Intergalactic Summit

And they stood before Him,
bathed in His light.
Yet their eyes were blind,
Their hearts rebellious,
And their minds refused the Lord.
Darkness descended upon them,
Spreading inside their minds,
And the flames of the Lord died within them.
- Gheinok 1:3



Only through many hardships
Is a man stripped to his very foundations
And in such a state
Devoid of distractions
Is his soul free to soar
And in this
He is closest to God
- Missions 42:5

We are quite happy with what we built on those foundations and would prefer it if you would stop shooting at us so we could continue to build. We have no desire to get closer to your god.

Seeing as I am one of the few 'poets' floating about this part of the galnet, I can only assume these questions are directed towards me.

The thing I call God is an ineffable, timeless, and frankly incomprehensible thing. He is the universe itself and more. He is all we do and do not know. These things are impossible for our small minds to comprehend, let alone our small mouths to articulate.

He does not seek to inflict pain upon us; pain is simply something that comes to us. Often it is by our own doing. When it is not, it serves to remind us that we are, in the end, lacking in power in our current state. A sense of humility must be cultivated in relation to that feeling of being powerless, lest we be overwhelmed by the realization that we have more failings than faculties.

We are not worthy because that is simply our nature. We are small. He is great. We take what we are given and improve ourselves until we are allowed to take a little more. There is no shame in that, so long as we do not slip and fall to a previous state.

The Amarr do not seek suffering. They seek to alleviate suffering. Some, however, seek to alleviate their own suffering more than they wish to alleviate the suffering of others. That is human nature, and that nature must be conquered and changed.

We all know there's a lot of bad in the universe. Is God willing to prevent this bad not able to? Can't say he's omnipotent. Is he able to stop all the bad but won't? Then he's a sadist.

Is he both able and willing? Then that kinda makes all the bad his fault. If he can't stop all the bad in the universe or won't stop it, then how can you call him a god?

I don't need your god or your faith or your bullsh*t to be a moral person.; I don't need your "scripture" to know right from wrong.

Maybe you should should stop trying to squeeze your excuse for morality from dust.

I didn't know zombies liked poetry...

Learning something new everyday!

I see what you're trying to get, but it doesn't entirely hold water. For one I at least would certainly be willing to believe in God if presented with sufficiently compelling evidence. People who refuse to ever change their minds irritate me immensely. The other thing is that if you just run through the problem far enough,there is a point where the recursive justification hits rock bottom. Everything doesn't have to rest on some unquestioned assumption if you dig deep enough. Just to run through it in the format Sahriah uses above it looks like this:

Q. Why do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow?
A. Because it has done so every day previously.

Q. But then, why do you believe the future will be like the past?
A. Well, to start, I have the simple observation of the sun rising, to the apparently universal and exception-less laws of gravitation and nuclear physics.

Q. Ah, but Why do you believe that will also be true tomorrow?
A. I could appeal to Occam's Razor, the principle of using the simplest theory that fits the facts.

Q. But why do you believe Occam's Razor? Surely you have to simply accept it as an axiomatic fact, an unquestionable truth, thus just like faith, doesn't science too rely on unquestioned assumptions?

So far of course, this is all simply rephrasing of the problem of induction up to this point, and I have this discussion disturbingly often. Its of course a real philosophical dilemma. If every belief must be justified, and those justifications in turn must be justified, then how is the infinite recursion terminated? And if you're allowed to end in something assumed-without-justification, then why aren't you allowed to assume anything without justification?

My personal solution to this is to simply not end the chain of recursive questioning, not treating a question like "Why do I believe Occam's Razor" as a special deep question that cannot be answered, so to continue with the chain of Q&A here's my answer to the above question:

A. Should I believe Occam's Razor? Well, how well does (any particular version of) Occam's Razor seem to work in practice? What kind of justifications can I find for it? When I look at the universe, does it seem like the kind of universe in which Occam's Razor would work well? If so then the answer is "because this seems to be a universe in which Occam's Razor works well."

Q. But wait! I could just ask again, "But why do you also believe that will be true tomorrow?" And thus you're forced to use Occam's Razor to justify Occam's Razor! That's circular reasoning just like using the scriptures as justification so hah science rests on faith too!
A. But it isn't really circular, there's a difference between saying ""Here is this assumption I cannot justify, which must be simply taken, and not further examined." versus saying "Here the inquiry continues to examine this assumption, with the full force of my present intelligence—as opposed to the full force of something else, like a random number generator or a magic 8-ball—even though my present intelligence happens to be founded on this assumption."

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some way to justify using Occam's Razor, or justify predicting that the future will resemble the past, without assuming that those methods of reasoning which have worked on previous occasions are better than those which have continually failed?

Wouldn't it be nice if there were some chain of justifications that neither ended in an unexaminable assumption, nor was forced to examine itself under its own rules, but, instead, could be explained starting from absolute scratch to an ideal philosophy student of perfect emptiness?

