it to students as a scientific theory."
The funding agreement also states: "The requirement for every school is to provide a broad and balanced curriculum prevents in any case the study of creationism as an evidence-based theory in any school or academy."
The British Humanist Association, which demanded this move back in 2011, welcomed the government's decision. "We believe that the goals of the campaign have been achieved," said the association's spokesman, Pavan Dhaliwal. "However, these instructions do not prevent the study of creationism in kindergartens, and there is poor supervision of private schools that requires close supervision also in the educational sector funded by the state."
Hundreds of religious schools funded by the British taxpayer teach that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old, that Adam and Eve lived in Paradise together with dinosaurs, and that most of the biology, geology and cosmology on the Internet are lies."
According to the law, every school that receives funding from the state must teach core studies, and now the issue of evolution is also sharpened within them.
The small difference between the brave decision in Britain (brave not because of the doubt in its righteousness, God forbid, but because it is facing a fundamentalist coalition of members of all religions) and The decision was made in the Ministry of Education about a month ago It is that while in Britain evolution will be taught from the state kindergartens to the university, in Israel it is about the ninth grade and there will be teachers who will choose to teach the subject without mentioning the origin of man, without being punished.
175 תגובות
This is just huge news.
This is the beginning of the snowball rolling down the slippery slope
A stone that has not been mined
An amusing link that is somehow barely related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6eOcd06kdk
Bamba
I'm sorry that the education system failed in your reading comprehension studies, I hope you can find help somewhere.
I'm sorry if your hearing was damaged due to the "shoutings" that were written somewhere in your imagination following a momentary look at my responses. Go to the doctor and send me the receipt, the payment is on me.
Bamba
I am sorry that the education system has failed in reading comprehension studies and I hope you can find help somewhere.
I'm sorry that your hearing was damaged due to the "shoutings" that were written somewhere in your imagination following a momentary look at my responses. Go to the doctor and send me the receipt, the payment is on me.
Bamba
Do not speak for others. The lack of understanding is yours alone.
Walkie-Talkie
Only you understood what you wrote.
And stop yelling. you and your boyfriend
You have already received explanations for your nonsense. keep going on
walking dead
Ehud became quiet...
sympathetic
Sorry for the late response but I was busy and in general I wondered if there was any point in responding, especially since everything you wrote was already written by you before and received an answer and explanation.
That's why I won't respond to things one by one, but I'll just try to write something in general, because I think I've already given answers to this enough times, and you just insist on not listening or accepting them.
You think you have to believe because that's what people do anyway. Refuses to acknowledge that there is another way. Probably because it is hard for you to imagine how it is possible because you are so fixated on your way of thinking and are not ready to accept the possibility that there are others as well. There is no doubt that people can believe something to be true whether it is or not. But you probably think that this is the only way to think and that you cannot treat things without faith.
example-
Given a situation where the question is: X=Y right? And there is not enough information to answer the question.
Adam A - chooses to believe that it is true
Person B - chooses to believe that it is not true
Person C - chooses to understand that he does not have enough information to determine
Adam D - chooses to ignore the question
Adam the Lord - chooses not to choose and to search for more information
The problem with your indications is that they don't lead to the conclusion you decided they should lead to, so they are not indicative of it.
You choose to perform an irrational action - to believe - and try to behave as if it is indeed rational, and try to reason it in a rational way, probably to try to give it the appearance of some rational legitimacy, when this is completely unnecessary, and not possible in the first place.
You regularly ignore that your definition/concept of divinity means nothing. And that no values that we should live by derive from it, even though you claim that such exist, but for some reason do not present them.
sympathetic
Thank you very much ... a journey of several years ...
I don't feel like I have free will. The thoughts "come to me", I don't feel that I control what I think. I can't stop my desire to see my children. I don't control my loves. I want bars that are not good for me. I sometimes say things I wouldn't want to say.
I want to want to be a vegetarian. not going.
In any case, there is a difference between what you feel and what really happens. Amputees sometimes feel pain in the limbs they don't have.
We are sure you feel you have free will. I have no argument with you about that.
Miracles
I cannot report on others, in any case I feel that I have free will.
Anyway, have a good trip.
sympathetic
After you answer me, I would also like to know at what stage in life free will begins.
sympathetic
You are being very protracted and I don't have much time at the moment (on my way for a long period abroad). I definitely do not control my thoughts. There is no "I" apart from thoughts. Read Helen Keller, she explains it much better than I can. In short, she says that until she had language she did not "exist".
Regarding the proof. It has no validity until I understand which animals have free will and which do not. I have no desire to talk without someone listening.
A computer in my opinion will never develop consciousness. The brain is not a computer. On the other hand, I argue that the thermostat may already have consciousness…. That's another topic 🙂
In short Ehud, who has and who does not have free will? Only for humans? What if animals look like us? Give me a limit, and we will analyze together what it means to have a limit.
Miracles,
Finally refreshing some honesty from you "On first thought - I do feel that I have free will, but on second thought - I feel that I am deceiving myself" The point is that the feeling that we have free will is not a thought but a feeling that we are born with, the perception that we do not have it is something learned with some of us.
Anyway you say you have proof that we don't have free will I would love to hear it like many philosophers and scientists around the world, go ahead.
You write "I do not control my thoughts - there is no debate about that at all. I can't think I'm not in pain, and I can't stop missing the people I love whenever I want." I'm sad for you if you can't control your thought because there's a name for that, it's called concentrating here, the thought (or part of us) can be directed into certain channels. The examples you give are not exactly examples of thought control because you are talking about pain and longing which are more feelings and emotions than thoughts but oh well. I hope you can navigate your thoughts when trying to solve a certain problem.
Regarding consciousness, you write "I know more or less how the brain works. More precisely - I have a model of the workings of the brain that nicely explains what I understand as consciousness. My model is based on ideas from Alan Turing, Roger Sperry, Daniel Dent and Andrew Hunt. In my model there is no place for anything that is not physical/chemical/biological. Why do I call it my model?” If you understand what consciousness is please explain to me what I need to do for a computer to develop consciousness? He too is nothing more than electric currents and circuits.
You are not answering my question again, your brain is such a complex physical system what allows you to predict what it will be like in a minute or two let alone tomorrow? You answer me "But, the model gives me confidence in my belief, including a good confidence that my belief will not change too much in the future," this is not an answer to the point Give me an example of a complex physical system (not salt in salt) whose behavior can be predicted at the level of days and years And then I will explain how you claim that you know how to predict your internal states at the same level.
Regarding the open questions in science, you write "I thought that the formation of the universe was our problem. There is no scientific problem with life or consciousness. Don't you get the science?” Are you serious? You know how many open questions there are in science today that are not the origin of the universe. Are you a crazy follower of dark matter and dark energy? Is science able to explain consciousness or alternatively I would love to hear from you an enlightening explanation of how life is left. Even within physics itself there are essential contradictions as a rational production you would have to reject a concept that contradicts itself. After all, you know that general relativity and quantum theory contradict each other, therefore as a rational person you should have ignored the findings of physics. Or are you willing to put up with little lies?
It seems that you don't read what Amani writes... "The great man? I see this as the first step in the brainwashing you have received and you are reciting in terrible fear. Really, what is the connection between man's limitations and the existence of something "greater" than man". What's so big about you, Ehud? A tsunami is bigger than a person, isn't it? Is a tsunami God?" Did I talk about physical size when I was talking about something bigger than a person? Did I talk about some fear of mine? I talked about how there are things in the world that are beyond human description, the human mind and consciousness are unable to grasp them and which I called greater than man. My basic concept, which you seem to not understand, is that man, for all his greatness, is a finite and limited being.
Regarding your perception of science, you may have explained it to me several times, but I did not understand from your answers what is the connection between the laws we find and reality? Is there something that is beyond our rules? You write "I explained to you that I do not know what is really in nature. Once there was phlogiston, once there was ether and today there is space-time. In the future, except for you, no one knows what will happen." Do I need to understand that once there was a site in the world because we invented it? Or maybe we were once wrong and now we are right? After all, we are constantly finding things, will there be an end to the process? And what happens in the end, will our laws then be the same? I remind you again that our laws are written in what you called human invention, the language of mathematics and nature does not have to be limited by language or do you think it is?
Regarding your question ""Again, belief in basic laws of nature is a belief that has no justification" - what does that mean?" That is to say, no one claims that the process of writing laws of nature and changes is a final process, no one guarantees that this process converges to something. Now the claim is clear to you?
Regarding your claim that everything you say has an empirical basis, it is completely unfounded. There is no empirical basis for this because there is no free will. There is no empirical basis explaining what consciousness is. There is not even a consistent empirical basis for the laws of physics because they contradict each other. There is no empirical basis that science knew how to describe the universe in its entirety. In all cases it is your blind faith that you refuse to see as faith because of the brainwashing you have undergone.
We are not supposed to hate or change them - just do our part and radiate love to the whole world: bring Madonna and all
The celebs, who will come to study Kabbalah and buy houses here simply to be a light to the Gentiles - this is the recipe I'm talking about.
religious response
As soon as I see myself different from other peoples - I will immediately be able to understand their hatred for me. understand and justify.
6 year old boy
You must have been hurt by the response. Sorry.
why not?
What prevents you from seeing yourself as part of a chosen people?
The ultra-Orthodox or an internal ideology that refuses to believe in the Bible?
If it is the ultra-Orthodox, then let's ask a hypothetical question - let's say they behaved like followers of the nations of the world, like a model people
Would you change your approach to religion?
Does your disbelief in the existence of a creator for the world stem from your own ego or is it influenced by external factors?
Miracles
From your last comment, it seems like you're a pretty limited person. or limited. As Ehud described human nature, in his response
6 year old boy
Is that what you have to say?
sympathetic
I want to try to clarify something about free will. On first thought - I do feel that I have free will, but on second thought - I feel that I am deceiving myself.
My thought is based on previous thoughts and what I feel (see, hear...). I do not control my thoughts - there is no debate about that at all. I can't think I'm not in pain, and I can't stop missing the people I love whenever I want. I think in words, in the languages I know — without these languages I cannot think at all (and if you think otherwise, then you are very wrong. Read Helen Keller, for example, or learn about the condition of languageless people. These people are extremely limited).
I know more or less how the brain works. More precisely - I have a model of the workings of the brain that nicely explains what I understand as consciousness. My model is based on ideas from Alan Turing, Roger Sperry, Daniel Dent and Andrew Hunt. In my model there is no place for anything that is not physical/chemical/biological. Why do I call it my model? Because this is my understanding of the ideas of many scholars, and I am not sure that I have understood them all completely. But, the model gives me confidence in my belief, including a good confidence that my belief will not change too much in the future, except of course for those cases I described in a previous response.
That is, I have knowledge and understanding that contradicts my first intuition.
Experience has taught me to rely on knowledge and understanding and not on what seems right to me intuitively - my intuition is that the world is flat, fixed and that the elements of the sky revolve around it.
Miracles, you spew nonsense. Your answers like "what do you mean?" They are at the level of a 5-year-old child.
sympathetic
"Your claims are constantly changing in their validity. Sometimes you claim that you have proof that there is no free will. Sometimes you think so and sometimes you just believe that" — true. I have proof (I explained why there is no point in me describing it). I think there is no free will, and I believe there is no free will. What's the problem with that?
"Especially in my opinion, science is limited when it comes to dealing with complex problems such as consciousness and life" — I thought that the creation of the universe was our problem. There is no scientific problem with life or consciousness. Don't you get the science? It's a bit ridiculous to me that you don't accept science just because it contradicts your religious belief.
"The understanding that man is limited is the first step in my belief in something greater than man" — greater man? I see this as the first step in the brainwashing you have received and you are reciting in terrible fear. Really, what is the connection between man's limitations and the existence of something "greater" than man". What's so big about you, Ehud? A tsunami is bigger than a person, isn't it? Tsunami is God?
"What are those laws of nature? Are they a human invention or something beyond man" — I already explained it to you, Ehud. It's already boring. We invented Newton's theory and after that Einstein's theory. We haven't discovered them, and I don't think they exist in nature. I explained to you that I don't know what is really in nature. Once there was phlogiston, once there was ether and today there is space-time. In the future, except for you, no one knows what will happen.
"Once again the belief in basic laws of nature is a belief that has no justification" - what does this mean?
Ehud - the rest of the response is irrelevant. I explained to you exactly what I believe. And unlike you, everything I say has an empirical basis. Let's stop grinding water?
walking dead
You write "As long as your perception of the thing as truth is based on faith, you are lying to yourself." be serious Our entire world is almost based on faith. Do you believe that there is a place called the Ivory Coast? Are you sure about that? are you lying to yourself Most of your knowledge of science is based on belief (you haven't tested it in a lab personally) are you lying to yourself by believing it? Do you believe that tomorrow morning you will wake up, that the sun will rise? Is our whole world a lie?
If you make a distinction between "there is a difference between estimating that something is true and believing that it is true." After all, the Goldbach hypothesis is actually an excellent example of the belief that something is true. It has been tested using computers up to astronomical numbers, so I have no reason to doubt its correctness even though I cannot prove it mathematically. This is the case with most of our knowledge of the world. My assessment that the human mind is limited and will not be able to fully describe reality is also based on my knowledge of the world and my personal experience, therefore I see it as a truth that I cannot prove.
At the time my indications were:
Science contains internal contradictions. Philosophical problems are not solved by humanity but become more and more complex. Science fails when it comes to addressing complex questions such as consciousness and life. Human language, in my opinion, is equivalent to thinking and it is limited.. All of which are expressions of man's disability and what man cannot describe, i.e. cannot be humanly described, I call God. Since it cannot be described, it does not have all the beautiful qualities that Nissim tries to attribute to it.
Miracles
Your claims are constantly changing in their validity, sometimes you claim that you have proof that there is no free will, sometimes you think so and sometimes you just believe it. I have no problem with the things you believe in, but the belief that there is no free will seems to me much more absurd than the belief in any god.
I will try to explain to you for the umpteenth time. My concept of divinity relies on the fact that man is limited and will not be able to understand the universe and all things in it. In particular, in my opinion, science is limited when it comes to dealing with complex problems such as consciousness and life. The understanding that man is limited is the first step in my belief in something greater than man.
By the way, you also claim that there are laws of nature that man discovers or invents them. Please explain to me what those laws of nature are. Are they a human invention or something beyond man. Again the belief in basic laws of nature is a belief that has no justification, no one has determined that the universe comes with operating instructions or that it is fully accessible to human thought.
Because I'm tired of explaining the same points to you over and over again. I will try to explain to you that when you say something, the conclusions are derived from it. You don't state the conclusions, but they are derived from your words, that's the way things are. So when you say that there is no free will but on the other hand you say that "I want to bequeath my children a better world" it is derived from the fact that you are not talking about your mental state at that moment but you believe that the desire (which is not free) to bequeath your child a better world will also be your inner state in a minute In an hour, in a day, and even more if things weren't the way they are, what's the point of reporting a state of mind that in a second will change to something else, for example because you want to leave your child a million dollars or you want to save the world from aliens. Therefore, when you report your internal state, you assume that it will exist over time, that's why I wrote "regarding your claim that you are aware of your internal state and are able to know what they will be in the future". Is it clear to you now? This was not said by you but it is implied from your words. In your defense, you claim that "I don't know what I will believe in a year - I hope that life will strengthen my faith, and I hope that I will not end up with a mental illness, have a stroke or have an accident that will change my personality." But Nissim, you are actually a very complex physical system, how can you predict what the state of this system will be in a tenth of a second? It is certainly not salt in a salt pan, as you tried to claim. I assume that you are moving around the room thinking and calculating, eating and sleeping. If you believe in science, how can such a complex deterministic system calculate what its internal states will be in another second or even another tenth of a second, let alone another year?
By the way, on the one hand, you believe in your senses, "You ask me what is in the world. I do not know. I know what my senses see. I know that science has shown that there is much beyond the senses (I would never have guessed that there was a big bang, or evolution, without reading about these things - I'm not L'Metra and I'm not Darwin). I have many reasons to believe in science. On the other hand, there are many religions, each religion knows exactly how the world was created and life was created, and cursed is anyone who says otherwise." On the other hand you believe in science. On the other hand, your perception of God remains that of the child who believed in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. As I told you my basic concept of God is that there is something beyond science and human rationality.
A religious reaction?
So you see yourself as part of a chosen people? I do not.
miracles,
"What is the advantage of not having to convert? Do you think being Jewish is better than being non-Jewish? Are the Jews better off? Are they worth more?”
It's not a matter of being worth more, better in terms you know, it's a matter of mission and bringing redemption
To all peoples through the people chosen for this task.
I see it differently than you. "Love your neighbor as yourself" for me includes all human beings, regardless of religion, race
gender or economic status. I understand from your words that you see it differently (after all, you claimed that I have an advantage....).
Again this is not an advantage in the level of condescension, this is a chosen mission to be a light to the Gentiles.
And you call me evil?
Again, you did not understand the term evil that Judaism talks about.
A wicked Jew is not necessarily a bad person who has no conscience, he can also be a religious person who observes mitzvot.
And who doesn't fulfill the mitzvah and love your neighbor like you or a secular person who doesn't keep Shabbat and loves everyone.
I'm kind of evil myself.
sympathetic
As long as your perception of the thing as truth is based on faith, you are lying to yourself. And this is true even of things for which other people (or creatures) have conclusive evidence. I have already explained this twice. Do you want to believe there is a difference? have faith.
It's called the Goldbach hypothesis (of course you know that). Not for nothing is it called a hypothesis.
There is a difference between estimating that something is true and believing that it is true. Don't confuse the two.
in the overall context of the discussion. My argument boils down to the fact that your concept of God is based on faith alone and basically means nothing. Everything else is mainly explanations (apart from a few small points that are less important for me).
You say you have indications that your belief is true, but for some reason do not present them.
You say that from this concept of God, values arise that we should live by, but for some reason you do not present them.
I think I exceeded the word allowance for the new format so I'm stopping.
sympathetic
You don't know if there is free will, or not - but you think there is. I don't know if there is free will, or not - but I think there isn't.
I would love to understand why your opinion is legitimate in your eyes, and mine is not.
I don't see how the issue of free will has anything to do with your concept of divinity.
You wrote "It has never been scientifically demonstrated that it is possible to explain complex biological phenomena by means of microscopic and physical laws, for example how life was created from inanimate matter" - on the contrary: there are several scientific explanations for how life was created from inanimate matter. The problem is that we don't know if one of these explanations describes what really happened, or maybe the explanation is something else we haven't thought of yet. I have already referred you to these explanations.
I don't see how the issues of the origin of life and evolution (two independent issues) relate to your concept of God.
Ehud — you're just a demagogue and it's getting boring. When I was a child I believed in the stories of the Tanach, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (I did not grow up in Israel). As I grew up, I learned that my faith was misguided, and it was based on lies from older people than I believed. I may have once believed in free will, I honestly don't remember. For thousands of years they believed in free will, they believed in vampires, they believed that there are different races of man, they believed that a higher power protects man, they believed that prayer helps, they believed that life can be created from dirty clothes (also in Judaism), they believed that the earth is flat, fixed, and that everything revolves around it (yes ... also in Judaism).
Therefore Ehud - my answer is not unreasonable. People have always believed in wrong things.
You wrote "Belief in God is not a basic feeling that a person is born with, so there is no place to compare it with the feeling of free will" - you are misleading, as usual. You are not born if you believe in God, Allah, or Brahma. You get this belief by brainwashing your environment. But - you are born with a tendency to believe in such things. We have many innate mechanisms, such as imitation, language, certain fears, belief in authority, searching for explanations for phenomena and so on. Oh, and of course also belief in free will (not that I checked, unlike you).
You wrote "Regarding your claim that you are aware of your inner states and are able to know what they will be in the future" - where did I say that? I said that in principle, and provided there is no randomness, everything is deterministic. There is no way to know the future, because there is no way to know the present.
I don't know what I will believe in a year - I hope life will strengthen my faith, and I hope I don't end up with a mental illness, have a stroke or have an accident that will change my personality.
And of course - maybe I'll get smarter and with more knowledge/understanding, I'll improve my beliefs.
You ask me what is in the world. I do not know. I know what my senses see. I know that science has shown that there is much beyond the senses (I would never have guessed that there was a big bang, or evolution, without reading about these things - I'm not L'Metra and I'm not Darwin). I have many reasons to believe in science. On the other hand there are many religions, each religion knows exactly how the world was created and life was created, and cursed is anyone who says otherwise.
Because you are difficult to understand - here are the 2 answers in brief again:
1) I don't know what I will believe in a year. I hope I will continue to believe what I believe today.
2) I don't know what there really is in the world. I'm not even sure this question makes sense.
Miracles,
Since you asked me to answer only one of your questions, I will. I don't know if there really is free will or not. I am not ashamed to admit fully that I cannot determine with certainty one way or the other, in principle I do believe that there is free will. I know that the laws of science have had amazing successes in describing the inanimate world, but it has never been scientifically demonstrated that complex biological phenomena can be explained using microscopic and physicical laws, for example how life was created from inanimate matter. So to claim that since it is not possible for inanimate matter to have free will does not mean that living and complex systems do not.
As for you, you answered me when I asked you what evolutionary role free will plays because "I don't need to explain something that I don't think exists. I have no illusion of free will." . Miracles, be serious, is this a real answer? It is clear to you that when you were a child you believed in free will, only when you studied a little science did you suddenly decide that your inner feeling was wrong and that there could be no free will. I would appreciate it if you would be honest and confirm this. Thus for thousands of years people believed in free will or rather felt that they had free will and only those few who assumed that free will is contrary to the scientific concept decided that we could not have had free will. So your answer is absurd. Regarding the second part of your answer, belief in God is not a basic feeling that a person is born with, so there is no place to compare it with the feeling of free will. By the way, you claim that "I don't know - all I know is what I feel (this of course includes reading and listening). ” I think that you actually do feel that you have free will, am I wrong. By the way, if you do not have free will, it is advisable to avoid articles like I want to leave my children a better world, because sentences containing the words "I want" have no meaning.
