Re: Proof of Gods *non-existance*.
- From: el cid <elcidbivar@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:33:20 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 4, 4:43 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
el cid wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:05 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
el cid wrote:
On Oct 28, 3:20 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Around here is where the logic breaks down, I think. Why would the
spintronic wrote:It appears to me that people would invent gods if they did not already
Shoot. I'm all ears.What god? We need to have his nature clearly stated before we can
construct a test of his existence. What would we observe if he existed?
What would we observe if he didn't.
For example, does god answer prayer? If so, then people who pray would
generally get what they ask for. Do they? If they do, the god who
answers prayer exists. If they don't, he doesn't.
If gods do exist, the better sort would be aware of this.
Better sorts of people and gods are often subtle.
The best sorts of gods would be the most subtle.
better sort be aware of gods' existence? Why would gods attempt to hide
their existence? Why is subtlety (or, really, concealment) a virtue in a
One might first question the assertion that the best sorts of
people and gods are subtle. It's certainly my preference in
people, sometimes. There's virtue in directness at times
as well but over many years the most remarkable people I've
known have also been cleverly subtle so there's observation
there, file under unpublished result or personal communication.
Extrapolation to the best sorts of gods works for me, YMMV.
So, bottom line, because it fits your personal taste. I would not
consider that an argument.
Really now John, I figured you for better than that sort of
misrepresentation. I've explained it as an observation of
more than just personal taste. Indeed there's some
subjectivity to the assessment but still ....
I will add that my recollections are that if you made XY plots
of degree of subtlety of though and action versus many
metrics of success in people I have known, the data
would be reasonably fit by a line with a positive slope.
My gut gives it a R value greater than 0.4 and probably
less than 0.75 if you were to fit a line to it.
Your proper counter would be that such observations
are inconsistent with your experience, not to pick a
single word, ignoring context, and call it just a matter
of personal taste.
I don't recall saying anything about better sorts being aware
of the existence of deities. How did you read that in?
"If gods exist, the better sorts of people would be aware of this"?
The _if_ part matters.
But as it apparently is not as obvious as I had thought, there's
a general continuum awareness wherein some people seem
to be more attuned to the world, some less so, and a repeat
of my scattplot correlation of that by intelligence. We have nice
cliches of exceptions, the notion of a genius who forgets to
put on his pants as he leaves the house. But in my experience,
the brighter sorts of people pick up on subtle clues more
readily than the less bright. Of course on this sort of grading
you find education to be poorly correlated to "bright" and
this is the source of great humor and merriment.
But you want more about why the better sorts of gods
would tend toward subtlety and as you note, border on
No, I wouldn't say "border on". It would appear that the better sorts of
gods (or any that exist) are in complete concealment.
Yes the extreme examples do make things more difficult.
A parable of sorts if you will, albeit perhaps not an
especially good one.
As a lad I coached much younger kids in soccer and would
sometimes join in during a scrimmage. I might have simply
dominated things but why? I would work just hard enough
to get to a loose ball at almost the same time as others,
make most kids pass to get around me and generally harass
on defense. On offense I would almost never shoot on goal
unless it was in effect rewarding a very good pass that
simply deserved to be finished. I passed backward more
than I tend to do in real games. It wasn't about me beyond
that little bit I offered by example. Hopefully, the kids learned
something about "the beautiful game". Many decades
later I've heard from a few that say they did.
I know other coaches who were very against game-like scrimmages.
The favored having kids perform very strict and well choreographed
drills. Some kids did well with that sort of structure but I don't
think they learned much about the game of soccer. Of course
I also don't think their coaches understood much about the game
of soccer, they thought it was only a silly game in the end,
something other than an extension of the glory of life.
I agree that it's not an especially good one. It certainly doesn't seem
to make any sort of point. Tell me, were the kids you coached aware of
your existence? Did you ever speak directly to them?
Oh my, it was too subtle for you. I expect that will annoy
you some but not for long as you've no use for anything
that can't be made obviously significant to you: a wholly
practical if unnecessary perspective.
It's a wondrous thing when I child learns how they can
test, measure and probe the world around them. It's
so sad to see those who get all pouty when their
new found control over their universe seems incomplete.
I much prefer the child who laughs at this realization.
The most subtle gods would keep their existence most hidden.
Of course if the gods had a plan for people, they might need to
get their attention in the first place with something less subtle,
the less subtle the population, the less subtle the attention
grabbing event. If done well, people would become more
subtle over time.
So if gods exist and they are of the best sort, the concepts
of gods would probably become more subtle over time, at
least among the best sorts of people.
I'm unclear on whether human invented gods need to show
such a trend, except in the tails of the distribution, however,
given the beginning of such a trend, it may be expected
None of this directly assists in answering John's
question. However, either way, it says something
about people who believe in very simple notions of
Now if I could only truly appreciate that my
dog thinks the can opener is god and I am her
angel, I might be ready for a breakout thought.
- Re: Proof of Gods *non-existance*.
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Proof of Gods *non-existance*.
- Prev by Date: Re: The "I Hate Jesus" t-shirt... Would you buy one?
- Next by Date: Re: Chez Watt Ballot November 5, 2009
- Previous by thread: Re: Proof of Gods *non-existance*.
- Next by thread: Re: Proof of Gods *non-existance*.