Since you also required me to answer one question, I again ask you the question that I don't think you answered
Regarding your claim that you are aware of your inner states and are able to know what they will be in the future. Today you claim that your inner state tells you that it would be good if you leave your children a better world, but how do you know that this will also be your inner state in an hour or another year?
In fact, there is another fundamental question that you have not answered, and that is what is there in the world according to miracles? After all, mathematics is an invention, electromagnetic waves are an invention. What is not an invention in the world?
walking dead
You complain because you don't get an answer to your questions, but unfortunately my time is limited and as the questions multiply I know less and less which ones to answer. You respond to my comments individually and I respond to yours individually and the length of the lists increases by the square. I'm trying a new version, if you don't like it, you can close the discussion at this point. In the new version I only respond to one or two of your claims.
You write "Every belief is a lie that you lie to yourself. Don't fool yourself. You know you don't know if it's really true, and choose to tell yourself it's true, and that you know it's true, when you know you don't really know it."
As far as I'm concerned, there is a fundamental difference between belief and a lie. Let me give you an example. I believe that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers. I don't know how to prove it, but I still believe that the sentence is true. Am I lying to myself? Is this a lie?
sympathetic
"Don't you understand the difference between a lie and a belief? A lie is saying something that I know is not true and claiming that it is true. Faith is the perception that something I cannot prove is true."
Every belief is a lie that you lie to yourself. Don't fool yourself. You know you don't know if it's really true, and choose to tell yourself it's true, and that you know it's true, when you know you don't really know it.
"Context is a human thing, it depends on language and culture. Reality and our description of it are limited by language and culture and will always be limited according to my belief, your explanation only reinforces this."
You gave the association of different things together as an example of the disability of language and thinking. The explanation comes to show that this is wrong, because the reason for the union is not at all related to the ability to understand.
This sentence is completely out of place. It is clear that the context is a human thing dependent on language, it is part of its definition, what else could it be. What does the fact that the context is a human thing dependent on language have anything to do with your belief in the limitations of language and human thought. Logically, my explanation does not strengthen your perception in any way, it is not related at all. I'm sorry, but if it strengthens your faith, it's probably because you're desperately searching for ways to strengthen your faith.
"Do you believe that there is no place in our lives for things that are not sensory input or "our imaginations the reality," is there no place for faith. "
Do you really think that faith is something different/separate from your imagination?
"I'm not trivially claiming that man is limited, he won't be able to fly either if we throw him off a building (except maybe from a number of examples of this in Sears Zymanski's books). I claim that human reasoning is limited by its very nature and that our lives are essentially illogical and rational."
There is no difference between the triviality of the two. It is exactly the same triviality. You try to describe it as one thing trivial and one thing deeply meaningful, but both things are equally trivial. This is my intention when I complain that you attribute mystical meanings and importance to your perception that it does not have.
"Logic and rationality are good for a limited number of scientific questions that can be examined in detail in the laboratory, but human life is not like that and trying to do it that way is absurd"
And correspondingly, faith and irrationality are good for a large number of non-scientific questions that cannot be tested?
You say here, human life is not like that because I believe that human life is not like that. And it's absurd because it doesn't match my belief.
You continue to argue against the use of rationality by saying that you believe we are incapable of rationality. Without any further justification except your faith. And that we should not use logic and rationality, not because they are not mechanisms that can improve our decisions and our lives, these are because you believe that we cannot even be able to use them, and that too based on your belief. In your view we shouldn't be rational because we don't act like that, so we should continue not to act like that. The reason to believe in things is because we still believe in things. This is absolutely ridiculous.
"A concept that strives to base our lives only on logic and rationality is absurd in my view."
Because you believe it's not possible. Great beauty. So what, a fan believes that it is possible. He will say that a concept that strives to base our lives only on logic and rationality is possible in his eyes, because he believes it is possible.
what comes out of it is nothing. Two people who decided to establish facts based on faith.
Why did you bother asking what I don't understand if you're not going to try to clarify it when I tell you what I don't understand?
Where are the indications for your concept of God and where are the values derived from it?
Why do I even ask questions to get no answers?
sympathetic
Too bad about this deaf bush. You are just attacking with no intention of trying to understand.
Answer me just one question - do only humans have free will?
sympathetic
Do you think the ultra-Orthodox's divine perception is that of a 5-year-old child? Or just mine?
Is there any living creature that is not the fruit of divine creation? Yes or No?
The concept of God - you mean your own personal concept of God, right? In your view, is the Torah more than a story? You wrote "It would be very easy for me to bring stupid scientific articles and claim that they are science and use them to go against science" - is the Torah a stupid religious article? I will be happy for your answering.
Rambam gave proof of God's existence. Do you accept his proof? Do you agree that the very existence of God is a scientific question?
"In a world without free will things just happen because they are meant to happen" - they are not "meant to happen". There is no destination here. I will explain again. There are at most two types of events. One kind is deterministic, and I'm pretty sure there are. The second type is random - and I don't know if there are such things or not. I don't believe there is a third type. Therefore - free will is an illusion. that's it.
Unlike you Ehud - I am not afraid to answer questions. You don't answer any questions, like any typical religious person.
(1) Believe that there is no free will? Isn't it better to believe that there is a God, both beliefs cannot be proven?
Yes - I believe that there is no free will. You're going to prove or disprove, right? I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, or Santa Claus, or Bigfoot. I can show evidence of their existence and/or non-existence. I have a great deal of confirmation that there is nothing outside of science, and I have no confirmation that there are things we can never understand.
Free will - I already wrote to you that I can prove it does not exist, but until I get an answer to my simple questions - I have no way to show you the proof. I will ask again - do only humans have free will? Do all humans have free will?
(2) Do you believe that the reality we are talking about is an illusion?
In a certain sense yes. It is possible that we live in the matrix, or in the dream of another being. I have no way of contradicting it. But seriously - we have senses and we live in a world built with the help of these senses. Imagine that there is a very large grid and everything that exists is on this grid (that is, in a collection of shared points). I have no way of knowing that. Dark matter may turn out to be something we can never sense, beyond its effect on gravity. I don't know - all I know is what I feel (this of course includes reading and listening). Here is another way of thinking - we know that there is a high equivalence between all human languages, and that there are physical areas in the brain that are responsible for language. It is quite possible that we are limited in our understanding because of the limitations of this system.
(3) You believe that mathematics is a human invention, do you have a proof for it?
Excuse me – a bit of a delusional question….. Can you prove to me that no humans have math? Plato said that a square is an idea and not something that exists in reality. Without humans - are you sure this idea would still exist?
As Kroniker said - maybe the natural numbers exist without man, but everything else is our invention.
I can't prove it... Can you prove me wrong?
Strawberry banana with consciousness
I definitely believe that there are people who believe in God. This is what I am trying to explain.
I really think there is no such thing as "free will". This is what I am trying to explain.
Ehud is the one trying to catch me at my word, so please, Rel, turn it around. Ehud constantly quotes me and looks for spelling errors.
I asked simple questions that Ehud did not respond to.
Maybe you'll answer me, you're sure to be a great sage. Do only humans have free will? Is it for all humans?
Miracles
You want to explain things you don't believe in (see your last comment), but at the same time are unable to explain yourself and the things you do believe in.
You also avoid the more essential questions that Ehud asks you, instead of answering you deal with small things.
It is said about this: he is always wrong but never doubts himself.
sympathetic
By the way, you are a big believer in evolution, aren't you? If we don't have free will why did evolution bother to mislead us and let us think that we have free will. One of our basic beliefs is that we have free will and for thousands of years, according to your perception, man has lived in the illusion that nature has instilled in us that we have free will. In your opinion, does this lie have a survival advantage?
I will divide my explanation into two.
First thing - I don't need to explain something that I don't think exists. I have no illusion of free will.
Second thing - I do want to explain phenomena of belief in free will, just as I want to explain belief in God. Not every trait in living things has undergone a process of natural selection. For example, the property of my bones to crash when falling from a height. Likewise, all kinds of complex processes in the human soul. These features are a result of the complexity of the brain.
But - before I continue - tell me, which creatures do you think have free will? Only for humans? apes? cats? flies?
Waiting for your reply.
Miracles,
You are going against the concept of God by the way again the concept of God you are going against is that of a 5 year old child, you can see this from your question "(I forgot - why did God invent cancer?). ". Say again this is the same grandfather God who invents diseases and fights against or for man and is responsible for justice. Understand well what the concept of God is and build a caricature of the concept and stick pins in it. It would be very easy for me to bring stupid scientific articles and claim that they are science and use them to go against science. To understand a certain concept before going against it. Do you think that the God you are talking about is the same God that Rambam spoke about? People have believed in God for thousands of years, give them a little more credit. Do you think that everyone who believed was stupid and just waiting for you to explain it to them?
I don't understand your argument about free will. It's nice that you separate internal situations from the environment. By the way, it is not clear to me how without free will you define yourself apart from the environment? Your body because you do not control it is equal to the environment that you also do not control. In a world without free will things just happen because they are meant to happen. Therefore, what is the meaning of the sentence "I want to leave my children a better world" or what is the meaning of the claim "I want". If you don't have free will and you consider yourself a rational person please stop using the phrase I want because it is meaningless.
Regarding reality, you have certain beliefs. You believe that "I think that both things, both particles and the screen, are a product of the human mind. Mathematics, in some ways, is a human invention." Is there anything in reality that is not a human invention. Because your concept that reality is a human invention seems to me much more absurd than the belief in some kind of God. You write "Maybe an electron is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle. Maybe he is something third that we can't feel in his true form. But - that doesn't change my belief." That is, your grounding in reality is faith. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you wrote in the passage, "It doesn't change my faith." So you believe in something and something else chooses to believe in something else for example God. Are you more rational than him? Can you visit it?
Let's examine your beliefs again. If you have proof of them or any of them, I'd love to hear it. are you
(1) Believe that there is no free will? Isn't it better to believe that there is a God, both beliefs cannot be proven?
(2) Do you believe that the reality we are talking about is an illusion?
(3) You believe that mathematics is a human invention, do you have a proof for it?
As an apparently rational person, your collection of beliefs seems to me to be much more flexible than the belief in God and you define yourself as rational?
Regarding your claim about influencing a person's will with the help of chemical or psychological substances, the claim that "Ehud - by definition - a person's will is not free when an external factor determines his will," definitely polarizes me. I definitely agree with the definition, but the fact that it is possible to control the will of something and force it to make a certain decision still does not mean that it lacks free will in general, only that in the specific case there was no free will, there is a fundamental difference between the two.
Regarding your claim that you are aware of your inner states and are able to know what they will be in the future. Today you claim that your inner state tells you that it would be good if you leave your children a better world, but how do you know that this will also be your inner state in an hour or another year? You write about a similar question "You are such a sophisticated machine, how can you even expect to be able to estimate what your inner state will be in a minute?" - from experience - just like I know there is salt in the salt pan. Of course, sometimes they are wrong." Are you comparing a complex biological system based on billions of chemical reactions, moving in the world and reacting to it, to salt? Is this reasonable reasoning?
walking dead
Let me start again from the end you write
"When you tell yourself it's not a lie, you're just lying to yourself again. You know that's not true. Because you know that this is a question to which you chose an answer without really having an answer, and you decided to believe that it was the truth."
Do you not understand the difference between a lie and a belief? A lie is saying something that I know is not true and claiming that it is true. Faith is the perception that something that I cannot prove is true.
In addition, you write, "We have gathered things together for useful purposes of convenience, not out of lack of understanding. If we use your example, people understand very well that a wooden table and a plastic table are different from each other. They do not call both a table because they do not understand that there is a difference, but because the difference is not important for their use of the concept. When there is a difference they will definitely use a wooden table or a plastic table. It depends on context and the need for a certain level of clarity. Like sometimes it's enough to say I threw the ball and sometimes you have to define the behavior of the ball in the air with beacons."
Context is a human thing, it depends on language and culture, reality and our description of it are limited by language and culture and will always be limited according to my belief, your explanation only reinforces this.
You write "
The problem is that all we have to live with is our perception of reality which consists of our sensory inputs and our imaginations of reality, more or less accurate, in relation to our sensory inputs. You point it out as if we are able to grasp something else beyond that. We are bound by our senses and our thoughts and we have no other tools with which to experience anything. Whether true or not, real or not, that's what we have to work with, and that's why we have to work with them, and not work on them with inventions that lack foundation in their absorption capabilities."
Do you believe that there is no place in our lives for things that are not sensory input or "our imaginations are reality," is there no place for faith. People for example believe in something and since they have free will work towards the fulfillment of this belief. Are they guaranteed that they will be able to achieve what they planned, certainly not. The human world is extremely complex, but most of our lives we act based on beliefs, not certainty.
You write "The understanding that we are limited beings is the result of observations of man, this is not a diagnosis of mystical significance as you try to present it. For example, if we take a human being and throw him from a building at some height, it seems that he can no longer land without being in pain. I claim that human logic is limited by its very nature and that our lives are essentially illogical and rational. Logic and rationality are good for a limited number of scientific questions that can be examined in detail in the laboratory, but human life is not like that and trying to do it that way is absurd. See for example Nissim or Prof. Sampolansky who believe that we do not have free will. A "secular" concept that strives to base our lives only on logic and rationality is absurd in my view.
Regarding the two claims:
1. There will always be something that is beyond man's ability to understand.
2. There are still countless understandings that man still does not understand, that man will still be able to understand in the future.
For me, they are not considered. So, for example, the person in his existing physical structure will not be able to fly without aids. People can keep running and jumping and trying to fly every time they get better but in my opinion they won't be able to fly. I repeat again, in my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between an inability that arises inherently from the structure of something and an inability that arises from a lack of resources such as time for example.
Miracles,
You can't complain because something puts words in your mouth because you have no free will and the words in your mouth are not yours because you chose them. In any case, you wrote ""If I have free will, then why am I not free to do what I want? I will never run 100 meters in 10 seconds, I will never play like Yehudi Menuhin, and I will never have wings. All these are my desires..... Of course this is a far-fetched reasoning as I have already explained to you there is a huge difference that you do not understand between free will and absolute freedom. In any case, your argument was based on the fact that if there is free will then everything I can imagine must exist. So I don't think I put words in your mouth, you just don't understand the conclusions of what you write.
By the way, you are a big believer in evolution, aren't you? If we don't have free will why did evolution bother to mislead us and let us think that we have free will. One of our basic beliefs is that we have free will and for thousands of years, according to your perception, man has lived in the illusion that nature has instilled in us that we have free will. In your opinion, does this lie have a survival advantage?
sympathetic
"Do you, like Nisam, believe that free will or free thought implies that everything we imagine must exist?"
Let's do an experiment — I now imagine to myself that you stop putting words in my mouth ……….
sympathetic
You didn't answer the question. Mainly it seems to me that you did not understand the second sentence properly. I will try to help you. If there are infinite understandings, when will man understand all the possible understandings he can understand?
By the way, want to guess why I asked this question?
"Does everything a person invents or imagines have to have a hold on reality? "
No. This is exactly the point, you can definitely make up unrealistic things. (In the example here the invented thing is: something that is beyond the ability of human understanding)
"Do you, like Nisam, believe that free will or free thought implies that everything we imagine must exist?"
I don't think even Nissim claims that (the answer is no, if it wasn't clear)
We group things together for useful convenience needs, not out of lack of understanding. If we use your example, people understand very well that a wooden table and a plastic table are different from each other. They do not call both a table because they do not understand that there is a difference, but because the difference is not important for their use of the concept. When there is a difference they will definitely use a wooden table or a plastic table. It depends on context and the need for a certain level of clarity. As sometimes it is enough to say I threw the ball and sometimes the behavior of the ball in the air needs to be defined in beacons.
"What is not clear to you?"
Why do you choose to answer a question for which you do not have sufficient data to answer it precisely in the way you chose instead of the second option which is more or less equally reasonable given the data you have.
The problem is that you rule out the use of rationality by saying that we are not able to act rationally. Actually there is nothing wrong with being rational, it's just that we can never do it because we love to believe and act on imaginary things so much, and that's why we shouldn't be rational.
The problem is that all we have to live with is our perception of reality which consists of our sensory inputs and our imaginations of reality, more or less accurate, in relation to our sensory inputs. You point it out as if we are able to grasp something else beyond that. We are bound by our senses and our thoughts and we have no other tools with which to experience anything. Whether true or not, real or not, this is what we have to work with, and that is why we must work with them, and not work on them with inventions unfounded in their receptive capacities.
In the same way I can say that we will never be able to understand if reality exists at all and it will not be more or less true than this saying that we are limited and we will never be able to understand reality. I can probably find an infinite number of other sayings that have the same true equivalence (it probably wasn't in Hebrew, accept my apologies (or not)), and it won't be difficult, it will just take an infinite amount of time.
The understanding that we are limited beings is the result of observations of man, it is not a diagnosis of mystical significance as you try to present it. For example, if we take a person and throw him from a building at a certain height it seems that he can no longer land without being hurt, and at another height it seems that he can no longer get out of the fall without breaking some bone, and at another height it seems that he can no longer get out of the fall alive. Calling it God and imagining that it has a meaning that has a great influence on the way people should live, is a bit of an illusion.
The notion that man will never be able to understand everything is as much an illusion as the notion that man will ever be able to understand everything is an illusion. For both we have no close to sufficient evidence. In addition, the future ability of our ability to understand things is one big question mark (and will probably remain so as long as people exist and time passes by) and it may even be probable that in the future we will be able to understand things that today we do not understand. If we go back to throwing people from buildings for example, then all the data we had on human survival in throwing people from buildings goes to waste when you attach a person to a parachute.
Beyond that, it's not an important question at all. You are just trying to present it as such in order to push your concept of God, and all of this is probably just to call something God so that you can say there is a God. It's so forced, I'm not sure what it's good for.
It is likely that any claim you have about how one should live, (and I am still waiting to see the values of how one should live that derives from your concept of God), either does not derive from this concept of God at all, or can be reached in other, much less crooked ways.
When you tell yourself it's not a lie, you're just lying to yourself again. You know that's not true. Because you know that this is a question to which you chose an answer without really having an answer, and you decided to believe that it was the truth.
Seriously, how would you look at me if I told you that we should eat more imaginary cakes in order to be happier. Is this true? Don't I know that I'm saying something that I don't know if it's true, and presenting it as true? Isn't that a lie?
A religious reaction?
Thanks for the reply, but now I'm even more confused.
If your God and Ehud's God are the same God, does that mean that all the Gods that people believe in in the world are the same God? And the difference is only in the interpretation? So how do you actually know you are using the correct manuals/instructions? Are all books just right for different people?
walking dead
I sent you a long response and it is awaiting approval. The truth is, I'm already starting to get tired of the automatic system for filtering comments on the site, or in other words, I don't have time and energy for this nonsense.
walking dead
I will start from the end and continue until I have the strength. You're asking
"Two sentences:
1. There will always be something that is beyond man's ability to understand.
2. There are still countless understandings that man still does not understand, that man will still be able to understand in the future.
What is the difference between these two sentences?"
The first sentence that is sound from my point of view that human language and human thinking are limited is very different from claiming that at the moment we do not understand everything but given a finite time we in principle have the ability to understand everything. Do you understand the essential difference?
I'm sorry but I don't understand your philosophizing and what is the importance of what you write
"We held an imaginary experiment, in which there is a universe in which there exists a universal truth, in which nothing exists that is beyond man's ability to understand.
Meaning the people in this world are able to understand everything about the universe.
In this universe, people are able to invent all kinds of other things in their imaginations that do not really exist in the universe.
That is, they have a developed imagination and can conceptually invent things that do not exist in reality.
One of these things they invent is a concept of something that is beyond human comprehension. In your view, the fact that they are inventing this concept means that in fact there is something in this universe that is beyond the ability of human understanding, even though we have already defined that the universe in question is absolutely not like that."
Does everything a person invents or imagines have to have a hold on reality? Do you, like Nissam, believe that free will or free thought implies that everything we imagine must exist?
My claims were not that I invent things beyond human perception and that such things do not actually exist, I claim that human language is limited by our limited thinking. For example, we group together a huge number of different objects and call them a table when one is made of wood and the other of plastic, one has 4 legs and the other one. Language brings these objects together, but they are separate. An accurate description of reality requires knowing and working with infinite details at a given moment, and because of our limited understanding, we group things together according to our needs, but this is not reality in all its glory.
Bottom line, I understand my limitations, I don't understand what is beyond them. For example, a blind person can understand that he is blind, but he does not understand what it means to see. What is not clear to you?
You write "You are basically saying that we believe in a lot of irrational things and we rely on these beliefs in making our decisions, therefore rational thinking does not help almost at all in making our decisions. Do you understand the problem here?” No I don't understand the problem, we are not rational beings and many studies in contemporary psychology prove this (receive a Nobel Prize in Economics for this). The fact that we are not rational beings does not detract from or add to our values, as I have already written to you, the world is too complex to be able to apply simple rational tools to it. There is no algorithm for a good and correct life.
You write more
"You say that our perception of reality determines as if we have something other than our perception of reality, and there is something separate that is actually the true reality and is more true than our perception of reality. Do you understand the problem here?” Again I don't understand what the problem is the reality of each of us is limited there are different opinions and cultures each of us has a different perception of reality depending on the society in which he lives. The correct perception is in my opinion for the millionth time is to understand that we are limited and will never be able to understand reality. Many said it before see Kant.
In conclusion, you ask "if belief in God does not oblige, why believe? To feel better about yourself? Nice, why not? There are many ways to lie to yourself to make yourself feel good about yourself. It's no different from any of them." I'm trying to explain to you that the concept that man is a rational being and has the ability to understand everything is an illusion much greater than God. God is not an illusion but the understanding that we are limited beings. Not only is this understanding not a lie, it helps us deal with the world and also leads to more happiness (which is true is not the issue we are discussing, but it is a bonus nonetheless).
sympathetic
"You mock the religious" — I do not mock the religious. There are religious people that I respect very much, and there are secular ones that I mock. I do think the religious are wrong. I do mock those who try to bring a logical argument for the existence of God - I have already explained that it is not possible to prove existence with the help of logical arguments alone. I hope we don't have an argument about that. It is possible to give empirical evidence for the existence of God - but I do not know a shred of such evidence. I would say the opposite even…
"1. You don't have free will, on the other hand, you have the will to inherit..." — true. My desire, as I have already explained to you, and you refuse to listen to the explanation, is a combination of my inner state and the environment. My internal state is determined recursively, and probably the basis of the recursion is my parents' genetics, and perhaps what my mother ate before I was born....
"2. Elementary particles are real, while the computer screen I'm looking at is a product of the human mind. I ask you again, if you think mathematics is a human invention, how are electromagnetic waves or elementary particles real objects?" — I think that both things, both particles and the screen are a product of the human mind. Mathematics, in some ways, is a human invention. For example - again, I've already said it - the world may be discrete, so differential calculus is just our invention. I can imagine an intelligent species that does not know wholes, and only has a representation of continuity. I can also imagine the opposite - an intelligent species that only has natural numbers (the ancient Greeks are such a species, so the idea is not far from reality).
"Do you think that your perceptions make more sense than belief in God?" - Yes. I think my view makes a lot more sense.
"Another winning reasoning of yours "I will ask again - how are there chemical substances that change free will? How can simple psychology change people's desires?" The fact that something can be influenced does not mean that it is not free. For example, advertisements on television try to influence us to buy products with the help of overt and hidden messages. Do we not have free will because we buy or don't buy these products? Really give some more serious reasoning." - Ehud - by definition - a person's will is not free when an external factor determines his will.
You really don't get it Ehud? You tell me - when is the will not free?
"(By the way, do you have proof of this or is it just hand-waving, an irrational belief like belief in God?)" — (Yes, I have proof)
"How can you want to leave something to your children" — I explained it to you, Ehud. Read what I wrote again. I think other readers have been able to understand, and I don't want to bore them.
"You are such a sophisticated machine, how can you even expect to be able to estimate what your inner state will be in a minute?" - from experience - just like I know there is salt in the salt pan. Of course, sometimes they are wrong. I had a good friend - he planned his life in detail, but died at a young age from cancer (I forgot - why did God invent cancer?). Therefore, I try to live by the method of risk management. I spend a lot of time and take long vacations (I once took two years off) - I can't count on the fact that in retirement I will be healthy enough to do everything I want, so I reversed the order a bit... On the other hand, I do save for retirement, because there is a probability that I will get there .
"If you have no desire, then your desire to leave something to your children is not yours, but imposed on you" - it is not "imposed on me" - because there is no being who imposed it on me. I absolutely agree that this is not my free choice, but the result of …… repeating myself again?
"Not to mention that there is no possibility of blaming or praising you for your actions because they are not determined by you" - one of the reasons why people do not steal is the fear of punishment. To create this fear - you have to punish. Therefore - there is definitely room to blame Ann to praise - because it directly affects my actions and opinions. Every parent knows this.
"You think that the elementary particles are a product of mathematics" - no. I say that both the particles and the screen only exist in our senses. I'm not saying there aren't "things" in the universe. I say that all we know is from their effect on our senses (directly or indirectly). I'll try to put it this way - maybe an "electron" exists in reality, but all I know about it is from experiments. Maybe an electron is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle. Perhaps he is something third that we cannot sense in his true form.
But - it does not change my faith.
Miracles
You mock religious people because they hold irrational beliefs on the other hand you believe:
1. You don't have free will on the other hand you have a desire to leave your children a better world. Is it rational how it works out.
2. Elementary particles are real while the computer screen I'm looking at is a product of the human mind. I ask you again if you think mathematics is a human invention, how are electromagnetic waves or elementary particles real objects?
Do you think that your perceptions make more sense than belief in God?
Regarding your reasons like "If I have free will, then why am I not free to do what I want? I will never run 100 meters in 10 seconds, I will never play like Yehudi Menuhin, and I will never have wings. All these are my wishes …..”. Tell me which reasons are willful? They say we are a free country, does that mean I can murder (it turns out yes in our country specifically)? Freedom does not mean limited freedom, there is no such thing. Free means that which is not determined exclusively by external conditions. It seems to me that the concept of freedom is not clear to you. Hint: this is about freedom from tyranny, that is, from forced activity to freedom of choice, this does not mean that everything you think can exist.
Another winning reasoning of yours "I will ask again - how are there chemical substances that change free will? How can simple psychology change people's desires?" The fact that something can be influenced does not mean that it is not free. For example, advertisements on television try to influence us to buy products with the help of overt and hidden messages. Do we not have free will because we buy or don't buy these products? Really give some more serious reasoning.
A bit about free will you write "Everything I think, say and do depends on only two things. The first is what is around me and the second is my inner state." It doesn't help that you divide reality into external reality and internal reality I assume because you mean your mind and not the internal state of the right foot. In any case, when there is no free will, it means that the state you call an internal state is uniquely determined by its state at time 0 and by its interaction with the environment. So as one who believes that he does not have free will (by the way do you have proof of this or is it just hand waving, an irrational belief like the belief in God?) how can you want to bequeath anything to your children. You are such a sophisticated machine, how can you even expect to be able to estimate what your inner state will be in a minute? After all, your internal state is determined univalently by the environment, so how do you expect it to affect anything in the future. If you have no desire, then your ambition to leave something to your children is not yours, but imposed on you. Not to mention that you cannot be blamed or praised for your actions because they are not determined by you.
A little about what I wrote to you about your perception of reality and you didn't answer me
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
A religious reaction?
What is the advantage of not having to convert? Do you think being Jewish is better than being non-Jewish? Are the Jews better off? Are they worth more?
I see it differently than you. "Love your neighbor as yourself" for me includes all human beings, regardless of religion, race, sex or economic status. I understand from your words that you see it differently (after all, you claimed that I have an advantage....).
And you call me evil? 🙂
Miracles,
You are not called bad, you are called evil, but not in the ways you know, but in your ability to connect to the channels of holiness and reach a high spiritual level.
Yes, you will be able to live your life as a secular person who observes the 7 mitzvot of the sons of Noah according to the rabbinic tradition, which the Gentiles were commanded to observe, as opposed to the XNUMX mitzvot which the Israelites were commanded to observe.
Who knows, maybe one day the spark will light up, in any case it's your advantage that you won't have to convert (assuming you're Jewish of course - no offense, God forbid)
I admit that there is a problem with the ultra-Orthodox public who do not accept this attitude, but this is how every Jew should behave, in the ways of Noam!!
Their way is not my way!!
According to this view, do you see him as a person who believes in God?
Do you believe in the same God?
In my opinion, we believe in the same God, it just seems that Ehud is giving an interpretation according to his personal educational concept and I am giving him an interpretation according to the written sources and the rabbis and does not involve intellectualism or personal opinion.
"You don't find answers but instructions on how to live in this world: keeping kosher/Shabbat/Nida and especially morals"
And what do we do with the curiosity?
To be more precise, there are mitzvahs that we gave without reason or reason, but nevertheless we observe them because the mitzvots are above reason, and as soon as a judgment is applied to the observance or non-observance of a mitzvah, then there will not be a uniform religion.
If you believe that the source of the mitzvahs are from a divine root - the source of the animals or a manufacturer, however you call it, then they are observed even when it does not agree with the rational.
Regarding curiosity, you can investigate to the limit of your perceptive abilities...but we will not be able to prove to you the existence of the Creator. (And that also makes sense, right??)
"Under God's giving as existing, I assume that this is indeed a logically consistent concept.
I don't really see what can be done but in the context of bridging the starting point"
indeed a problem
Either you pass the obstacle and take a leap of faith or you stay there with reason and rationality, with which I think you can also reach faith in the Creator, but reason is sometimes also a failure 🙂
A religious reaction?
I don't understand - on the one hand I'm a bad person if I don't believe in God. On the other hand I have a free choice.
I keep "love your neighbor as yourself", but eat whatever I think is right to eat. Does that make me a bad person?
I will ask again - if according to you I have free choice, and I, according to everything I have learned and everything I see in the world, choose to believe that there is no God, Allah, Brahma or whatever you want to call him/her/them - am I a bad person?
I would love to hear an answer
A religious reaction?
So as a summary of all the comments regarding Ehud's conception of divinity
According to this view, do you see him as a person who believes in God?
Do you believe in the same God?
"You don't find answers but instructions on how to live in this world: keeping kosher/Shabbat/Nida and especially morals"
And what do we do with the curiosity?
"Asking for evidence of the existence of a creator is a bit problematic because if there is evidence that is perceived in one of the senses, then there is already proof of the existence of a creator, which leads to the denial of freedom of choice."
Under the giver of God as existing I assume that this is indeed a logically consistent view.
I don't really see what can be done in the context of bridging the starting point
walking dead
-------
"Divinity for me is the universe without man and without his translation in human terms of language. Our limited senses and our limited intelligence prevent us from a comprehensive perception of reality and we create approximate models of its parts"
- Not accurate, in the religious/kabbalistic view it is impossible to distinguish the universe from the Creator because man is the tiara of creation. He was created after all creatures and is the highlight of creation. He was created in the image of God, God breathed into his nose the breath of life, which is a part of God from above. According to Judaism, man, who appears to the flesh as a flesh and blood biological being, is, in fact, a superior being.
"Since there have been questions about what I mean, I'm going back again. The concept of God stems from the fact that man is a limited finite being with a finite ability to think and calculate and therefore will never be able to understand the universe in all its complexity. Not the beginning, not the complexity of a living organism, not consciousness. The understanding that there is something greater than man is, for me, the concept of God."
From the point of view of scientific perception, it is indeed limited and finite, but there are dimensions in which a person connects to infinity or non-divinity, as long as he lines up under the wings of the Shekinah (such as praying in the minyan)
God for me is the understanding that it will never be possible to rationally understand the whole world around us no matter how much we wait, learn and develop. The fact that man is limited is the defeat for understanding the existence of God."
On the path of negation for me, God is the understanding that man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial. Man is also a finite creation and his capacity is limited, this understanding already for me includes God in it. In addition, God is related to me in the concept that man is not the vision of everything, truth, beauty, justice are concepts that can be thought of as existing without man."
- Even if it is true, it is a bit depressing to think like that, you can also look at the glass half full, that man learns and learns and reveals new discoveries and it is clear that this is not the purpose of the creatures in this world to think that they are limited in their perception of the world.
from time to time.
"Indeed I'm not talking about religion but about a perception of something greater than man that some also call him God."
"We may be part of nature but we are finite and limited. Abstract thinking assumes that there is something more fundamental that is greater than man and some call it God. The understanding that we are small compared to the cosmos and that our understanding due to our finite nature is limited is the basis of religion."
Submission to the Creator is part of the foundations of religion, certainly not the basis - the basis is loving your neighbor as yourself, as I mentioned: the way of the earth preceded the Torah.
The attitude of grasping the smallness of man in front of creation is good in order to get the degree of awe, but certainly not the basis.
"God already knows me, so I would understand (I think others too)"
Okay then God from now on.
now I get it. Still can't see or understand the answers that religious people find there. What am I missing?
You don't find answers but instructions on how to live in this world: keeping kosher/Shabbat/Nida and especially morals
"I guess the starting point is different. The existence of God is a given for a religious person (isn't it?) while for me the starting point in a certain sense is that there should be evidence for the existence of something in order for me to regard it as existing."
The existence of God is a given for a religious person, yes indeed!!
Asking for proof of the existence of a Creator is a bit problematic because if there is a vision that is perceived by one of the senses, then there is already proof of the existence of a Creator that leads to the denial of freedom of choice on the tip of the fork, beyond the fact that the Creator is above the class of creatures and does not have a body and the likeness of the body (see the dimensions of the Creator according to Rambam ….)
Making a name for yourself online is a story. You hesitate and choose a nickname for yourself and then in the end people come from here and there and change it to all kinds of different things. Sometimes it's quite amusing.
– Lovely!!
If only the ten commandments then it is not enough.
Lumpa
Were you trying to say something smart?
sympathetic
Maybe you grab him by the tail, that's why he's raging 🙂
ארי
You wrote "if everything is deterministic..."
And I'm writing to you (by the way, completely, believe me, of my own free will):
If your grandma had wheels…
sympathetic
The first response was sent by mistake and can be ignored (even so it is partial and the full response follows)
I would appreciate it if you would consider this as well-
Two sentences:
1. There will always be something that is beyond man's ability to understand.
2. There are still countless understandings that man still does not understand, that man will still be able to understand in the future.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Do you really think these sentences mean anything? That accepting one of these sentences as true gives rise to any value for the person?
sympathetic
We held an imaginary experiment, in which there is a universe in which universal truth exists, in which nothing exists that is beyond the ability of human understanding.
Meaning the people in this world are able to understand everything about the universe.
In this universe, people are able to invent all kinds of other things in their imaginations that do not really exist in the universe.
That is, they have a developed imagination and can conceptually invent things that do not exist in reality.
One of these things they invent is a concept of something that is beyond human comprehension. In your opinion, the fact that they invent this concept means that in fact there is something in this universe that is beyond the ability of human understanding, even though we have already defined that in absolute reality the universe in question is not like that.
Your solution to this, is that you do not believe that there is anything beyond understanding in language and thought and therefore there is a contradiction in the first sentence? What does that even mean? Do you actually not believe that such a universe can exist? How does faith have anything to do with this? Do you believe that belief affects the feasibility or impossibility of something?
(1) It is claimed that there is nothing that is beyond man's ability to understand, it is not claimed that there is nothing beyond man's understanding (you are confusing two different things). (2) Where is it claimed that having this failure in language limits them? Where is it claimed that they don't understand the concept of something that is beyond human comprehension? We are not necessarily talking about us here, we are talking about an imaginary universe in which these are the conditions. You change the text and find problems with the changes you made.
I can understand the concept of a dragon even though dragons don't exist in reality. What does this mean that dragons do exist in reality? How is it different? How is the concept of a dragon different from the concept of something beyond human comprehension? Do you understand or not understand the concept of something beyond human comprehension? How do you even use it if you don't understand it?
To remind you - something that is beyond human comprehension - this is your definition of God.
Therefore if there is a contradiction here and something is flawed here it likely means that your concept of God is flawed.
__________________________
You are basically saying that we believe in a lot of irrational things and we rely on these beliefs in our decision-making, therefore rational thinking does not help almost at all in our decision-making. Do you understand the problem here?
You say that our perception of reality determines as if we have something other than our perception of reality, and there is something separate that is actually the true reality and is more true than our perception of reality. Do you understand the problem here?
If belief in God is not binding, why believe? To feel better about yourself? Nice, why not? There are many ways to lie to yourself to make yourself feel good about yourself. It's no different than any of them.
So what if the belief in God as you described does not contradict the knowledge that we have, this is true for more or less infinite beliefs in the gods that can be invented. Nor is it supported in any way by the knowledge we have.
To introduce into a system an assumption that has no evidence and has no effect on the system is definitely logically flawed.
The question of whether God exists or not, and what he is, is not related to the question of what is the way to live happily.
The question of whether we will be happier if we believe in God or not is a completely separate question.
sympathetic
You are basically saying that we believe in a lot of irrational things and we rely on these beliefs in our decision-making, therefore rational thinking does not help almost at all in our decision-making. Do you understand the problem here?
You say that our perception of reality determines as if we have something other than our perception of reality, and there is something separate that is actually the true reality and is more true than our perception of reality. Do you understand the problem here?
Belief in God as I have described it does not contradict the knowledge we have and therefore it is not logically flawed either
sympathetic
Again you are twisting things 🙂 You claimed that an infinite understanding is needed to understand the universe, and you claimed that our understanding is necessarily finite.
Are you now claiming you didn't say that?
sympathetic
This has been linked many times in the past, and this is the opinion of a neuroscientist and physicist who is even a religious Jew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH-HeU0DNl0
(2 minute: 30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfKRuhHXcDk
If everything is deterministic, then the consequences of this also concern your perceptions, not only of miracles and others.
sympathetic
Everything I think, say and do depends on only two things. The first is what is around me and the second is my inner state. I read what you write and respond. My response is the result of these two things.
Why do I "think" I want to leave a better world. Again - a combination of internal state and the environment. There is nothing else.
There is no problem building a machine as complex as my brain. She also has no free will. We are Ehud machines.
Look at it this way. Each of us started as a single cell. Right? This cell split into 2, 4, 8 and so on up to 100 trillion cells. At what point do you think we will have free will? What is its origin? I can (in principle) take a cell from me and create a new "miracle". Does he not have free will? he has?
And I will ask again - how are there chemical substances that change free will? How can simple psychology change people's desires?
walking dead
First, regarding your request "So you are saying that in a universe where there is a universal truth in which there is nothing that is beyond the ability of human understanding. The fact that there is a flaw in human language and thought that allows people to imagine/invent a concept of something that is beyond man's ability to understand, means that actually in this universe there is something that is beyond man's ability to understand." I do not believe that there is something beyond understanding in language and thought, therefore I see an internal contradiction in the first part of the sentence. Since (1) it is claimed that there is nothing beyond human understanding (2) there is a flaw in human language and thought that limits them. But I don't find much point in this nonsense if you do please explain the point again please.
Unfortunately my time is short so I will try to summarize what you said, please correct me if I am wrong.
(1) Rational thinking helps us make better decisions.
(2) Belief in God is not rational and therefore those who rely on it in making decisions are not rational or have defective rationality.
I disagree if both claims. I agree that rational thinking helps us make the right decisions in very simple problems, but life is very complicated, there will always be surprises or as they say, "Man plans, God laughs" (it sounds better in Yiddish, although I don't know Yiddish). Second, accepting the absolutes in life depends on the tags we attach to everything, our perception of reality determines what was a right or wrong decision. Many times we make a decision with the goal of something happening and it doesn't happen as we wanted, yet we are satisfied. In my opinion, rational thinking is only good for very limited areas in life and this is again due to man's limitations and his ability to plan.
(2) Belief in God is not binding but belief in God as I have described it does not contradict the knowledge we have and therefore it is not logically flawed either. If this belief has the ability to improve people's lives, I do not see it as wrong and I even find it an advantage. Belief in God as Nisim sees him as an old grandfather and their anger that he must be pleased is in my opinion logically flawed but I am not sure that those who hold it live less well or are less happy than those who do not (see my argument regarding logic and everyday life).
walking dead
So if he believes in what he writes that he won't say that he wants to bequeath his children a better world, then there is no connection between what he experiences and what he will actually do, everything has already been determined or randomly drawn.
sympathetic
I think that Nissim means that his will is a total expression (that he experiences) of processes in which there really is no free will
Miracles,
You blame me "You try again and again and again to catch me with your tongue. ” Write clearly so I won't have to catch you. sayings like
"Do you believe that infinite knowledge is needed to understand the universe? I do not. That's the end of the discussion on this issue." They are very intelligent. Do you even know what it means to understand the universe? After all, understanding is a limited human concept, it is limited by mathematics and by language and by how we think. Instead of explaining your position about what is in the world and what is our invention every time you get stuck in confusion with yourself you accuse me of exposing the inconsistency in your thinking. I asked you simple questions about your perception of mathematics and what is in the world, try to answer them instead of avoiding.
Miracles,
Can't you answer a simple question? You believe that there is no free will, I understood that, so how can you claim that it depends on what you believe. I will explain my view of life again (full disclosure - I don't always succeed in living according to this view) I claim that we should leave behind a better world for future generations."? There is meaning to your perception of life or what you want. You do not control what you want and your desires do not affect the world. So what is this nonsense, leaving a better world for my children, does it even mean what you want as a person without free will? ? You can't define it as a substance that lacks free will. It is well and good that your perception of God remained like that of a 5-year-old child, but why did logic have to remain like that? By the way, you noticed the sentence "I don't always manage to live according to this concept" is this a sentence that makes sense at all for someone who does not have free will? What does it mean to live according to my concept?
A religious response?
Some quotes from Ehud, which I hope explain his perception of the concept of God, as you requested (I hope I am not distorting anything):
"Divinity for me is the universe without man and without his translation in human terms of language. Our limited senses and our limited intelligence prevent us from a comprehensive perception of reality and we create approximate models of its parts"
"Since there have been questions about what I mean, I'm going back again. The concept of God stems from the fact that man is a limited finite being with a finite ability to think and calculate and therefore will never be able to understand the universe in all its complexity. Not the beginning, not the complexity of a living organism, not consciousness. The understanding that there is something greater than man is, for me, the concept of God."
"God for me is the understanding that it will never be possible to rationally understand the whole world around us no matter how much we wait, learn and develop. The fact that man is limited is the defeat for understanding the existence of God."
"On the path of negation, as far as I am concerned, God is the understanding that man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial. Man is also a finite creation and his capacity is limited, this understanding already for me includes God in it. In addition, God is related to me in the concept that man is not the vision of everything, truth, beauty, justice are concepts that can be thought of as existing without man."
"Indeed I'm not talking about religion but about a perception of something greater than man that some also call him God."
"We may be part of nature but we are finite and limited. Abstract thinking assumes that there is something more fundamental that is greater than man and some call it God. The understanding that we are small compared to the cosmos and that our understanding due to our finite nature is limited is the basis of religion."
"No, this is not a recording error - it is simply forbidden to write/say the name of God - I could also write God, but they would not understand"
God already knows me then I would understand (I think others do too)
"I would start with the ten conversations that contain important mitzvot between man and his fellow man, because the way of the earth preceded the Torah and then progressed to the books of morals, laws, and judgments in the Torah."
know Am I missing something?
"You guessed correctly that man is the machine and the maker is the creator and the instructions are his books: Chomash+ Mishna+ Gemara and especially moral books."
now I get it. Still can't see or understand the answers that religious people find there. What am I missing?
I guess the starting point is different. The existence of God is a given for a religious person (isn't it?) while for me the starting point in a certain sense is that there should be evidence for the existence of something for me to treat it as existing.
"- You're right - a religious reaction? - Since I don't want to sound like a preacher then? at the end"
Making a name for yourself online is a story. You hesitate and choose a nickname for yourself and then in the end people come from here and there and change it to all kinds of different things. Sometimes it's quite amusing.
sympathetic
You try again and again and again to catch me with your tongue. The thing is, that's all you do. There is no substance in what you say.
Do you believe it takes infinite knowledge to understand the universe? I do not. This is the end of the discussion on this topic.
sympathetic
Regarding free will. I believe there is no free will. This is a much simpler assumption. We are not fundamentally different from a salt crystal - we are simply much more complex. You can say that there is an emergent property that stems from our complexity, and call this property "free will", but that does not change the fact that there is, really, no free will.
The second possibility, that there is free will, is very problematic to me. This means that there is something beyond the matter of which we are composed. It also doesn't fit what we know about the brain. Except for language, there is no essential difference between us and the great apes. Do apes have free will? to monkeys? Toads? to nematodes? Where is the border? Languageless people don't have free will? A little anesthetic and free will goes free?
If I have free will, then why am I not free to do what I want? I will never run 100 meters in 10 seconds, I will never play like Yehudi Menuhin, and I will never have wings. All these are my wishes…..
I see no contradiction in my belief. I do see that it contradicts your belief. I'm sick of you 🙂
Miracles,
Another try. Second part of the first trimester.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
Then you write "In this world that I described - I say again - legalism shows that there is no God. An external entity has no meaning, in my understanding, if it does not cause things to happen contrary to the laws." . Now I tend to agree with you because in the previous sentences you claimed that legality is a human invention or are you trying to claim that there is legality that is not a human invention ie it exists in a world without people? Do you mean what I called order beyond human order? Are there laws of nature that we discover? Or is everything from origin?
Miracles,
First part of first part (trial):
Despite your fears, no one tries to convince you that "God is a logical necessity." I just want you to examine your principles and the things you stand on before you criticize the beliefs of others.
I would like you to carefully examine what you write for example
"We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow field, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are laws regarding colors, for example, or regarding sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us."
But how do you know that something like electromagnetic radiation exists in the world? Maybe, as you claim about mathematics, it is also our invention? Are you saying that voice does not exist without humans? I would expect someone who claims to believe in science to claim that the existence of sound waves does not depend on the viewer or in this case the listener.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is a placenta?
Miracles,
Third and last part (attempt):
On top of our ability to understand the world, apparently you don't differentiate between finite and infinite, you write "another small point... I don't expect one person to understand the universe. Human reason - and here I do say it - is not limited. Our minds can be based on the intelligence of others.” Many people it is still not infinite so a finite sum of finite sizes is still finite. In addition, you write "a cosmologist who studies the big bang can concentrate on one facet of the bang, and even then I'm sure he doesn't need to understand dedicand sections to work with the string theory equations. "But we started with the fact that mathematics is a human invention, meaning that we find the equations of the theory of excesses like we find the Big Bang.
Miracles
I will try to split the response into several parts and identify which part is the problem. The first part of the response did not go through. I am attaching the second part of it in the hope that there are no forbidden words.
Part 2:
Regarding your perception of man, it seems that it is even more confused, you write "Regarding goals in life - there is no contradiction between what I said and science. True, according to science there is no such concept as free will. This does not mean that everything is predetermined!!! ” Let's put randomness aside for a moment and assume that the world is deterministic later I will discuss randomness. In a world where everything is deterministic, do you have free will? The answer is of course no. In such a world, is everything predetermined in my opinion? even if four exclamation marks are used instead of three). On the other hand, if we now refer to randomness, even here you have no ability to influence the world except at given moments a die is thrown (of course it is an analogy and not an actual die) and its results determine how the world that includes you will develop. Your wishes have no ability to influence the outcome. So it seems that even in a world based on randomness you can't change anything, you just drift along with the randomness. Indeed you believe in a strange world, I don't understand how you even aspire to bequeath anything to your child since everything is either predetermined or determined by throwing a dice (an analogy again) that you have no control over.
Miracles
You probably missed my last response to your words. It was waiting for confirmation and appears in the middle of the previous page because of that. I must have used some forbidden words.
Miracles
You probably missed my last response to your words. It was waiting for approval and appears in the middle of the page because of that. I must have used some forbidden words. In any case, I will try to split it into several comments so that at least part of it will pass if you don't scroll to the middle of the page and you can read it.
First part (trial):
Despite your fears, no one tries to convince you that "God is a logical necessity." I just want you to examine your principles and the things you stand on before you criticize the beliefs of others.
I would like you to carefully examine what you write for example
"We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow field, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are laws regarding colors, for example, or regarding sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us."
But how do you know that something like electromagnetic radiation exists in the world? Maybe, as you claim about mathematics, it is also our invention? Are you saying that voice does not exist without humans? I would expect someone who claims to believe in science to claim that the existence of sound waves does not depend on the viewer or in this case the listener.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
walking death:
"You're a Jew? Do you believe in private supervision? (Not something personal, just out of need for a person with this worldview in the discussion)
- Yes, I am a Jew who believes in private supervision at the level: "The whole earth is full of His glory" (yes, even in the grain of sand in the sea)
"Ehud explains his concept of what God is (it can be read in quite a few previous comments here). Do you think he believes in God? Do you think his God is your God?”
- It's hard for me to find time to read Ehud's comments since he writes a lot, but if you could summarize his words in a line
I would be happy to comment, or I will look at it in my free time and respond.
Is there a meaning to the fact that you wrote God like this: God, or is it just a typo?
No, this is not a recording error - it is simply forbidden to write/say the name of God - I could also write God, but they would not understand.
Where to start studying his teachings? which book? Can't you give me a basic introduction? You understand so much about me, you must be able to explain something to me."
I would start with the ten conversations that contain important commandments between man and his fellow man, because the way of the land preceded the Torah and then
Advances to moral books, laws and Torah laws.
"If you don't read the manufacturer's instructions for the machine, you won't understand how it works and what its purpose is"
I'm confused. Is the machine the person, the world or God in this analogy? (I'm guessing that the operating instructions are a book or books, a Bible, a Mishnah, something like that?)
You guessed correctly the man is the machine and the manufacturer is the creator and the instructions are his books: Chomash+ Mishnah+ Gemara and especially moral books.
Can I please add a few more legs? Is there some law that says it must not be explained in clear language in an internet discussion?
If I'm not mistaken, the comment rules on the site don't allow using more than one nickname in a way that might confuse other readers into thinking they're talking to more than one person when they're actually talking to one person, so I recommend that you choose one name to comment on so that my father doesn't accidentally kick you out. (yeah, that's not something I'm interested in)
- Right - a religious reaction? - Since I don't want to sound like a preacher then? at the end
sympathetic
"I do not see scientific research as a method to develop man's understanding of himself" - to expand on what Woking said:
It is science that has shown us that man is a species like any other species, a development of evolution with very high chances of extinction. Science has shown that we are all equal.
Religion puts man above nature, and Judaism increases doing, and puts Jews above non-Jews, and men above women.
It is science that has shown us that we live on a small planet orbiting an average star in a random place in an average galaxy.
Religion puts us in a fixed place in space, on a flat earth when the whole universe rotates for our pleasure.
Science has tripled life expectancy in the last 200 years. It's a shame that the ropes of religion tied the hands of the scientists for so many years....
sympathetic
Here are the comments I was talking about -
As long as you do not solve the problem of whether such values exist outside of human thoughts, there is no point at all in bothering with questions such as what is order in a non-human sense. Until you show that order is a term that exists independently of human thoughts there is nothing to talk about order in a non-human sense at all.
Your claim about the smallness of man is stupid, because the smallness of man has nothing to do with the things you insist on tying them to. (It seems to me that Nisim demonstrated this beautifully) (and I have already mentioned it several times (but maybe it's just my hallucinations))
The definition of the secularity of miracles is indeed not acceptable to me (the way he formulated it). It seems to me that I clarified my position regarding the definition of secularism (I thought it was quite clear) and that it was already clear from my words that I do not perceive all religious people as one.
I didn't understand what you wanted to say with the hat, but above you is just one direction out of many directions, all of which have something to do with you. Why would anyone need a hat to remind them that there is something in this particular direction that is in no way more important than any other direction around them? I'm supposed to put on glasses to remind myself that there's something in front of me? I really accidentally might forget it. I should put on glasses.
"1. Do you think that science explains the world?"
This is a very interesting question. I think that science explains the world according to how we are able to notice/feel it. For example, describe to you a situation in which our senses were radically different, was our description of the world similar even then? Will the results of the scientific mechanism (assuming we are still able to think about it and apply it to an example) yield the same results?
"2. What is the relationship between the scientific models and the world, are they better and better relatives of true laws that dictate reality?"
First you have to answer the question of whether such real laws even exist. Second, as I already wrote, our results are close enough, and depending on our sensing capabilities.
"Am I understanding correctly that you think there are rules for the surrounding universe that dictate how it operates and what rules must be discovered?"
Considering what we notice around us, I think this is a reasonable option. I don't know if this is true. Regarding the need to discover them, this is already a point of personal preference. Practically it seems that it has advantages.
"you believe…"
That's not it. I understand that it is difficult for you to understand this because you are coming from a point of familiarity with a way of thinking in which faith is inherent. In a similar way, I find it difficult to understand the way of thinking of people who believe in things.
"Let me ask you, since you claim that your life is not based on faith, what in your life are you sure of beyond a doubt?"
in nothing What are you sure of beyond doubt?
"Let me ask you how you take your place in the world? What is your role or what do you strive to achieve?”
I exist in the world, this is all local. How do you take your place in the world?
My job is what I choose to define for myself, I am allowed to change this definition, and I am also allowed not to define one for myself, right now my job is to write this comment. what's yours
I strive to achieve all kinds of things but is it very dynamic? What are you aiming to achieve?
Why do you think these questions are even fateful?
"If all your values are derived from the society in which you live, then you are a rascal, drifting in the current, there is no chance that you will go against the values that society has established, because according to your opinion, that is how they are defined"
Where are your values derived from? Where did you come across them? Did they just spontaneously form in your thoughts?
The fact that your values are derived from society does not necessarily mean that you are carried away by the current, that you will adopt all the values of society, that you will not go against them, and that you will not process them into something else. Society is not a static thing with absolute values. In society there are many values, some of which are incompatible with each other. When you are exposed to some value you have the option to accept it, go against it, be indifferent to it, and change/distort it in a way that suits you. We will leave for now the possible reasons for your choice of one of the options, there are too many of them.
To illustrate, you are walking down the street with three friends, and you pass in front of a woman. One friend tells you wow how beautiful, a second friend says you are ugly, the third shrugs his shoulders. What's going on in your head? What thoughts go through there?
We live in a pluralistic society that actually consists of many different societies. You probably belong to no less than three different societies, whether you realize it or not. It is almost impossible to define a society where there is only one set of values that you adopt without choice.
"You unwittingly leave the concept that the universe can be understood and think that it is only a technological question"
No I do not. I'm just showing you the other side of the tree. You already know your side. I do not choose any of these sides because there is no basis for this or that choice, and this choice does not give anything.
"The concept I'm trying to convey to you is that by the very fact that man is limited, he cannot understand the world even in another billion years with the addition of amazing technology. I am talking about a principle at the level of a principle, man will not be able to understand everything and he must recognize that"
You've already repeated it dozens of times. I understood a long time ago. It's still a baseless perception, and it still doesn't mean or serve anything. I don't see how repeating it over and over again is supposed to change anything. (And I don't mean to offend)
"Do I have proof of this? No, but in my opinion there are enough indications"
What exactly are these indications? Where were they in the discussion until now?
"Your claim does not invalidate my claims. If there is nothing wrong with our thought, then it understands its own limitations, but on the other hand, the claim that our language is limited and has failures, and very soon I will refer to our thoughts as being based on language precisely proves my point that language will never be able to accurately describe the world because of its failures."
So you are saying that in the universe there exists a universal truth in it No Exists Something that is beyond human comprehension. The fact that there is a flaw in human language and thought that allows people to imagine/invent a concept of Something that is beyond human comprehension, says that actually in this universe Yes Exists Something that is beyond human comprehension.
Think about it again please (maybe I will too. Ah, our cursed language, so beautiful, so full of twists and turns. Wait, if it's a paradox I'm allowed to call it by my name?)
Shouldn't that imply to us that your definition of God - something that is beyond human comprehension - is an idea that is logically flawed in some way?
Sorry if this is unreasonable. I didn't sleep much last night.
____________
Another refinement (or a sleepless thought (in anticipation that the response awaiting approval will be approved))
Two sentences:
1. There will always be something that is beyond man's ability to understand.
2. There are still countless understandings that man still does not understand, that man will still be able to understand in the future.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Do you really think these sentences mean anything? That accepting one of these sentences as true gives rise to any value for the person?
Scientists are not engaged in solving questions that interest them from the insight that they once knew everything or that they once did not yet know everything.
sympathetic
"How do you determine what the concept of prayer is"
I do not determine. But a week or so ago someone here asked Nissim what he does if the parents of the abductees ask him to pray for their children. It doesn't seem to me that he meant to gloat about the beauty of the world when he asked this question. It is true that there are words that have several meanings, but the cases that lead to a lack of understanding are exactly the reason that in the end we create a distinction between concepts. The distance between the two definitions seems to me too great for the use of the same word. As I said, you disagree with my opinion. But if you manage to root this use in the company, I foresee problems.
"Do you also hold a child's concept of divinity according to which prayer is an appeal to a higher being who will respond to our requests similar to a child's request from its parents?"
I do not hold a concept of divinity (I do recognize that there are people who do). But many other people do seem to hold this concept of deity that you described. And these are exactly the people with whom you will encounter a problem when you use your concepts when you talk to them. You will talk about one thing and they will understand something completely different.
"In the same way, I think that the concept of divinity that I use is not my private one, but there are a certain number of people who advocate it"
Probably, but keep in mind that every time you talk to someone about God you have to explain to them what you mean. With all the gods in the world, it's pretty much something to do anyway.
"It's very easy to make a caricature of religion and then shoot arrows at it, but the concepts used in religion can be associated with a number of obviously different definitions."
There is a reason why each religion finds a different name for itself. Perhaps you now have an opportunity to give your religion a name.
"The human being is basically not a rational production, we act more on the basis of emotions which include fears, loves, hates"
These feelings are actually rationalizations, but whatever, it's not really important for the current discussion.
"The attempt to produce a completely rational society has failed many times."
example?
"As humans, we have many truths that cannot be proven quantitatively and according to which we lead our lives"
You are just describing beliefs here
"We conduct ourselves on a daily basis not according to scientific theories but according to personal experience that we acquire"
Personal experience that we acquire, or in other words observations
"In my opinion, the scientific worldview is a certain way of looking at the world, but it has no effect on how we manage or should manage our lives"
OK
You are saying here that we do not need an understanding of ourselves and the world around us in order to manage our lives. It may be true. People probably certainly lived before they started messing with science. Personally, it seems to me that quality girls on the world are the most significant in managing your life.
"You would like to hear if you think that you have led your life in a scientifically logical way"
I have already said that I do not base my life only on logical assertions. I don't think your life can be run in a completely logical way. The point of using logic is to improve your decision-making ability.
"Is that how you chose your partner?"
It wasn't entirely based on logic, but there were definitely logical points involved in choosing my partner. I think that's true for everyone.
"Is this how you chose your profession, where you will live, what you think is beautiful and much more?"
The fact that emotional elements enter into your choice does not mean that you cannot make a decision on a logical basis, your emotions are part of the variables that you need to take into account when you think about the decision in a logical way. This does probably make it completely logical, but what does it matter, the logic in these cases is a tool to improve your ability to make a decision that will supposedly be better for you.
"Do you notice that you are asking for a percentage answer to a question that is clearly not quantitative?"
You quantified the matter, don't try to spin it back on me.
"Just another small example, does science know how to appreciate beauty, art, a beautiful song? "
What is appreciating beauty? You see something as beautiful and another person sees it as not beautiful. This is a subjective value.
Science does deal with understanding what the human eye and brain perceive. But do you really want science to determine what is beautiful and what is not? Do you want to impose objective values on your subjective opinion?
"But they are the basis of our lives and not scientific truths."
The basis of our lives???????
Are you saying we have some kind of destiny?
Are you again asking to talk about finding happiness, not realizing that science doesn't deal with it at all?
"The main thing for me is spiritual development"
Understanding the universe in a better way is not spiritual development?
"I do not see scientific research as a method to develop a person's understanding of himself"
Too bad, there are a lot of very interesting insights that come from scientific research on man.
"In order to improve one's situation in the world, one needs to develop oneself spiritually"
Well we have reached the point where you have to explain what you define as spirituality
"Why do I claim that we need to develop spiritually because the fact that we are small and insignificant teaches us that we will remain so even if we accumulate knowledge, wealth, fame or information about the physical world"
I didn't ask why you need to develop spiritually.
Even the biggest things in the universe are insignificant, size doesn't matter here at all. Importance is a relative human value, it is relevant only within a certain context.
I asked for an explanation of the connection between spiritual development and the fact that our actions are small and insignificant compared to the universe. And I didn't find an answer to that in your opinion. Did I miss something?
"Generalizations are also the reason why science is not relevant to us in our everyday life beyond the technology it allows us"
It is likely that you probably use science every day on a regular basis without even realizing it.
"Science speaks in generalities and tries to obscure the specific details and our personal world is made up of these unique details and is therefore a little different for each and every person"
You once again begin to treat science as if it were an entity with a character and an agenda
sympathetic
"It is also possible to think of something perfect" - this is the basis of what is known as Amsalem's ontological argument. In mathematics there is a concept of "perfect", but what meaning does this word have, except as a generic adjective in human language? In the same way, you can also think of something blue. So what?
Prayer is defined as follows in Wikipedia - "Prayer is an appeal to a supernatural power (God or another), which is usually done by way of expressing a wish, or as a regular prayer as part of a religious ritual, an expression of thanks or even as a discourse, in which a person pours out his heart to the Supreme Being. Among the purposes of the prayer can be found a request for guidance and assistance, a confession of deeds and a request for forgiveness, as well as an expression of feelings and gratitude towards above. In Hebrew there are the expressions "outpouring of the soul" as well as "work in the heart" to express the essence of prayer. I don't think it's right to be like Humpty Dumpty and change the meaning of words to suit what you want. It's nice, but it forces you to provide a dictionary with everything you write, otherwise, except your God, who can understand you?
Ehud - in philosophy 101 you learn that existence cannot be proven in a rational way. It is not serious to say that everything we will never know will be called God, and after that we will deduce from them the attributes of this God.
Miracles
Despite your fears, no one tries to convince you that "God is a logical necessity." I just want you to examine your principles and the things you stand on before you criticize the beliefs of others.
I would like you to carefully examine what you write for example
"We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow field, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are laws regarding colors, for example, or regarding sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us."
But how do you know that something like electromagnetic radiation exists in the world? Maybe, as you claim about mathematics, it is also our invention? Are you saying that voice does not exist without humans? I would expect someone who claims to believe in science to claim that the existence of sound waves does not depend on the viewer or in this case the listener.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of non-mental particles" meaning you think that the non-mental particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
Then you write "In this world that I described - I say again - legalism shows that there is no God. An external entity has no meaning, in my understanding, if it does not cause things to happen contrary to the laws." . Now I tend to agree with you because in the previous sentences you claimed that legality is a human invention or are you trying to claim that there is legality that is not a human invention ie it exists in a world without people? Do you mean what I called order beyond human order? Are there laws of nature that we discover? Or is everything from origin?
Regarding your perception of man, it seems that it is even more confused, you write "Regarding goals in life - there is no contradiction between what I said and science. True, according to science there is no such concept as free will. This does not mean that everything is predetermined!!! ” Let's put randomness aside for a moment and assume that the world is deterministic later I will discuss randomness. In a world where everything is deterministic, do you have free will? The answer is of course no. In such a world, is everything predetermined in my opinion? even if four exclamation marks are used instead of three). On the other hand, if we now refer to randomness, even here you have no ability to influence the world except at given moments a die is thrown (of course it is an analogy and not an actual die) and its results determine how the world that includes you will develop. Your wishes have no ability to influence the outcome. So it seems that even in a world based on randomness you can't change anything, you just drift along with the randomness. Indeed you believe in a strange world, I don't understand how you even aspire to bequeath anything to your child since everything is either predetermined or determined by throwing a dice (an analogy again) that you have no control over.
Regarding your attempts to understand what I am saying, it seems that I am not able to clearly convey my perception to you. You are stuck in the concept of God as a kind grandfather who decides the fate of the world according to the actions of the people "If you believe in external reason - you have to ask why there is so much evil in nature . This is a serious question!!” Who even talked about external intelligence? Who even spoke of evil? And even if there is an external intelligence that is orders of magnitude greater than yours, do you think that what you call evil would also call it evil? For example, is an ant able to understand our world and claim that we do not exist because there is so much cruelty in its world? So your logic is not clear to me. There is no need to refer to the example of the ant because I do not see the deity as something that directs the fate of the mortals. Another sentence that proves that I did not express myself well is "If you believe that you have a role in the world determined by an external party, if you take care of yourself in the "world of the first", "I spoke about the world of the next about reward and punishment? Miracles you are stuck with a 5 year old god.
Regarding our ability to understand the world, apparently you don't distinguish between finite and infinite, you write "another small point... I don't expect one person to understand the universe. Human reason - and here I do say it - is not limited. Our minds can be based on the intelligence of others.” Many people it is still not infinite so a finite sum of finite sizes is still finite. In addition, you write "a cosmologist who studies the big bang can concentrate on one facet of the bang, and even then I'm sure he doesn't need to understand dedicand sections to work with the string theory equations. "But we started with the fact that mathematics is a human invention, meaning that we find the equations of the theory of excesses like we find the Big Bang.
walking dead
I see that we are starting to come together, you write "man is all a part of the universe." There is no point in separating him from him.
There is nothing greater than man. There is nothing smaller than man. It has no greater or lesser importance than anything. Importance is a human perception. ". True, I definitely agree that man, by separating himself from the rest, invented concepts that are only human in this concept of separation from the world and in the concept of the self as a separated entity. It is also possible to talk about something greater than man in this concept. It is also possible to think of something perfect while man is partial, but it is true that the origin of these concepts Both in the separations we perform.
Regarding what Shanai claims "Prayer = an expression of bewilderment at the beauty of the world."
More new language definitions that are completely different from the current usage of the terms? Isn't it better to use/invent new concepts?” How do you determine what the concept of prayer is? Do you also hold a child's concept of divinity according to which prayer is an appeal to a higher being who will address our requests similar to a child's request from its parents? Equally I think that the concept of divinity that I use is not my private one but there are a certain number of people who advocate it. It is very easy to make a caricature of religion and then shoot arrows at it, but the concepts used in religion can be associated with a number of distinctly different definitions.
You write that determining your world based only on what can be proven quantitatively gives an advantage because "this has one practical advantage, which is to reduce the chance that you will act in a nonsensical way that will not benefit you and may even harm you (and on the social level, harming another as well, since it is also equivalent there to harming yourself) . And my intention here is more on the level of relying on senses and measurements instead of relying on imaginary ideas that make us feel good about ourselves." At its core, man is not a rational production. We act more on the basis of emotions, which include fears, loves, hatreds. The attempt to produce a completely rational society has failed many times. As humans, we have many truths that cannot be proven quantitatively and according to which we lead our lives. We conduct ourselves on a daily basis not according to scientific theories but according to personal experience that we acquire. In my opinion, the scientific worldview is a certain way of looking at the world, but it has no effect on how we lead or should lead our lives. Would you like to hear if you think that because you have led your life in a scientifically logical manner, is that how you chose your partner? Is this how you chose your profession, where you will live, what you think is beautiful and much more?
I hope that what I wrote before answers your question ""From the starting point of human smallness, I find what we can prove logically or quantitatively in measurements to be something negligible and ridiculous compared to reality"
how? Do you have data on how much we can prove logically or quantitatively in measurements compared to the data in reality? By any percentage? Do you understand how meaningless this claim is?" Do you notice that you are asking for a percentage answer to a question that is clearly not quantitative? Just another small example, does science know how to appreciate beauty, art, a beautiful song? But they are the basis of our lives and not scientific truths.
As for your question ""The main thing for me is spiritual development and the understanding that our actions are small and insignificant compared to the universe" where is the connection between these two things?" I do not see scientific research as a method to develop man's understanding of himself. In order to improve his situation in the world, man needs to develop himself spiritually, and such development is not related to the accumulation of knowledge about the laws by which the inanimate world behaves, and such laws have nothing to help us deal with day-to-day life. Why do I claim that we need to develop spiritually because the fact that we are small and insignificant teaches us that we will remain so even if we accumulate knowledge, wealth, fame or information about the physical world.
Finally, in the context of a secular society versus a religious society, of course I was speaking in generalities, but that's the only way to have a discussion. Would you like me to specifically mention each person in a certain society and how they behave. Generalizations are also the reason why science is not relevant to us in everyday life beyond the technology it allows us. Science speaks in generalities and tries to blur the specific details and our personal world is made up of these unique details and is therefore a little different for each and every person.
Regarding my comment about "I'm still waiting for a response from the time you said you wouldn't be able to respond for the next three days, but I guess I should stop waiting." Please be more specific and ask your question explicitly. I'm a bit short on time and I don't have time to go through the old comments again and try to answer a specific question that I didn't answer.
A religious response
Coffee Feast –
________________________
Religious plus minus/religious reaction
Welcome to the discussion.
I get your comment about heavy religious. There was a reason I wrote it that way "heavies". It meant people with a more traditional religious view (private supervision, etc.).
If you are already here I would appreciate it if you could answer a few questions.
You're a Jew? Do you believe in private supervision? (Not something personal, just out of need for a person with this worldview in the discussion)
Ehud explains his concept of what God is (it can be read in quite a few previous comments here). Do you think he believes in God? Do you think his god is your god?
Is there a meaning to the fact that you wrote God like this: God, or is it just a typo?
Where to start studying his teachings? which book? Can't you give me a basic introduction? You understand so much about me, you must be able to explain something to me.
"If you don't read the manufacturer's instructions for the machine, you won't understand how it works and what its purpose is"
I'm confused. Is the machine the person, the world or God in this analogy? (I'm guessing that the operating instructions are a book or books, a Bible, a Mishnah, something like that?)
Can I please add a few more legs? Is there some law that says it must not be explained in clear language in an internet discussion?
If I'm not mistaken, the comment rules on the site don't allow using more than one nickname in a way that might confuse other readers into thinking they're talking to more than one person when they're actually talking to one person, so I recommend that you choose one name to comment on so that my father doesn't accidentally kick you out. (yeah, that's not something I'm interested in)
Miracles
Despite your fears, no one tries to convince you that "God is a logical necessity." I just want you to examine your principles and the things you stand on before you criticize the beliefs of others.
I would like you to carefully examine what you write for example
"We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow field, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are laws regarding colors, for example, or regarding sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us."
But how do you know that something like electromagnetic radiation exists in the world? Maybe, as you claim about mathematics, it is also our invention? Are you saying that voice does not exist without humans? I would expect someone who claims to believe in science to claim that the existence of sound waves does not depend on the viewer or in this case the listener.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
Then you write "In this world that I described - I say again - legalism shows that there is no God. An external entity has no meaning, in my understanding, if it does not cause things to happen contrary to the laws." . Now I tend to agree with you because in the previous sentences you claimed that legality is a human invention or are you trying to claim that there is legality that is not a human invention ie it exists in a world without people? Do you mean what I called order beyond human order? Are there laws of nature that we discover? Or is everything from origin?
Regarding your perception of man, it seems that it is even more confused, you write "Regarding goals in life - there is no contradiction between what I said and science. True, according to science there is no such concept as free will. This does not mean that everything is predetermined!!! ” Let's put randomness aside for a moment and assume that the world is deterministic later I will discuss randomness. In a world where everything is deterministic, do you have free will? The answer is of course no. In such a world, is everything predetermined in my opinion? even if four exclamation marks are used instead of three). On the other hand, if we now refer to randomness, even here you have no ability to influence the world except at given moments a die is thrown (of course it is an analogy and not an actual die) and its results determine how the world that includes you will develop. Your wishes have no ability to influence the outcome. So it seems that even in a world based on randomness you can't change anything, you just drift along with the randomness. Indeed you believe in a strange world, I don't understand how you even aspire to bequeath anything to your child since everything is either predetermined or determined by throwing a dice (an analogy again) that you have no control over.
Regarding your attempts to understand what I am saying, it seems that I am not able to clearly convey my perception to you. You are stuck in the concept of God as a kind grandfather who decides the fate of the world according to the actions of the people "If you believe in external reason - you have to ask why there is so much evil in nature . This is a serious question!!” Who even talked about external intelligence? Who even spoke of evil? And even if there is an external intelligence that is orders of magnitude greater than yours, do you think that what you call evil would also call it evil? For example, is an ant able to understand our world and claim that we do not exist because there is so much cruelty in its world? So your logic is not clear to me. There is no need to refer to the example of the ant because I do not see divinity as something that directs the fate of God's mortals. Another sentence that proves that I did not express myself well is "If you believe that you have a role in the world determined by an external party, if you take care of yourself in the "next world", "I was talking about the next world about reward and punishment? Miracles you are stuck with a 5 year old god.
Regarding our ability to understand the world, apparently you don't distinguish between finite and infinite, you write "another small point... I don't expect one person to understand the universe. Human reason - and here I do say it - is not limited. Our minds can be based on the intelligence of others.” Many people it is still not infinite so a finite sum of finite sizes is still finite. In addition, you write "a cosmologist who studies the big bang can concentrate on one facet of the bang, and even then I'm sure he doesn't need to understand dedicand sections to work with the string theory equations. ” But we started with the fact that mathematics is a human invention, meaning that we find the equations of string theory like we find the big bang.
Miracles
Despite your fears, no one tries to convince you that "God is a logical necessity." I just want you to examine your principles and the things you stand on before you criticize the beliefs of others.
I would like you to carefully examine what you write for example
"We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow field, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are laws regarding colors, for example, or regarding sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us."
But how do you know that something like electromagnetic radiation exists in the world? Maybe, as you claim about mathematics, it is also our invention? Are you saying that voice does not exist without humans? I would expect someone who claims to believe in science to claim that the existence of sound waves does not depend on the viewer or in this case the listener.
In addition, you try to explain and write "Humanity has systems of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles" meaning you think that the elementary particles that are a product of mathematics (which you claimed is a human invention) are reality, while the input of our senses is an illusion? Nissim, you claim that the religious concept has no logical basis, but I find it very difficult to find logic in your words.
Then you write "In this world that I described - I say again - legalism shows that there is no God. An external entity has no meaning, in my understanding, if it does not cause things to happen contrary to the laws." . Now I tend to agree with you because in the previous sentences you claimed that legality is a human invention or are you trying to claim that there is legality that is not a human invention ie it exists in a world without people? Do you mean what I called order beyond human order? Are there laws of nature that we discover? Or is everything from origin?
Regarding your perception of man, it seems that it is even more confused, you write "Regarding goals in life - there is no contradiction between what I said and science. True, according to science there is no such concept as free will. This does not mean that everything is predetermined!!! ” Let's put randomness aside for a moment and assume that the world is deterministic later I will discuss randomness. In a world where everything is deterministic, do you have free will? The answer is of course no. In such a world, is everything predetermined in my opinion? even if four exclamation marks are used instead of three). On the other hand, if we now refer to randomness, even here you have no ability to influence the world except at given moments a die is thrown (of course it is an analogy and not an actual die) and its results determine how the world that includes you will develop. Your wishes have no ability to influence the outcome. So it seems that even in a world based on randomness you can't change anything, you just drift along with the randomness. Indeed you believe in a strange world, I don't understand how you even aspire to bequeath anything to your child since everything is either predetermined or determined by throwing a dice (an analogy again) that you have no control over.
Regarding your attempts to understand what I am saying, it seems that I am not able to clearly convey my perception to you. You are stuck in the concept of God as a kind grandfather who decides the fate of the world according to the actions of the people "If you believe in external reason - you have to ask why there is so much evil in nature . This is a serious question!!” Who even talked about external intelligence? Who even spoke of evil? And even if there is an external intelligence that is orders of magnitude greater than yours, do you think that what you call evil would also call it evil? For example, is an ant able to understand our world and claim that we do not exist because there is so much cruelty in its world? So your logic is not clear to me. There is no need to refer to the example of the ant because I do not see the deity as something that directs the fate of mortals. Another sentence that proves that I did not express myself well is "If you believe that you have a role in the world determined by an external party, if you take care of yourself in the "next world", "I was talking about the next world about reward and punishment? Miracles you are stuck with a 5 year old god.
Regarding our ability to understand the world, apparently you don't distinguish between finite and infinite, you write "another small point... I don't expect one person to understand the universe. Human reason - and here I do say it - is not limited. Our minds can be based on the intelligence of others.” Many people it is still not infinite so a finite sum of finite sizes is still finite. In addition, you write "a cosmologist who studies the big bang can concentrate on one facet of the bang, and even then I'm sure he doesn't need to understand dedicand sections to work with the string theory equations. ” But we started with the fact that mathematics is a human invention, meaning that we find the equations of string theory like we find the big bang.
Resurrection of the dead or walking death on loan:
It's hard to keep up with the pace of responses, so I miss responses that pile up here and it's hard for me to find them in the sea of clutter in this post since I'm not immediately available to review the changes here, I'd be happy if you could repeat your response to me...
Nissim: So basically randomness is: the ignorance of all the factors operating in the equation of our world, if I understood correctly.
Like unexpected behaviors in quantum mechanics that cause irrational phenomena, the cooled cube equation, etc...
sympathetic
You wrote "If I base my life on a belief that cannot be logically proven or disproved, is my life wasted?"
It depends on what you believe. I will explain my view of life again (full disclosure - I don't always manage to live according to this view). I argue that we should leave behind a better world for future generations. It's not our role - because we don't have a role. Nobody pays us a salary for these things. My logic is simple - if everyone behaved as I say, we could already live in a much better world. Think what the world would look like if a large part of what has been invested so far in the arms industry was invested in education and health and helping the needy?
If you believe that you have a role in the world determined by an external party, if you worry about yourself in the "next world", if you behave towards those who do not believe in your God, or are not from your religion - then yes, I think that in a certain sense, you are wasting your life .
Ehud - I have religious friends who invest in the future of humanity much more than I do - and maybe it's precisely because of their faith. I have no reason to think you are not acting as I say. There are those who love football, there are those whose whole lives are dedicated to playing the violin and there are those whose lives are built around religion. No problem if that. I'm just saying that in my opinion, the most important thing for a person is to think about future generations.
I will not convince you that there is no God, do not try to convince me that God is a logical necessity. This is an invalid argument in advance.
sympathetic
Man is a part of the universe. There is no point in separating him from him.
There is nothing greater than man. There is nothing smaller than man. It has no greater or lesser importance than anything. Importance is a human perception. The universe is not an entity. The universe does not hold the concept of this thing being more important than that thing. The universe is also no more or less perfect than man. Perfection is also a human concept that has nothing to do with the universe.
The supposed smallness and marginality of man is relative. In relation to the entire universe, the actions of a human being have no meaning. In relation to the person next to him it can have quite a bit of meaning and influence and the smallness and marginality of the person will be a little smaller than usual.
Prayer = an expression of astonishment at the beauty of the world
More new language definitions that are completely different from the current usage of the terms? Isn't it better to use/invent new concepts?
"Is there any point in determining our life and essence only according to what we can prove quantitatively or logically?"
This has one practical advantage, which is to reduce the chance that you will act in a nonsensical way that will not benefit you and may even harm you (and on the social level also harming another, since it is also considered harming yourself). And my intention here is more on the level of relying on senses and measurements instead of relying on imaginary ideas that make us feel good about ourselves.
"If I base my life on a belief that cannot be logically proven or disproved, is my life wasted?"
Technically yes, because they are wasted anyway. On a personal level you may be able to experience a feeling of lack of waste.
The situation is also no different if you base your life on a belief that can be disproved. In this respect, you might as well choose a completely unfounded belief. For example, try to develop a divinity complex, you'll see that it doesn't really change anything in that sense.
"From the point of departure of the smallness of man, I find what we can prove logically or quantitatively in measurements as something negligible and ridiculous compared to reality"
how? Do you have data on how much we can prove logically or quantitatively in measurements compared to the data in reality? By any percentage? Do you understand how meaningless this claim is?
"Do you base your life only on logical assertions?"
No. It's a bit difficult when most of your life is managed quite automatically by your body.
"Is a life based on faith necessarily nonsense?"
No, it's probably even a pretty good choice for human consciousness. This is simply a problematic choice in the context of understanding reality as it is.
"If we are simply adapted to the society in which we live as you write, what are your claims against religious people who were born in a religious society?"
Who said I have complaints against them? The fact that I think that their perception of reality is flawed by many errors, and that their situation and the situation of societies in the world might improve if they sobered up from their misconceptions, does that mean that I have complaints against them?
"You look at a company from the perspective of power and its exercise"
Not only that, it is definitely one element. That just happened to pop into my head when I wrote that comment. There are many more elements, it just doesn't seem really related to me, and that I started to grind on things that are not related to the matter in question, so I stopped.
"I look at a company as a collective that is not strongly interested in large projects or technological progress"
It is not about big projects or technological progress. It is about anything that one person cannot do alone. If people did not need other people there would be no society.
"The main thing for me is spiritual development and the understanding that our actions are small and insignificant compared to the universe"
Where is the connection between these two things?
The fact that our actions are small and insignificant compared to the universe is quite clear to anyone who pays attention to the size of the universe (volumetric and temporal), this is not some big, mysterious, and deeply meaningful discovery. (As mentioned, it's not as if the rest of the universe has any importance)
"From this point of view, my perception is more similar to the perception of religious societies where there is mutual help and learning compared to the secular society where, in my opinion, there is rapacity and a lack of mutual respect"
I will try to remember this the next time I just help a person even though I am not part of a religious society, and then refrain from doing so because I am supposed to be part of a predatory and disrespectful society.
or in other words. Do you understand that these are just your prejudices about religious societies and secular society (as if it is one such society and there are actually not many different societies like this)?
"The most important development in my opinion is spiritual and not physical"
The physical and the spiritual in us are not really separable. I'm pretty sure you know that.
What exactly do you claim will make our lives more meaningful?
I'm still waiting for a response from the time you said you wouldn't be able to respond for the next three days, but I guess I should stop waiting.
sympathetic
Please don't put words in my mouth. I, unlike other people, do not know the future. I don't know if man can explain everything that happens in the universe.
Mathematics is our invention. The laws are mathematical, and they are an increasingly better approximation of what is happening in the universe. These laws are our invention, they are our way of describing the world. I can imagine a different intelligence, for example - that you assume that the universe is discrete and that you never develop differential calculus. From the beginning - everything with them will be simulated on the computer in a discrete way.
Our models are an approximation of the world spread by us. We see electromagnetic radiation in a narrow range, and we have laws that roughly describe the behavior of this radiation. There are rules about colors for example, or about sound - but these are things we feel, and do not exist without us.
I will try to rephrase: humanity has sets of laws that describe what we feel - and not an absolute reality. I see in front of me a computer screen, and not the collection of elementary particles, and the devil knows what else, that make up the screen. This is what I mean when I say that in reality there is no screen.
In this world I described - I say again - legalism shows that there is no God. An external entity has no meaning, in my understanding, if it does not cause things to happen against the laws.
Regarding goals in life - there is no contradiction between what I said and science. True, according to science there is no such concept as free will. This does not mean that everything is predetermined!!! How did you get that Ehud? My opinions are constantly determined depending on the internal state of my brain + input from the outside. Where is the problem here? I don't freely choose to believe what I said, but I still believe it.
I am willing to accept that not everything is deterministic - but only on the condition that the other factor is random (random in the sense of atomic disintegration, not lack of knowledge). For illustration only - imagine that thermal noise causes a small change in the timing of signals in the synapses, and such changes made me guess a certain number in the lottery and not another number.
You sometimes amaze me with your trouble thinking, forgive me for that, but it's amazing. I wasn't talking about property or money - I was talking about a better world for my children. This is expressed in their education, expanding their imagination, and imparting values. It also includes "material" things like protecting nature - I really want my children to see whales in the wild, like I got to see.
You talked about marveling at nature as a goal. A very puzzling sentence. What a wise person asks himself is, what makes me admire nature? What is beautiful about sunrise? If you believe in external intelligence - you should ask why there is so much evil in nature. This is a serious question!!
Regarding our reason in front of a computer. I did not say that the mind is not limited - you make a claim, so stand by it. Just - you never stand behind what you say - so I'll explain what I mean. You said that it is not possible to know the position of the particles in the room. It's true - and I know the numbers, humble as you are. And that is irrelevant.
I will say again what I said - of course our mind is finite, therefore our ability to understand is finite. Will our limitation prevent us from understanding the universe? Only you probably know, I must be small.
I say the human mind is not as limited as a computer. A computer is an approximation to a Turing machine and has limitations. In particular, there are problems that a computer can never solve. Our mind, in my opinion, is not like a Turing machine, and other limitations apply to it. If it interests you - the brain model I believe in is based on the o-machine, an invention of Turing's own.
And another small point... I don't expect one person to understand the universe. Human reason - and here I do say it - is not limited. Our minds can be based on the intelligence of others. A cosmologist studying the big bang can concentrate on one facet of the bang, and even then I'm sure he doesn't need to understand dedicand sections to work with the string theory equations. And I hope you can also agree that a biologist who studies evolution does not need to understand string theory.
walking dead
My basic distinction between those who believe in God and atheists or complete secularists is in the concept that man is not the measure of everything. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a person admits that there is something greater than the person, he believes in a certain type of divinity. Divinity for me is the universe without man and without his translation in human terms of language. Our limited senses and our limited intelligence prevent us from a comprehensive perception of reality and we create approximate models of it.
Once we have agreed that there is something greater than man and more perfect than limited man, we can check what is derived from this Archimedean starting point. In my opinion it is derived from it that all our achievements and actions as human beings are small and marginal and the main essence of our essence can be expressed in wonder at the universe around us. Some express this wonder through what is known as prayer. Not a prayer to God created by a 5-year-old boy, a good wish-fulfilling grandfather, but an expression of bewilderment at the beauty of the world.
But let's approach another question for a moment. Is there any point in determining our life and essence only according to what we can prove quantitatively or logically? If I base my life on a belief that cannot be logically proven or disproved, is my life wasted? From the point of departure of the smallness of man, I find what we can prove logically or quantitatively in measurements as something negligible and ridiculous compared to reality. Do you base your life only on logical assertions? Is a life based on faith necessarily nonsense? If we are simply adapted to the society in which we live as you write, what are your claims against religious people who were born in a religious society? They act according to the rules of their society and if man is the measure of everything there is nothing wrong with that.
You look at society from the perspective of power and its exercise. I look at a company as a collective that is not strongly interested in large projects or technological progress (I don't see it as wrong either, but it is not the main thing). The main thing for me is spiritual development and the understanding that our actions are small and insignificant compared to the universe. From this point of view, my perception is more similar to the perception of religious societies where there is mutual help and learning compared to the secular society where, in my opinion, there is rapacity and a lack of mutual respect. The important development in my opinion is spiritual and not physical. The fact that we live longer and get sick less is nice, but it does not make our lives more meaningful. The fact that we can move freely from one place to another is also nice and so is the ability to communicate, but what is important is why we travel where we travel and what we have to say, not the fact that we can do it more easily. Therefore, in my opinion, in many ways the world is not progressing but retreating.
Miracles
You claim that the laws of nature are human inventions "I think the laws of nature are the invention of man" and also "I don't think there is a concept of absolute reality. There are observations and there are models that try to explain the observations. I don't know if we'll ever get to a point where we'll find a model that explains everything." But a model is close and I ask you close of what? By the way, in your argument you actually agree with me that man will not arrive at a model that explains everything, but then you write "I know it sounds strange - but I think that legalism shows that there is no God. If we have laws that can describe to us exactly what is happening in the universe, then there is no place for God. ” It does sound strange, it seems that you are contradicting yourself. Try to decide whether there are laws that do not depend on the person we are trying to discover or whether we are inventing laws. By the way, I see the existence of the laws as part of God's existence. The fact that it can be argued that there is a non-human order in the world that man, due to his limitations, can only partially discover shows that there is something greater than man.
Another contradiction I find in your words is the following, you write "What is the purpose of the secular in life? I will answer on my own behalf. I have about 80 years to live. My main goal is to leave behind a better world for my children." But on the other hand, you pretend to be a rational person who believes in science and what it says about the world, therefore you must be aware that you have no free will and your actions are determined, so how do you set goals for yourself in life when these are already predetermined?
By the way, from my understanding of God, I do not believe in leaving a better world behind. I believe that our actions have no meaning. When we realize how small we are, we realize that the actions of acquiring wealth or power really have no meaning and that the main "task" of ours is to be impressed by the wonders of the world and the wonderful order revealed to us. . The world exists and it is also the world of our children, the true development is spiritual and not by leaving more or less money for our children we really have no influence on the world, maybe at most we have a partial influence on other people.
And again to the side question regarding my claims about the finitude of man, you ask me "Our finitude is not related to our intelligence at all - our finitude is only in the timeline. I see your concept of brain disability as an empty concept without you explaining the limitations - without waving your hands. We know exactly what the limitations of computers are, and we don't know about every limitation of the human mind. Do you think otherwise? Please speak in numbers.” . First, how do you determine that our Sufism is not related to our intelligence? You probably know that a computer can only solve those problems that can be solved in a finite time, that is, the finite time of the calculation operations that are accessible to a calculating machine affect what it will be able to calculate. In the same way our finitude limits our ability to describe the world. For example, we cannot describe the movement of all gas particles in a room, so we are content with an approximate description of thermodynamics or a more basic description of statistical physics. Do you really need numbers I will be happy to provide them to you. The one who waves his hands and states that the human mind has no limitations is you, please model it. You are ignorant because the human brain actually has limitations in the amount of memory in the ability to process data, so please give a logical reason for your claims.
Atheist
Where exactly did you state any fact?
A religious response
Can I please get a response to the questions I asked you?
religious response[?]
Randomness does not necessarily contradict legality. In many cases randomness is ignorance of the laws. Throwing a die is random because I don't know how to calculate all the equations of motion to find what value the die will land on, and I don't know exactly the starting conditions and the environmental data in an exact way. An asteroid hitting the earth seems random to us due to lack of knowledge
.
Another sense of randomness is more philosophical - assuming that there are continuous variables in our universe then there is no way to know the value of these variables with absolute precision.
A third sense is true randomness - nuclear fission of carbon-14 for example. Here maybe there is room for God's intervention? Maybe. The problem is that this God is very limited. If we give him 2 kg of carbon-14 then he has to break down very close to 5,730 kg after XNUMX years - then laws also apply to God.
There are other real random phenomena, and therefore the state of the universe today is definitely random - assuming that there really are real random phenomena, of course).
miracles,
But the impression I get from posting atheists -
is that there are no rules in the universe and everything is a product of randomness
So it is implied from your claim that randomness entails the existence of another factor in the equation (because there is no legality)
Therefore, from an atheist point of view, it is better to accept the approach of legality over randomness, and here you are wise to point it out, it's just a shame that many atheists don't claim like you.
A religious response
I know it sounds strange - but I think that legalism shows that there is no God. If we have laws that can describe to us exactly what is happening in the universe, then there is no place for God. Assuming we know the rules - we can know for sure what is going to happen in the future. If some of the laws include randomness (as is thought today) then we can know what the future states can be, and the probability of each state (think of rolling a dice).
I am not saying what the source of the laws is, nor am I saying that we will ever know them all. But, I think only illegality can imply something that is outside the laws.
Think about the issue of free will. If everything follows rules then there is no free will. If there is free will - then we, as humans, are also outside the laws, or in religious language - we have a soul.
Atheist
Don't confuse my logic with your lack of understanding. So far you haven't said anything worthwhile.
Does everything eventually boil down to the question of whether there is legality in the universe and if there is legality does it indicate a lawgiver.
Or that intelligence is in the eye of the beholder, that is, you can see a complex process as a process that requires a component and you can look at it as a random process and then ask if the randomness is planned and is actually not random and thus an endless bluff until the brain runs out.
Dear troll
God also has eight hundred definitions. This does not mean that such a thing exists.
If you have no interest in teaching, stop interrupting and sit aside quietly. You rambled on a lot and didn't mention any fact other than 2=1+1, and that had nothing to do with anything either. Everything else is just typical trolling.
One of the ways to test how much you understand something, is how you are able to explain it. Given your ability to explain, you probably don't really understand what you think you understand.
Wookie
I don't need to define what secularism is. The definition already exists. You just don't know her apparently.
Miracles
Learn to write logically first.
Besides, I have no interest in teaching you. I just stated facts. that's it.
Dear troll
I am not closed to myself. If you don't read comments why do you even bother to comment. stop making things up.
If you are interested in making a claim in the discussion, you should justify it if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise anyone can just throw out sentences and imagine they are true. If you don't want to reason with her, you can expect not to be taken seriously. When you don't explain anything, it's considered without reasoning. Please continue not to explain or reason, it is very helpful. If you are interested in defining secular beauty, let's hear and discuss it. If not, why are you entering this discussion and talking about this point.
Floating floating above the platform/ detheist
Which of my claims do you disagree with?
Your claim about the great scientists who believe in God shows that you think there are great scientists... Aren't there great scientists who don't believe in God?
Wookie
So you would say that you are not closed to yourself.
Secondly, you don't need everyone to explain to you that one plus one equals two. What is needed is for you to understand why it is worth two. And you still don't understand.
Dear and respected troll
I do not call myself secular. You are welcome to read the responses to this article in full and find in them a full explanation of my views on the matter.
Where do you see that I admit that I don't know what secularism is? I just wanted to hear what you think about it. I thought maybe you had something to contribute too. Unfortunately I was wrong.
Woking Plutus
You admit that you don't understand what secularism is, but you call yourself secular and brag about it in public.
Miracles
I actually don't take care of my car that well, sometimes I even think that I would actually rather not have a car.
Religious plus
Well? Did you see the idiot's reaction?
Miracles
Your understanding of God is at the level of a 5 year old child.
Maybe when you grow up you will understand why even the great scientists believed and believe in God.
Religious plus minus/religious reaction
Welcome to the discussion.
I get your comment about heavy religious. There was a reason I wrote it that way "heavies". It meant people with a more traditional religious view (private supervision, etc.).
If you are already here I would appreciate it if you could answer a few questions.
You're a Jew? Do you believe in private supervision? (Not something personal, just out of need for a person with this worldview in the discussion)
Ehud explains his concept of what God is (it can be read in quite a few previous comments here). Do you think he believes in God? Do you think his god is your god?
Is there a meaning to the fact that you wrote God like this: God, or is it just a typo?
Where to start studying his teachings? which book? Can't you give me a basic introduction? You understand so much about me, you must be able to explain something to me.
"If you don't read the manufacturer's instructions for the machine, you won't understand how it works and what its purpose is"
I'm confused. Is the machine the person, the world or God in this analogy? (I'm guessing that the operating instructions are a book or books, a Bible, a Mishnah, something like that?)
Can I please add a few more legs? Is there some law that says it must not be explained in clear language in an internet discussion?
If I'm not mistaken, the comment rules on the site don't allow using more than one nickname in a way that might confuse other readers into thinking they're talking to more than one person when they're actually talking to one person, so I recommend that you choose one name to comment on so that my father doesn't accidentally kick you out. (yeah, that's not something I'm interested in)
______________
Atheist
Thank you for your great contribution to the discussion. You are welcome to explain to me what secularism is. I am always happy to learn new things.
Religious wherever you are
I suggest you remember the story of Russell's cock. There was a farmer who raised a chicken. Every day he fed him, protected him and took care of all his needs. The rooster was happy. One day - the farmer beat his head and made a wonderful soup from it for all his friends.
And you answer together "Kokuriko".
Religious plus minus
You are talking about Judaism. For every 1000 people in the world there are 2 Jews. In terms of the number of believers - a negligible number by all accounts. Religious is not the same as Jewish. The secular ones are at least consistent…..
Religious plus minus
What you said is shocking to me. You claim we have a purpose. Sounds nice - but note that the purpose is not the machine's, the purpose is always the machine's creator.
At least, my car, even though its purpose was determined by me, and when I get tired of it I will grind it to dust, enjoys its existence - because I take good care of it. If God exists - why is he so cruel to the creatures he created? Why do most of them live in fear and die in terrible suffering?
Just a shocking belief in my opinion. I immediately run to clean dust from my beloved car. I am so jealous of him…
Religious plus plus
Justice is with you. But you explain it to someone who doesn't even know what secularism is. It's a waste of your time.
Walking Death
There is no such thing as religious burdens, it is said about the Torah that its ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace, as soon as the religion is heavy for you
So you are not on the right track.
Another thing, if you are really interested in bringing what you need to God, then start studying His Torah.
If you don't read the manufacturer's instructions for the machine, you won't understand how it works and what its purpose is.
And it's on one leg.
Walking Death
There is no such thing as religious burdens, it is said about the Torah that its ways are pleasant ways and all its paths are peace, as soon as the religion is heavy for you
So you are not on the right track.
Another thing, if you are really interested in bringing what you need to God, then start studying His Torah.
If you don't read the manufacturer's instructions for the machine, you won't understand how it works and what its purpose is.
And it's on one leg.
Miracles
I completely agree that our understanding depends on our senses, our measurements, and our ability to think, but that is not the question that Ehud is asking.
He is not asking about our laws, he is asking if there are universal laws that are not ours and are disconnected from our being. And do some (and which part) of our laws reflect these laws (if they exist (and in his perception they do exist)) accurately.
walking dead
Consider that the laws depend on your ability to measure. Until 1000 years ago it was thought that the speed of light was infinite. The orbits of the planets were epicyclic and divergent - until the measurements of Tycho Braha. The universe was once static, until measurements revealed the expansion.
sympathetic
You still haven't provided a good justification for using the concept of God for this view.
What you have not explained is how and whether this concept of God has any meaning at all.
These indications are not satisfactory because we do not know how they will change over time.
We also do not know whether the physical and scientific theories are simply a consequence of human perception and thinking or whether they indeed also exist independently, and how and if at all they do represent the universe accurately.
I have already answered several times that although it is an interesting question, I do not know how to answer it and if we even have the tools to answer it. I don't think we are allowed to choose an answer (here or there) that is not based on anything, just to have an answer to a question we don't know the answer to.
This is a question that you insist on choosing an answer to, when as of this moment (at least to my knowledge) we do not have the tools to answer it.
I also don't think that Nissim is right when he chooses to answer this answer by saying that the laws are the invention of man. (In a certain sense he is justified because this is indeed how we define the laws, but that is not really the question you are asking)
"Rational thought is limited compared to the complexity of the universe is my basic rule"
And we know it because? And the implications of that for how to build a humane society are?
We can start a discussion about social principles and what we see as the right way to build a society, but that is already a discussion that has nothing to do with what we have dealt with so far. I also don't know if there is right or wrong here, because what suits one person does not necessarily suit others, and part of the factors of what suits a certain person is the society in which he grew up, since we are creatures who adapt and adapt ourselves to the environment in which we live.
Some social questions that come to my mind.
concentration of power. On a certain level, the basis of a company's existence, a problematic point. On the one hand, when you center a lot of power, you can implement large-scale projects that contribute to the lives of multitudes of people. On the other hand, these projects can also easily be projects that destroy the lives of masses of people (eg wars as the simplest example). In most human societies right now it turns out that we give a small group of people power to decide about many different things when we actually want to give them power to do a number of certain things while we don't necessarily agree with the other things they intend to do, we just agree with them more than we agree with the other people who were about to receive this power, or we give them the power as a compromise when we give up doing certain things that we are not interested in for other things that we do want to do. Is it possible to find a way in which people can unite only around the execution of a certain project that they consider important in its existence (a type of global Kickstarter company)? Would it be better than our current commitment to inclusive government systems? Do people even want to live like this? Can people be trusted to make the right decisions? How do you bring people to a level of education where they can be trusted to make the right decisions? What are right decisions anyway? Does it even have an ideal or is it at the level of choice depending on the situation?
the value of life We proceed from the premise that people want to live, and therefore one should not harm people's lives no matter who they are. For some reason historically it seems very easy to break this value. The threat that someone intends to break this value is enough for another party to be ready to break it as well and sometimes even be ahead of the performance element.
Well less than two points and it seems to me that I'm starting to grind. So I'll stop at least for now. If there is interest, we may continue.
sympathetic
Our finitude has nothing to do with our intelligence - our finitude is only in the timeline. I see your concept of brain disability as an empty concept without you explaining the limitations - without waving your hands. We know exactly what the limitations of computers are, and we don't know about every limitation of the human mind. Do you think otherwise? Please speak in numbers.
What is the purpose of the secular in life? I will answer on my own behalf. I have about 80 years to live. My main goal is to leave behind a better world for my children. Imagine if our ancestors had a similar goal - what wonderful world would we live in today? And think what a terrible world we will leave for our children.
My secondary goal in life is to die with a maximum of positive experiences and a minimum of negative experiences. Another secondary goal is to understand as much as possible.
sympathetic
I think the laws of nature are the invention of man. At any time throughout human history, there is a model (models) of the universe that are described by systems of laws. Take Newton's equations or Maxwell's equations or the standard model or general relativity - a set of basic assumptions + a set of laws.
I don't think there is a concept of absolute reality. There are observations and there are models that try to explain the observations. I don't know if we'll ever get to the point where we'll find a model that explains everything.
Human knowledge today is unfathomable. 300 years ago we thought that life was created spontaneously (yes - even in Judaism they thought so). Today we look to the greatest possible distance, and see the smallest parts that we assume exist. 300 Dana Ehud - where will we be in 30,000 years? You know …. I do not. And you call me immodest?
Miracles and walking death
Since there have been questions about what I mean, I repeat again. The concept of God stems from the fact that man is a limited finite being with a finite ability to think and calculate and therefore will never be able to understand the universe in all its complexity. Not the beginning, not the complexity of a living organism, not consciousness. The understanding that there is something greater than man is for me the concept of God.
Why do I claim that man will not be able to understand the universe in all its complexity:
Simply because the history of knowledge teaches us that the amount of open questions does not decrease with time and physical theories and other scientific theories contain internal contradictions. And to return again the main reason for my claims is that man is limited in his thinking and his ability to calculate.
Regarding your claims regarding order that is not human as you each wrote in turn "Until you show that order is a term that exists independently of human thoughts there is nothing to talk about at all about order in a non-human sense." (walking death) or ""there is order but not in the human sense ” – order exists only in the human sense. " (Miracles). I would like to find out with you whether the order in the universe that science discovers is only a human order, that is, it exists only in our heads or whether man discovers laws that already exist in the still world without his existence. In another language, are the laws of nature the invention of man or are they independent of his existence?
When I try to examine what is the basis on which I would like to establish a human society and what is the meaning I see in the existence of human beings and in addition what is the basis for morality I think that the rule that man is finite, rational thought is limited compared to the complexity of the universe is my basic rule. It can also be called the assumption of the existence of God (not in the personal sense of 5-year-old children). I would be happy to hear what is the criterion according to which you believe that a secular society should be conducted. If you reject the concept of a secular society, I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what, in your opinion, is the basic rule or rules on which human culture and society must be based, or what the fundamental principles are for such a society.
Miracles
In my understanding, this lack of understanding is not specifically linked to the beginning.
Excellent, now I'll pretend that this tiny difference in our understanding of Ehud's argument is as important as anything else, and all we have to do is wait thousands of years for Ehud to come back and clarify what he really meant. In the meantime prepare your armies for hundreds of wars. 🙂
walking dead
I think we know how to explain quite well what is happening in the universe today, and we are getting better at it. I understood from Mahud, that he thinks we will never understand how it all started. Maybe I'm wrong. For the lack of understanding he calls God...
Miracles
Ehud does not claim that there was once a God and now there is none. The God he claims for is a thing like his due to the fact that man will never be able to reach a complete understanding of the universe. Or at least that's what he said about 17 (invented number without sources) times.
Now we start a long religious war over our interpretation of Ehud's definition of God. 🙂
walking dead
Small correction - Ehud claims that there was something in the past. I did not understand from his words that he believes that God still exists.
Miracles
I didn't mean that there aren't secularists who believe (in the sense of belief) that there is legality to what is happening in the world. I meant that this feature is not what makes them secular.
I have encountered many so-called religious people with a variety of very strange and different beliefs, so it is difficult for me to identify with the statement that they all believe that there is another order, which we are not exposed to (although this probably does hold for a large part of the religious population). There are those who live with the understanding that there is no other hidden order, but nevertheless live with a concept of divinity that is supposedly forced upon them. I couldn't get an explanation from anyone that actually explained it to me, so I can't say that I understand it (I don't, it seems completely nonsensical to me).
This may be a good diagnosis at the mainstream level (or stereotype) but I don't think it is universally accepted.
One of the unclear things for me is this need for God which is meaningless, just for there to be God, or to be able to say that there is God.
The "heavy" religious people may believe nonsense without a realistic basis, but at least there is some sort of coherence in their way of life. Their God is defined, and they know what he is, what he wants from them, and what they should give him (represented in a somewhat extreme abstraction of the idea).
Ehud says that there is a God from a lack of definition, that there is nothing to know about him other than that he exists, that nothing can be known about him other than his existence, and that it is necessary to infer from this existence through some behavior.
Then he presents this way of behaving and you discover (unsurprisingly given that this God has no meaning) that there is no connection between this supposedly desirable behavior and the existence of this God.
___________________________________
sympathetic
Okay, take your time. There are more interesting things in life than discussing science.
Walking Death
Religious belief is a very broad concept. I meant only one aspect. I think that every secular person (who is not a complete ahabel) believes that there is legality to what is happening in the world, and he also believes that this legality can be investigated. A religious person believes that there is another order, which we are not exposed to.
I don't see a problem with what I said. I do think that this is not a bad diagnosis between secularism and religiosity. I think these are opposites - unlike the terms theist and atheist which are not opposites (in the sense that orange and non-orange are not opposites).
walking death and miracles
Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to respond in the next three days due to lack of free time. apologies.
sympathetic
Another refinement (or a sleepless thought (in anticipation that the response awaiting approval will be approved))
Two sentences:
1. There will always be something that is beyond man's ability to understand.
2. There are still countless understandings that man still does not understand, that man will still be able to understand in the future.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Do you really think these sentences mean anything? That accepting one of these sentences as true gives rise to any value for the person?
Scientists are not engaged in solving questions that interest them from the insight that they once knew everything or that they once did not yet know everything.
Miracles
I didn't understand if your response was in response to my question or not and if so then I didn't understand how.
It is not clear to me why you got the impression that I have difficulty finding a difference between religiosity and secularism. But I do not agree because a secular person believes that the world is ordered and that its complexity can be explained with the help of a set of laws. This may be a definition for something else that, in my opinion, is not related to secularism. Not every secular person is concerned with explaining the world to himself (not every religious person either), the majority probably don't bother with these matters at all. In fact, most religious people probably don't even believe in the things they supposedly teach. It is very difficult to explain their daily behavior if they really believe in the things they are supposed to believe in.
Therefore defining it in blanket generalizations is extremely problematic.
_________________________
sympathetic
As long as you do not solve the problem of whether such values exist outside of human thoughts, there is no point at all in bothering with questions such as what is order in a non-human sense. Until you show that order is a term that exists independently of human thoughts there is nothing to talk about order in a non-human sense at all.
Your claim about the smallness of man is stupid, because the smallness of man has nothing to do with the things you insist on tying them to. (It seems to me that Nisim demonstrated this beautifully) (and I have already mentioned it several times (but maybe it's just my hallucinations))
The definition of the secularity of miracles is indeed not acceptable to me (the way he formulated it). It seems to me that I clarified my position regarding the definition of secularism (I thought it was quite clear) and that it was already clear from my words that I do not perceive all religious people as one.
I didn't understand what you wanted to say with the hat, but above you is just one direction out of many directions, all of which have something to do with you. Why would anyone need a hat to remind them that there is something in this particular direction that is in no way more important than any other direction around them? I'm supposed to put on glasses to remind myself that there's something in front of me? I really accidentally might forget it. I should put on glasses.
"1. Do you think that science explains the world?"
This is a very interesting question. I think that science explains the world according to how we are able to notice/feel it. For example, describe to you a situation in which our senses were radically different, was our description of the world similar even then? Will the results of the scientific mechanism (assuming we are still able to think about it and apply it to an example) yield the same results?
"2. What is the relationship between the scientific models and the world, are they better and better relatives of true laws that dictate reality?"
First you have to answer the question of whether such real laws even exist. Second, as I already wrote, our results are close enough, and depending on our sensing capabilities.
"Am I understanding correctly that you think there are rules for the surrounding universe that dictate how it operates and what rules must be discovered?"
Considering what we notice around us, I think this is a reasonable option. I don't know if this is true. Regarding the need to discover them, this is already a point of personal preference. Practically it seems that it has advantages.
"you believe…"
That's not it. I understand that it is difficult for you to understand this because you are coming from a point of familiarity with a way of thinking in which faith is inherent. In a similar way, I find it difficult to understand the way of thinking of people who believe in things.
"Let me ask you, since you claim that your life is not based on faith, what in your life are you sure of beyond a doubt?"
in nothing What are you sure of beyond doubt?
"Let me ask you how you take your place in the world? What is your role or what do you strive to achieve?”
I exist in the world, this is all local. How do you take your place in the world?
My job is what I choose to define for myself, I am allowed to change this definition, and I am also allowed not to define one for myself, right now my job is to write this comment. what's yours
I strive to achieve all kinds of things but is it very dynamic? What are you aiming to achieve?
Why do you think these questions are even fateful?
"If all your values are derived from the society in which you live, then you are a rascal, drifting in the current, there is no chance that you will go against the values that society has established, because according to your opinion, that is how they are defined"
Where are your values derived from? Where did you come across them? Did they just spontaneously form in your thoughts?
The fact that your values are derived from society does not necessarily mean that you are carried away by the current, that you will adopt all the values of society, that you will not go against them, and that you will not process them into something else. Society is not a static thing with absolute values. In society there are many values, some of which are incompatible with each other. When you are exposed to some value you have the option to accept it, go against it, be indifferent to it, and change/distort it in a way that suits you. We will leave for now the possible reasons for your choice of one of the options, there are too many of them.
To illustrate, you are walking down the street with three friends, and you pass in front of a woman. One friend tells you wow how beautiful, a second friend says you are ugly, the third shrugs his shoulders. What's going on in your head? What thoughts go through there?
We live in a pluralistic society that actually consists of many different societies. You probably belong to no less than three different societies, whether you realize it or not. It is almost impossible to define a society where there is only one set of values that you adopt without choice.
"You unwittingly leave the concept that the universe can be understood and think that it is only a technological question"
No I do not. I'm just showing you the other side of the tree. You already know your side. I do not choose any of these sides because there is no basis for this or that choice, and this choice does not give anything.
"The concept I'm trying to convey to you is that by the very fact that man is limited, he cannot understand the world even in another billion years with the addition of amazing technology. I am talking about a principle at the level of a principle, man will not be able to understand everything and he must recognize that"
You've already repeated it dozens of times. I understood a long time ago. It's still a baseless perception, and it still doesn't mean or serve anything. I don't see how repeating it over and over again is supposed to change anything. (And I don't mean to offend)
"Do I have proof of this? No, but in my opinion there are enough indications"
What exactly are these indications? Where were they in the discussion until now?
"Your claim does not invalidate my claims. If there is nothing wrong with our thought, then it understands its own limitations, but on the other hand, the claim that our language is limited and has failures, and very soon I will refer to our thoughts as being based on language precisely proves my point that language will never be able to accurately describe the world because of its failures."
So you are saying that in the universe there exists a universal truth in it Does not exist Something that is beyond human comprehension. The fact that there is a flaw in human language and thought that allows people to imagine/invent a concept of Something that is beyond human comprehension, says that actually in this universe Yes there is Something that is beyond human comprehension.
Think about it again please (maybe I will too. Ah, our cursed language, so beautiful, so full of twists and turns. Wait, if it's a paradox I'm allowed to call it by my name?)
Shouldn't that imply to us that your definition of God - something that is beyond human comprehension - is an idea that is logically flawed in some way?
Sorry if this is unreasonable. I didn't sleep much last night.
sympathetic
Pay attention to a few things you said:
"There is order but not in the human sense" - there is order only in the human sense. You can't invent new definitions for words, even though you do it over and over again. What you are doing is adapting the language to your needs. It's like saying "there is good in the world but not in the human sense"... Dhahaha
"A hat comes to remind you that there is something above you" - what is above you? Something you don't understand? I don't understand why people enjoy watching football. A hat in Judaism has a completely different meaning, and it is the same meaning as a Druze mustache and a beard (and lack of a beard) among the Amish.
You also distort the word "faith". Are you really comparing your belief in God to my belief that I have beer in the fridge? It is clear that everyone believes in things - even animals believe in things. But this is not what is meant by religious belief, is it?
"If all your values are derived from the society in which you live, then you're just drifting with the current, there's no way you'll go against the values that society has established because according to your opinion, that's how they are defined" - that's exactly how I see religious people 🙂 If you eat kosher - isn't that a determination of your society? Kippah on the head? Circumcision?
And again - all the substantiation for your claim is insanely delusional - you assume that the universe cannot be understood, without any sliver of substantiation. And after that, again without substantiation, you conclude from the fact that God exists.... Understand - to a secularist, this claim is simply a joke: I assume that there is nothing specific that limits humanity's understanding of the universe, and I do not hear a large group of scientists who have reached your wonderful insight and stop You are in their research.
What I do hear is a person who assumes there is a God and tries to conform the world to his belief. Sometimes he pins his hopes on the refutation of evolution, and sometimes on the theories of cosmology. And after that he explains how good it will be if we all believe in God...
sympathetic
You wrote that if everyone believed in God then it would be better. As far as I know, religion has led to many, many wars and terrible injustice in the world. I think exactly the opposite of you, as I said before - the understanding that there is no God is the one that will make it clear to a person that he is alone and he has to take care of himself and his descendants. There is a famous saying in the world of aviation: when you have a communication failure - "You are on your own, no one knows your situation, therefore - act logically"...
sympathetic
I don't think it is necessary to invent a concept of "God" to show man how insignificant he is. And I understand from your words that God is all about what we don't know. All that needs to be understood is that we live on a lonely planet in the worst part of the Milky Way, and that each of us will live about 80 years. It has nothing to do with the infinity of the universe. In my understanding, the believers are the ones who do not perceive this, and for every secularist this is self-evident.
Because we are careless, everyone should think about what they are doing with their lives. And it's not a simple question - you don't know when you'll really have 80 years to do everything you want. Many things do not depend on you, and probably the most influential factor is luck...
Regarding infinity. You use this concept however you like, and make sure not to give it a precise definition - time? space? The number of particles? The number of modes? The number of shows? Now - I understand from you that you are talking about the timeline. Today we think the universe is accelerating. We don't understand why it's accelerating, or why we think it's accelerating... so it's probably not possible to state with certainty that this expansion will continue forever. This is a puzzling statement from a person like you, who constantly preaches that we will never understand the universe...
I personally think the universe is discrete. Therefore, necessarily the calculation power of the brain is limited. But I don't understand exactly what the connection is between the terms "understanding" and "calculation power". You honestly can't imagine an infinite universe (in any sense you want) that is completely unfathomable? I'm not talking about our universe, but about a hypothetical universe, let's say the universe mentioned in the Torah, or the universe of the classical Greeks.
My meaning of "everything in the head" is this: all kinds of adjectives we give to phenomena, such as beautiful, hot, blue and salty - but things that are in the mind. As I said - you don't have to answer the question why the sky is blue, you have to think about why we see the sky as blue? Why do we see colors? Why do we see at all?
The idea can also be expanded. We all know there are chairs. But imagine a production a billion times smaller than us or a billion times larger. They will experience the same chair in a completely different way - both of them will not define a chair as a piece of furniture that is used to sit on.
walking dead
The concept that I am going against is the one that Nissim describes well "The difference between religiosity and secularism is quite clear. A secular person believes that the world is ordered and that its complexity can be explained with the help of a set of laws, including the explanation of these laws themselves. A religious person believes that there is no order. "
First of all, it is absurd to claim that a religious person believes that there is no order. For me, belief in God is the belief that there is order, but not in the human sense, belief in God is the belief that we will never be able to arrange everything and explain everything through a finite set of laws, from which the smallness of man is derived. I assume that a secular's definition of miracles does not apply to you, so please correct me, but the perception of all religious people as one piece is also outrageous in the same way (it is true that some religious people wear a hat, but not all of them, even though the hat comes to remind you that there is something above you).
Forgive me if I don't address your entire answer in detail and jump from topic to topic until I get tired. I'll start from the end with science. You suggested that I direct questions to you about your perception of science if I have any then:
1. Do you think that science explains the world?
2. What is the relationship between the scientific models and the world, are they better and better relatives of true laws that dictate reality?
You write "I personally see science as a mechanism that people use to try to understand how the universe around them works."
Am I understanding correctly that you think there are rules for the surrounding universe that dictate how it operates and what rules must be discovered?
Now I will go back to the beginning I wrote "No. I don't believe one bit. This is probably the difference you don't understand or are willing to accept. the mental conduct without the mental mechanism of belief." This is a sentence that knocked me off my chair. You believe in so many things. You believe that the South Pole exists even though you haven't been there (I guess). You believe that if you turn on the faucet, water will come out. You believe that the sun will rise tomorrow or at least you lead your life based on this assumption. Let me ask you, since you claim that your life is not based on faith, what in your life are you sure of beyond doubt?
Regarding your statement "I see no justification for thinking that there are absolute imaginary values of what justice and beauty are and we as people have to adjust ourselves to these imaginary values that we don't even know what they are. Society's definitions of what beauty and justice are have an effect on what society looks like, and when society chooses any values of beauty and justice it should think about what effect this choice will have on society. Let me ask you how you take your place in the world? What is your role or what do you aim to achieve? If all your values are derived from the society in which you live, then you are a rascal, drifting in the current, there is no chance that you will go against the values that society has established, because according to your opinion, that is how they are defined.
Regarding what you write about understanding the universe "Will man be able to reach an understanding of the entire universe? I don't know if man (as humanity as a whole, or as a single individual) will be able to reach an understanding of the entire universe. This could be a possible or impossible option but I don't have enough data to answer one way or the other. I don't know how people will look a hundred years from now (or a thousand years or more) and what possible technological integrations might exist that would improve man's abilities and by how much, nor do I think there is anyone else today who knows. I don't even know if there will be people in another hundred years (or twenty)." You unwittingly leave the concept that the universe can be understood and think that it is only a technological question. The concept I'm trying to convey to you is that by the very fact that man is limited, he cannot understand the world even in another billion years plus amazing technology. I am talking about a principle at the level of the principle, man will not be able to understand everything and he must recognize that. Do I have proof of this? No, but in my opinion there are enough indications for this.
Regarding your last comment "it may be by the way, that the thought that there is something that cannot be thought about (or the thought that there is something that is beyond words and that cannot be fully understood) is a product of a failure in our language and our way of thinking. And in the universe itself there is no such thing at all." Your claim does not invalidate my claims. If there is nothing wrong with our thought, then it understands its own limitations, but on the other hand, the claim that our language is limited and has failures, and soon I will treat our thoughts as being based on language precisely proves my point that language will never be able to accurately describe the world because of its failures.
Miracles,
Correcting the mistake in the sentence "I said that God is responsible for reward and punishment in the world because he cares about us and how we treat him." There was of course a question and it should have been written "I said that God is responsible for reward and punishment in the world because he cares about us and how we treat him?" Or more precisely "I did not say that God is responsible for reward and punishment in the world because he does not care about us and how we treat him." sorry for the confusion.
Miracles
First to a minor topic but in answer to your question:
""First of all we know that the universe according to observations is accelerating therefore it is necessarily infinite". I don't think it's right. First, you need to define in what sense infinite is. The number of particles? Its existence time? the size? I don't see how you deduce any of these because today the universe appears to us to be an accelerator.”
. It was you who strongly argued that my claim for an infinite universe contradicts Einstein's opinion. So a little history. When Einstein determined that the universe is finite, he introduced a cosmological constant into his theory to balance gravity so that the resulting universe would be static and finite. In retrospect, some say that Einstein called the introduction of the cosmological constant into his theory the biggest mistake of my life. Today we know that the universe is accelerating (that is, there is a cosmological constant different from zero) and since the acceleration is stronger than the force of gravity according to the understanding today, the universe will tend to expand in time, that is, in terms of the 4 dimensions, 3 space and time, the universe is infinite and that is what I meant.
Now to your request "please, stop with the so-called innocent statement "God is the understanding that there is something beyond man". The word God is not innocent at all, and you know that very well." Indeed, according to your perception, the word God refers to an old grandfather with his accounts that counts good and bad deeds. As you know, there are other perceptions of the concept of God. It can be seen that you continue to hold the concept of God from the age of 5. You write "I see much more evil in the world than good. Most of the creatures in the world die in terrible agony. The more the creature is developed - the agony only increases." I said that God is responsible for reward and punishment in the world because he cares about us and how we treat him. You personify the concept of God and its abstraction. There are indeed many people who have remained with the same concept of God since the age of 5, but for me God is the understanding that we will never understand everything and that rationality has limits. In my opinion, when people realize how small and important they are and how little they understand in their short life time, then there will be less wars in the world and less injustice and suffering, so that in practice, if everyone believes in God it will be a better world, but the thing that needs to be done does not apply to the concept of humanization.
I didn't understand your argument, if everything is in our head, does there also exist a reality outside of it? What do you think of the scientist? Finally, I don't know if the mind is a Turing machine or not, I also tend to think that it is not, but the calculation ability of the human brain is still limited, or is that also what you are disputing?
Price Tag
In connection with "Enlam Mesed" - how is what you wrote different from what I wrote? Order in the world means that it is possible to explain the phenomena that are happening, and also to predict that these phenomena will occur in the future.
Regarding consciousness - there are many things outside of consciousness, such as the position of the sun in the sky. And there are phenomena that are only in the mind, like a beautiful sunrise in winter. What I'm saying is that we don't need to explain why the sunrise is beautiful, we need to explain why we feel it is beautiful.
sympathetic
As I wrote to Woking, if there was anything outside the physical world then we should see effects in the nature of these things. Do you know such a phenomenon, which is proven to have no physical explanation?
The same goes for the beginning of the universe - do you know a phenomenon that certainly cannot have a physical explanation?
Miracles,
Where does the idea come from that "a secular person believes that the world is ordered and that its complexity can be explained with the help of a set of laws". Being light years away from any religion, I declare that I do not believe in any such thing. I assume, I don't believe, I assume that as human knowledge improves and increases, people will be able to better explain the world and its phenomena, and this will not lead to the recognition that "the world is in order". But I equally assume that there will always be things that cannot be explained, especially things related to consciousness.
You wrote to Ehud, "There is no beauty in the world. Beauty is a human feeling (qualia if you want to call it that). There are also no voices in the world, no colors and no tastes. Everything is in our head." What is in our head, and in the worm's head and in the heads of other people with consciousness, these are actual parts of the world. Because those with consciousnesses act and change the world according to their consciousnesses, and not in isolation and as if the consciousnesses do not exist. And these are things that I doubt will ever have an explanation.
Walking death
The difference between religiosity and secularism is quite clear. A secular person believes that the world is ordered and that its complexity can be explained with the help of a set of laws, including the explanation of these laws themselves. A religious person believes that there is no order. I will explain what I mean.
In some religions there is a concept of a soul. A soul is something that affects the signals in the brain, so there is a situation where there are signals in the brain that there is no verifiable explanation for these signals. This is also the case in physics, religious people believe that forces act on the particles whose origin we will never understand.
I see no reason to think that is the case. I see that science is progressing and very far from reaching the "limit of knowledge".
Miracles
"We know today that there are things we will never know - and it can even be proven that we will never know them"
If my memory serves me correctly, you hold that the universe is completely deterministic.
I wonder how you reconcile it with that?
sympathetic
Sorry this is going to be long (and my partner is going to kill me, but she's at a conference, so she can't do anything to me right now)
"Primarily secularism definitely needs a definition because it is a much more complicated concept than religion."
Please define for me a person without a hat. Do you think all secularists hold the same views? Do you think all religious people hold the same views? Secularism is a fiction. This is a way for people who are used to associating people with religions, to group a "group" of people who do not possess this feature into something they are comfortable living with.
"Do you believe that man is the measure of everything as a secularist, ie beauty, truth, justice are only human concepts?"
No. I don't believe one bit. This is probably the difference you don't understand or are willing to accept. the mental conduct without the mental mechanism of belief.
Are beauty, truth, justice only human concepts?
Not necessarily. Any thinking creature may produce similar or identical concepts. As to the identity of these things as universal truths, see the value of the natural numbers. I don't know any evidence base that can be used to answer this? I would be very happy to know a way to answer this, but I don't.
Beauty is subjective, and there are also social and cultural definitions of beauty that vary between cultures to the same extent that the perception of beauty varies from person to person, if I remember correctly we already touched on that.
Justice, like beauty, is a social, subjective concept. And in a certain sense subjective also individually.
Each person has a different perception of beauty and justice, and it is very easy for everyone to think they are right, but the question is in the meaning of these perceptions.
I see no justification for thinking that there are absolute imaginary values of what justice and beauty are and we as people have to adjust ourselves to these imaginary values that we don't even know what they are. Society's definitions of what beauty and justice are have an effect on how society looks, and when society chooses any values of beauty and justice it has to think about what effect this choice will have on society.
Truth is a bit more problematic. Here the question is whether this is indeed the case or not, so that there may indeed be an absolute truth. But there may be a situation where there are things for which the answer is not whether it is indeed so or not. It must be remembered that there are seam points in our language that impair our ability to find any absolute truth (see paradoxes), which makes me doubt that there really is such an absolute truth. In practice we probably don't really know any absolute truth, and in fact our truths are kind of close enough. Perhaps this should also hint to us that there is actually no such truth.
"As a secularist, do you believe that man is the measure of everything?"
See previous answer (or maybe I don't understand what you mean when you say that man is the measure of everything)
"Do you believe that man will be able to come to an understanding of the entire universe?"
same as above.
Will man be able to come to an understanding of the entire universe? I don't know if man (as humanity as a whole, or as a single individual) will be able to reach an understanding of the entire universe. This could be a possible or impossible option but I don't have enough data to answer one way or the other. I don't know how people will look a hundred years from now (or a thousand years or more) and what possible technological integrations might exist that would improve man's abilities and by how much, nor do I think there is anyone else today who knows. I don't even know if there will be people in another hundred years (or twenty).
"These questions are answered simply by a religious person, while a secular person must define how he perceives the person in front of the universe"
I don't know if that's true. I would also expect a religious person to think about such things and define how he perceives himself in front of the universe, by nature of being human. But if you are right, this is probably the biggest problem with being a religious person. There are no simple answers here and to answer it in a simple way is foolishness, and a lack of thought.
"As a secularist, please explain to me how you perceive man's position in the universe?"
Man is a creature that exists in the universe
"Does he have a purpose or is his existence haphazard?"
If he wants to designate a destination for himself. As far as the universe is concerned, it probably doesn't matter and its existence is haphazard. Personally, socially and physically, his existence can have a meaning that he chooses as its destination, whether this meaning is an illusion or not.
"Are his goals defined only by the society he lives in?"
Depends on his freedom to define his goals. In fact, why would he necessarily have goals at all?
"Is there anything above him that is not a human consent that he must obey?"
You mean something non-imaginary? Because also human agreements are in fact an imaginary object? Basically all gods are also imaginary human consent.
Most of the time we mainly listen to our body. I think I don't understand your point in this question.
__________________________________________________
I state that understanding is dynamic from a private and global historical reality. Are you interested in imagining that there is a situation where people reach a point of equilibrium (or saturation) of understanding reality? Okay, maybe such a situation is possible in some future, but we are not there. Why do you think that inevitably when we reach such a situation there will be a situation where there are things that cannot be understood, and how is this thing more grounded than the imagination you attribute to miracles that when we reach this situation we will simply know everything?
"There can be something that is incomprehensible and it is permanent because it is incomprehensible, no matter how much we understand it will still be out of bounds"
Absolutely, it could be. There could be a whole world of such things. But what is the basis for stating that such a thing necessarily exists?
Is the concept "something that cannot be understood" even a concept that can be understood?
"Note that I did not claim that God is everything that is beyond understanding, therefore your question "when man understands.... something?" It is an unfounded claim"
She is supposed to be unfounded. The point is that until you have understanding you have no difference or how to differentiate.
"God for me is the understanding that it will never be possible to rationally understand the whole world around us no matter how much we wait, learn and develop. The fact that man is limited is the basis for understanding the existence of God."
But this is an emotional assertion that is not based on anything concrete. We don't know if this is true or not. It also doesn't mean anything (again, even though you already routinely ignore the fact that saying there is something we don't understand and will never understand doesn't mean anything).
"The understanding that we can never know everything and therefore the inference that there is something that is beyond our thoughts does not mean that the same thing is in our thoughts and vice versa. This is evidence of the existence of the same thing without its definition"
The understanding that we will never be able to know everything is based on lack of evidence (yes, as well as the understanding that we will someday understand everything). This all-important understanding of yours is merely a belief. What is the point of this or that belief? Both faith in your understanding and faith in the assumption you attribute to miracles contribute to nothing. Both at most create fertile ground for confirmation bias.
This inference is meaningless. There is something beyond our thoughts, the universe. Our thoughts do not perceive him exactly as he is. This is because our thoughts depend on our senses, and our senses are not built to perceive the universe as it is, they are built to perceive it in a way that allows us to exist.
The ability to think about something is not evidence of the existence of the thing you thought about.
Mathematics is a language that describes an imaginary world (or worlds) that does not exist in reality (or at least in the reality we experience), but it turns out that this imaginary world probably has many points of overlap with our world. That still doesn't mean the world she describes exists.
______________________
"It seems that you do not understand the main point and the island or that man is the measure of everything and culture determines what is justice, what is beauty and what is truth or that there is something beyond man that is the criterion for these concepts"
Is that the main point for you? These criteria have no meaning as universal values, especially when you put their determination in the hands of human thoughts.
Justice and beauty are part of a whole world of social values that influence the conduct of society. They have meaning and influence when you want to live in some society that is run in some way. You can play with these values to create a variety of companies that will behave in different ways and act in different ways, and it doesn't matter at all if there is a universal ideal value for them, the only significant question is the choice of the company that adopts them. A single person has no need for them, they are meaningless to him. The universe itself has no need for them.
_______________________________
"Because you disagree, I understood the science. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how you see the science. In my opinion, an answer like science is what scientists do is an evasive answer that Yana adds information."
When exactly did I give you such an answer?
I personally see science as a mechanism that people use to try to understand how the universe around them works.
"What are scientists trying to achieve in their research?"
All kinds of different things that are usually related to understanding how the universe works either out of curiosity or out of a need to solve some problem. Or more precisely some part of it or some mechanism in it, up to some level of accuracy that is considered close enough at that point in time, or to solve the problem.
"What belief about the world is necessary to be a scientist?"
no faith There is conduct under any assumptions, but if these assumptions turn out to be incorrect, they must be abandoned.
"Since you disagree with my claims, I would appreciate it if you explained your position to me."
I thought that was what I was doing. I mostly disagree with your perception of science as an entity with an agenda and character.
If you have any more questions about the science that you think might help you understand my position, ask, and I'll answer.
It's a little funny to me that you see yourself as a believer in God, but if you explain to religious people what your God is, they probably won't see you as a person who believes in God. It seems to me that you should think about this when you choose to define your God as God.
________________________
Something to think about:
Incidentally, it may be that the thought that there is something that cannot be thought about (or the thought that there is something that is beyond words and that cannot be fully understood) is a product of a failure in our language and our way of thinking. And in the universe itself there is no such thing at all.
sympathetic
"First, we know that the universe according to observations is accelerating, therefore it is necessarily infinite." I don't think it's right. First, you need to define in what sense infinite is. The number of particles? Its existence time? the size? I don't see how you deduce any of these because today the universe appears to us to be accelerating.
Please, stop with the supposedly innocent statement "God is the understanding that there is something beyond man". The word God is not innocent at all, and you know it very well. What do you mean "beyond human"? That there are things we will never understand? We know today that there are things we will never know - and it is even possible to prove that we will never know them. What is between this and God??
I see much more evil in the world than good. Most of the creatures in the world die in terrible agony. The more the creature is developed - the agony only increases.
There is no beauty in the world. Beauty is a human feeling (qualia if you want to call it that). There are also no voices in the world, no colors and no tastes. It's all in our head. Therefore - if you admire this beauty, you miss this point, and it is very fundamental to me. I'll give you an example - you don't have to admire the beauty of a rose, you have to think what's going on in your head to think that the rose is really beautiful.
I wrote "will be the topic of the PhD"... There was no…. There is a difference unfortunately... The subject is complex, but my argument, in part, is that there are machines with computational capacity beyond Turing machines, and that the mind is indeed such a machine. Turing himself came up with the idea but did not develop it. At the beginning of the research I already showed that there is a fundamental difference between a design process and an evolutionary process - and now the intention is to show that the same difference exists between a normal computer and a brain.
sympathetic
It seems to me that you missed a fraction of the answer to me in the response to miracles.
""That God exists only in man's thoughts. Isn't that the opposite of what you mean to claim?" I also hope you are aware that your claim has no logical basis. To explain look at the claim I am aware that there is something outside my house, does that mean that what is outside my house is in my mind?"
What's outside your house is outside your house but where is your awareness?
You said God is The understanding Because man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial
Where exactly is understanding supposed to exist if not in one's thoughts?
If you wanted to claim that God is the existential reality, that man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial, then claim that and nothing else
walking dead
First, secularism definitely needs a definition because it is a much more complicated concept than religion. Do you believe that man is the measure of everything as a secularist ie beauty, truth, justice are only human concepts? As a secularist, do you believe that man is the measure of everything? Do you believe that man will be able to reach an understanding of the entire universe? These questions are answered simply by a religious person, while a secular person must define how he perceives man in relation to the universe. As a secularist please explain to me how you perceive man's position in the universe? Does it have a purpose or is its existence casual? Are his goals defined only by the society in which he lives? Is there anything above him that is not a human consent that he must obey?
From where do you state "things that cannot be understood is something that is subject to change depending on the understanding that changes all the time, and complete understanding is something that can easily be argued to not exist even the simplest thing you can imagine." There can be something that is incomprehensible and it is permanent because it is incomprehensible, no matter how much we understand it will still be out of bounds.
Note that I did not claim that God is all that is beyond understanding therefore your question "When man understands things more fully does your God become smaller?" Or maybe simply man is unable to reach a full understanding of anything and then God is everything? Does it have any meaning at all? Does that mean something?” It is an unfounded claim. God for me is the understanding that it will never be possible to rationally understand the whole world around us no matter how much we wait, learn and develop. The fact that man is limited is the defeat for understanding the existence of God.
Regarding your claim "You are actually saying here that God only exists in the thoughts of man. Isn't that the opposite of what you mean to claim?" Again, the logic of understanding is problematic because we can never know everything and therefore the inference that there is something that is beyond our thoughts does not mean that the same thing is in our thoughts and vice versa. This is evidence of the existence of the same thing not its definition.
Again also when you write "This link between the partiality of human understanding and the existence of God there is not really clear to me. You turn the concept of God, which usually represents some entity, into some kind of abstraction due to lack of definition." It seems that you do not understand the main point and the island or that man is the measure of everything and culture determines what is justice, what is beauty and what is truth or that there is something beyond man that is the criterion for these concepts.
Because you disapprove, I understood the science. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how you see the science. In my opinion an answer like science is what scientists do is an evasive answer that Yana adds information. What are scientists trying to achieve in their research? What belief about the world is necessary to be a scientist? Since you disagree with my arguments, I would appreciate it if you explained your position to me.
To conclude the discussion on democracy was simply an analogy designed to explain the gap that exists between an idea and its execution or realization. Similarly, the difference between belief in God and religious particularism. A religious practice could be problematic even for someone who believes in God, but he continues it because it is a certain realization of his faith.
Miracles
First of all we know that the universe according to observations is accelerating therefore it is necessarily infinite, but you will take care of the little things because even if the universe is finite and the thing is finite in time then man as a limited calculating machine will not be able to describe everything that is in it or understand everything.
You write because you thought alone "Think alone with an existing God. I thought for myself, I even asked God if he exists, and I didn't find even an iota of reason to think there is a God. I was 5 years old when I realized this. ". It gives the impression that your thought about what God is has remained the same thought since the age of 5, for example you write "I have no doubt that if there is a God then he will prolong the fact that I fought for what I believe in wholeheartedly." Oh really God is an old grandfather who appreciates or doesn't appreciate what we do, this is really the thought of a 5 year old. Miracles for me God is the understanding that there is something beyond man because man is not the measure of everything and that there will always remain things beyond his understanding. The existence of goodness and beauty that are beyond man and his perception are expressions of God for me. I hope now you understand that I am not claiming that "God exists only in the thoughts of man. Isn't that the opposite of what you mean to claim?" I also hope you are aware that your claim has no logical basis. To explain look at the claim I am aware that there is something outside my house, does that mean that what is outside my house is in my mind?
Regarding your questions "Ehud - if the person is limited - what are the limits? Are you sure that these limits necessarily prevent us from understanding the universe?” I'm not sure because there is an obstacle for a person to understand everything, but I do think that there are many clues that this is the case, in particular, the calculation ability of a person, on the other hand, is similar because you are sure that science will understand everything. What I'm trying to explain to you and you refuse to understand is that you also actually only believe in the power of science to explain the universe, this is ultimately a belief that is no more grounded than belief in God.
By the way faith instead of solid claims you write "We are not calculating machines. Computing machines have very definite and well-known limitations. I believe the mind does not have these limitations. Completely by chance - this will be exactly the subject of my PhD, and I have a very solid basis for believing that it is true." Nice, if this was the subject of your PhD, maybe you would explain what insights you came to on the subject instead of asking me to believe all the time.
Regarding your claim "Physicists claim to understand everything that happened in the universe starting from the trillionth of a second after the big bang. We may never understand what happened before that. What is between that and God?” Have you ever bothered to read about this understanding that the claimant Pisceans claim to have. Is it clear to everyone what the model that produces inflation is? Is it clear to all that the four forces were united. Do physicists know how to explain what the dark mass is or why the universe is accelerating. It is easy to claim that you understand something, but full understanding requires the ability to answer questions.
sympathetic
The definition of what is secular is a bit silly and the existence of the word is simply a consequence of a world dominated by religious thinking. It's like asking what you call a person without a hat in a world where there is a group of people wearing red hats and another group wearing blue hats, and other groups with other hats of different colors and different shapes.
Do we need a definition for a person without a hat? The lack of understanding that religion is something that a person wears (in a certain sense) is the problem here. Understand this, and you won't have to define secularism through negation or in any other way.
What is beyond words and cannot be fully understood is a definition thatdoesn't say anything.
Things that cannot be understood is something that is subject to change depending on the ever-changing understanding, and complete understanding is something that can easily be argued to not exist even the simplest thing you can imagine.
As man understands things more fully does your God become smaller? Or maybe simply man is unable to reach a full understanding of anything and then God is everything? Does it have any meaning at all? Does that mean something?
"For me, God is the understanding that man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial"
You are basically saying here that God only exists in man's thoughts. Isn't that the opposite of what you mean to claim?
This link between the partiality of human understanding and the existence of God there is not really clear to me. You turn the concept of God, which usually represents some entity, into some kind of abstraction due to lack of definition.
Why do you need this meaningless definition of God?
Are we returning to the need for humble and modest behavior?
Because there is no connection between these things.
On the other hand you treat science as an entity and label it with all kinds of human qualities such as arrogance. Science is not an entity. Scientists can be arrogant, and can be humble and humble (as you like) because they are people, and some people are arrogant and some people are humble. The fact that you meet an arrogant scientist does not make science arrogant, and the fact that you meet a humble scientist does not make science humble. Just like the fact that you meet a humble racing driver, does not make motor sports humble, and the fact that you meet an arrogant racing driver, does not make motor sports arrogant.
"Do you really think that all religious people are ignorant?"
Definitely. I believe that all people are ignorant at one point or another. Every person has areas in which he/she suffers from ignorance.
"Many people believe that democracy is a noble idea"
really? Because I don't know any at all.
"There is therefore a difference between the belief in something greater than man and the day-to-day practice of recognizing it"
What is the connection between believing in something greater than man and living your life according to obedience to laws dictated by other people. You define religion for yourself, which is nice and well, but you choose to use the same terms as the concepts that other people use while giving a completely different meaning to these concepts, and ignore the fact that for the vast majority of people it (the religion) and they (the concepts) represent something completely different . You may think that when you do this it creates some common denominator between you but in fact it is not like that at all.
sympathetic
Physicists claim to understand everything that has happened in the universe since the trillionth of a second after the big bang. We may never understand what happened before that. What is between this and God?
sympathetic
Einstein said (as far as I know) that the universe is not necessarily infinite. You confidently claim that the universe is infinite. Allow me to giggle…
It's very possible that Einstein was wrong, but Ehud can't be wrong, right? 🙂
You say that I am, probably rightly, not very smart. Then you say - "Don't listen to people who are smarter than you, think alone with an existing God." I thought for myself, I even asked God if he exists, and I didn't find even an iota of reason to think there is a God. I was 5 years old when I realized this. I am happy that I had some sense back then, even though I came from a believing home...
Ehud - If man is limited - what are the limits? Are you sure that these limits necessarily prevent us from understanding the universe?
We are not calculating machines. Computing machines have very definite and well-known limitations. I believe the mind does not have these limitations. Completely by chance - this will be exactly the topic of my PhD, and I have a very solid basis for believing that it is true.
Are you saying that there is something greater than man? I never thought otherwise. I do not believe that there is a single subject in which there is not something greater than man. Look at the living world - the only thing that separates us from other animals is language. that's it. In every other subject, animals surpass us in every possible attribute. And I am convinced that language has developed on other planets as well, and it is certainly possible that languages more advanced than human language have developed - I suppose you are aware that we all speak the same language, more or less, right?
Ehud - Let me summarize: I don't know if the universe is finite or not, I don't know if man will ever fully understand what is happening in the universe.
I do know that I have 83 years to live, and I try to use them up to the end. If there is a world after this - I just won. I have no doubt that if there is a God then he will prolong the fact that I fought for what I believe in wholeheartedly.
walking dead
In accepting your request, I would ask you to define for me what it means in your eyes to be secular, so that we understand each other. It's like if they say that they define their secularism through negation, they don't believe in the existence of God, this is not a constructive definition, but I too will use the definition through negation to define God, since, as Rambam has already said, and I tend to agree with him, the limited tool of language is not Can describe what is beyond words and cannot be fully understood.
On the path of negation for me, God is the understanding that man is a limited creature and his perception of reality is partial. Man is also a finite creation and his capacity is limited, this understanding already for me includes God in it. In addition, God is related to me in the concept that man is not the all-seeing, truth, beauty, justice are concepts that can be thought of as existing without man.
By the way, in connection with your previous claim "the basis of religion is control over people and their behavior by exploiting and rooting their ignorance." Do you really think that all religious people are ignorant? For me, the difference between religious belief in God and religion is somewhat similar to the difference between democracy and its realization. Many people believe that democracy is a noble idea, on the other hand, almost everyone has misconceptions about its actual implementation, for example in Israel. There is therefore a difference between the belief in something greater than man and the day-to-day practice of recognizing it.
walking dead
Indeed I don't have time, by the way we all have limited time, we are finite beings. The reason I stopped the previous discussion is that it was conducted with too many people and I felt that I could not answer everyone with the necessary seriousness. At the moment the discussion is still small, so I believe that I can answer you, but a little later.
Miracles,
Why do you claim that I lower every discussion to the level of Bib? Because I told you that you rely on the words of others without understanding them at all blindly and prefer this to independent thinking.
I also understand that in your opinion it is enough to mention Einstein's name and we should move to Dom? To remind you, it was Einstein who searched for a unified field theory for decades without success. In your opinion, if Einstein didn't succeed, maybe it's impossible? In addition, it was Einstein who refused to accept the correctness of quantum theory and today it has been proven that he was very wrong. So Nissim will start thinking instead of trying to quote others.
You write "I said there is no basis for thinking that science cannot understand the universe. Science is constantly advancing. You claim, in your religious arrogance, that we will inevitably reach the wall." I give reasons for my words and secondly my words are not arrogant they are humble man is limited and small compared to the universe. As usual you do not answer the matter. Do you believe that man is not limited? Are you aware that a limited calculator has limited calculation capabilities? All of these are reasons why there is reason to think that science will not be able to understand the universe. Add to these reasons the fact that the scientific teachings that exist today contradict each other and you have another sign that the pursuit of a comprehensive description of the universe is problematic. On the other hand, what do you claim that because we opened up some technology, we can do anything we want? come on…
As usual, you also put things in my mouth. I mentioned God, but not rabbis. There is a difference between the understanding that there is something greater than man and an established religion and right now that is not the discussion, at least in my opinion.
Nonsense. The universe is recreated every 4 years. The scientific prediction for the Big Bang even goes down to the level of the day and the hour. The date of the next explosion is Sunday, July 13, 16:00 Brazilian time.
sympathetic
You have an amazing ability to take any discussion down the drain.
My faith in scientists is like my faith in doctors and pilots. These are all the same group of people. You believe in rabbis. You rabbis, I am classified together with shamans and homeopaths, believers in Bigfoot and believers in Khayir.
I said that there is no basis for thinking that science cannot understand the universe. Science is constantly advancing. You claim, in your religious arrogance, that we will inevitably reach the wall, and you claim that not only do you know what is behind the wall, you also know what he thinks, what he likes and what he will do in the future.
Again, you claim the universe is infinite. And again I'm not surprised that you think you're smarter than Einstein.
Ehud, you mentioned God..
sympathetic
Just to sharpen the point.
Suppose that everyone in the world agrees that there is something greater than man and everyone calls him X (instead of constantly having to say something greater than man). But those think that X is of character A with M traits, and those think that X is of character B with N traits, and others in general think that X is generally of character C with O traits, etc. In fact there is no agreement on X at all. X is meaningless here. It does not exist as a coherent concept at all.
sympathetic
We are returning here to the discussion you said you didn't have time for.
You again ignore that when you say God you think you are saying one thing that is very clear to you but it actually means a lot of other things to other people that are not at all similar to the thing that is so clear to you.
I read many of Nissim's comments and I did not see where Nissim wrote anything that needs to be interpreted as if he lived under the belief that one day science would be able to explain everything and that this belief affects his life in some way. The fact that someone thinks that there is an option in the future for something is different from believing in this thing. Nissim is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
The understanding of the story of creation is simply as written, and it cannot be interpreted as you wish, because then you distort the scriptures, so that it fits your reality, and then the written text has no value at all.
Belief in an imaginary entity or entities stems from a psychological need and not from rational thinking, therefore the difficulty of accepting reality and the facts as they are, and trying to grasp at every rope to justify their existence.
walking dead
Indeed I am not talking about religion but about the perception of something greater than man that some also call him God. Regarding people's perceptions please read Nissim's comments.
Miracles
The one who demonstrated blind faith was you who quoted scientists in the past but admitted outright that you don't understand their field. I mean, are you a foolish follower? Just because they have this or that award you accept their findings with blind faith.
In addition you write "there is no basis for thinking that science will never understand the universe." On the contrary, what is your basis that man or science does have the ability to understand the universe? It seems that today's scientific theories contain contradictions, where does your belief come from that these contradictions will ever be resolved? Maybe you will spare us your blind faith?
A finite being is able to understand infinite things but being a finite being its understanding is limited? Is there anything more clear than that? A computing machine with limited memory and limited calculation capacity can only solve a certain set of problems, there are questions that are beyond its calculation limit. Man is also limited.
Where did you come to the conclusion that I am talking about something outside the universe? Where I preach religion, are you imagining things again? I simply claim that man is limited and the understanding that man is limited should lead to humility not arrogance and the thought that he could understand everything. My words are not full of contradictions but it seems that you do not understand them.
sympathetic
The basis of religion is control over people and their behavior by exploiting and rooting their ignorance.
What you are talking about is at best the basis of spiritual concepts.
There is no basis for the fact that the scientific method ends up understanding the world and all the phenomena in it, nor is there any basis for it not. It is not clear to me who you think is concerned with this at all or believes in this made-up ideology/religion of "science could explain everything" that you think exists. somewhere.
sympathetic
Your sentences are full of contradictions.
If we are unable to understand the universe then we have no justification to talk about what is outside the universe. Beyond that, we have no way to conclude that there is anything outside the universe at all.
Secondly, there is no problem for a finite being to understand infinite things.
There is no basis for thinking that science will never understand the universe.
Ehud, please, enough with your religious preaching. Maybe it's time to rethink your blind faith instead of looking down on others?
We may be part of nature but we are finite and limited. Abstract thinking assumes that there is something more fundamental that is greater than man and some call it God. The understanding that we are small compared to the cosmos and that our understanding due to our finite nature is limited is the basis of religion. There is no basis for the fact that the scientific method ends up understanding the world and all the phenomena in it. The assumption that science knows how to explain everything is also a form of faith.
tree
We are part of nature. Those who look at the world and marvel at its beauty should understand that even in admiration itself it is part of nature, and not something "external". And you should remember that nature gave us very little time to enjoy this beauty. Whoever wastes his life in search of something outside of nature - he's fed up...
The understanding of the creation story as simple is foolish. Sages have already said that Genesis is a Torah mystery. Therefore, it is not possible to understand anything and everything in its entirety. So the whole debate with creationists is originally a Christian debate with existing science. And there is nothing new under the sun, see the attitude of the church to Galileo or Kepler.
Many of the scientists in the past as well as in the present do not suffer from excessive modesty and any acceptable approach to its time is automatically protected that whoever disagrees with it is in their view a true infidel. So at all times and even today you will find bloated scientists who look down on everyone.
It is precisely those who observe the advances of science with a little iniquity who can marvel at the intelligence and sophistication of systems in nature. To think how a burst of primordial energy contains within itself the genome so complex of a huge variety of opaque structures and molecules that make up complete living systems.
Now God will punish the British and they will not win the World Cup
(does not sign the response)
D.
To believe that the Supreme Creator cares how many hours passed between eating meat and eating dairy - this is thought-provoking. Refutable.
Asaf,
Belief in a Supreme Creator is not ignorance, but indeed a way of thinking that is different from your own - and certainly much broader than the narrowness of your thought
Danny, what is there in the Torah?
Fairy tales at the level of a bird's brain, Snow White and the seven dwarfs are already at a higher level.
The first chapter in Bershit refers to the earth from the writer's point of view and not to the universe.
and shows their knowledge and ignorance for this period.
And just because something has a starting point doesn't mean it was created.
In Britain, things are moving towards enlightenment in some things.
Here religion and state had to be separated, because it is impossible to argue with the statements of those who do not want to separate.
In Great Britain, secular processes took place that caused them to go in a historical and scientific direction that may be positive.
In countries that insisted on religion within the state, such as Spain, Greece, Islamic countries, it went very badly.
In particular in the Kingdom of the Crusaders, which we are very similar to in terms of the environment.
I am a monotheist, but agree in a broad area with the atheists, except for there is/is no creator. In all this is broad: the correctness of the scientific approach, the correctness of the current knowledge that was a big bang in the timelines of 13.5B years, of evolution, of moral theory is not mandatory in the teaching of the Ten Commandments (although in my opinion the majority of the inhabitants of the earth need a teaching in order to behave in a civilized manner) but as utilitarianism of the good of society.
To Danny:
to show respect for different forms of thinking, correct and positive,
But it is implied that what you call a "way of thinking" is a religion
or just ignorance,
Because religion/belief in an almighty creator stems from ignorance
And ignorance is not a way of thinking...
דני
In the last 200 years the same science you despise has tripled life expectancy.
I haven't checked too much, but I am convinced that life expectancy in religious communities is significantly lower than in other communities.
The same science that claims that our universe began with the Big Bang, claims that God is not needed to explain the Big Bang.
Don't you think science should be given much more respect?
Indeed, I received links at 11 at night, and hurried to translate
The arrogance of science is amazing in its audacity! Until 200 years ago, anyone who would claim that the world we know was created, that is, that it had a certain starting point and the world is not primitive, would have belonged, according to science, to a "fundamentalist coalition of members of all religions".
But finally science discovered what religion has known for 3000 years, the world is not primitive and had a starting point (the Big Bang).
I like reading your articles, Abby, but this time it's time for you to show some respect for different forms of thinking as well...
It's time! Let's hope it reaches the rest of the world!
As Degad wrote and in addition:
1. Prohibition not approval
2. The state*, not the media.
3. Life is not secret.
These mistakes made me read the above lines several times to understand what I was reading. Father, what happened? Did you rush that day or is it at the end of a hard day? 🙂
In any case, thanks for the article, it's a shame that such a decision is not the property of all countries and especially in our country.
imposed a ban, did not impose approval.