Well, I'd certainly be interested, but I don't expect to see it done any time soon. I don't think that you can have a perfectly empty ghost-in-the-machine; there is no argument that you can explain to a rock.

Is this the same as the one who says, "I believe that the scriptures are the word of God, because the scriptures say so"?

Kind of, but no, if the scriptures were an astoundingly reliable source of information about all other matters, if they hadn't claimed a solar eclipse caused sudden mass sickness and death, if it had contained an Periodic Table of Elements centuries before chemistry—if the scriptures had served us only well and told us only truth—then we might, in fact, be inclined to take seriously the additional statement in the scripture, that the scripture had been generated by God. We might not trust it entirely, because it could also be evil aliens or Jovian overlords, but it would at least be worth taking seriously.

Likewise, if everything else that priests had told us, turned out to be true, we might take more seriously their statement that faith had been placed in us by God and was a systematically trustworthy source—especially if people could divine the hundredth digit of pi by faith as well.

So the important part of appreciating the circularity of "I believe that the scriptures are the word of God, because the scriptures say so," is not so much that you are going to reject the idea of reflecting on your mind using your current mind. But, rather, that you realize that anything which calls into question the scriptures' trustworthiness, also calls into question the scriptures' assurance of their trustworthiness.

Impressive, you manage to completely ignore everything I write simply by virtue of the fact someone else said it first, as if the fact that my words aren't originally mine somehow makes them less valid.

Actually its not that impressive at all, its an obvious logical fallacy clearly only rooted in the fact that you dislike me and go out of your way to attack everything I say. Good thing I almost never actually pay any attention to your inane bitching.

Hurr.

...


A living dead should be grateful that he or she is still living dead.

Treasure what you have, for many don't have even this.

I am not sure which scriptures Ms. Riordan is talking about, maybe some obscure heretical sect, but it's not the Amarr Scriptures which are a " reliable source of information about all other matters"

Here is a description which I quote from a text summarizing what the Amarr Scriptures are:

"The Amarr Scriptures are not a single book, but rather the name given to the collective holy texts of Amarr. They are not limited to just religious dogma; they describe everything from out-of-date codes of behavior to early technological breakthroughs. The collective writings have been maintained and updated throughout the centuries by Imperial Theologians and include texts that hearken back to the very origins of Amarr society, written in a tongue so ancient as to be unreadable by today's Amarr. The Scriptures are the very foundation stone of Amarr society, defining the daily lives of Amarr the Empire across. "

I see this argument way too much and it demonstrates a lack of basic understanding in scientific processes.

The default position we take in all matters is one of "Its not true until its proven to be." This is the reason we strive to test, invent and improve things instead of just assuming they will work or that something is true. I tell you I've seen magical space dragons whose breath spawns the creation of comets and you ask me to prove it. Blind acceptance is the essence of stagnation, whereas curiosity is the essence of progress.

If you see a berry bush that you have never seen before, you can either assume it is poisonous or it is not. Neither assumption is correct or wrong at that time. You then have a choice. You can either fear its poison and live your entire life avoiding it, or you can preform a test of your theory and find out if your assumption is correct.

Obviously the matter of God is more complicated than this, but what you seem to be saying is "Well you cannot have definite proof either way so its fine to believe whatever I want." While I do not refute your right to do so, I do criticize the logic behind it and its implications.

A mind unwilling to change is weak regardless of belief. Those who cannot think for themselves or question their most basic principals are slaves regardless of race. Many Amarr, Minmatar, Gallente and Caldari are just as bad as Sansha's drones in this regard. It is not a trait that exists in Amarr alone, it is a mindset that one must know the answer to all the questions here and now. It is a deep infectious desire to feel comforted by the fact that you are right, that you understand, and that your path is special.

The difference between us is that I do not presume to know the truth of if there is a god or not. No-one in this life can ever know for a fact, those that claim to know either way are equally wrong. All we can do is come to logical conclusions based on the information we collect. Mine is that there is not enough of what i consider 'proof' to believe in 'God' so i will work on the assumption that there is none.

No-one I have seen has come to me and said "Look, I have studied many different religions, philosophies and ways of life and I feel belief in God is valid for these reasons." While I would struggle to see what they see, I would have immensely more respect for those that take the time to search for knowledge, rather than accept what they are born or mindwashed into.

If i asked the average Amarrian if they would ever consider the possibility that god does not exist, even with proof, the answer would be no. This is because the fundamental teachings preach nothing less than full unquestioning acceptance to the faith. Those who do not have this are sent to search until they obtain it, and only when they obtain it are they considered truly saved. This is also the basis for their slavery techniques. This is the reason I tend to clash with Amarrians the most, there is no room for doubt.

I have no disdain for any race or any belief system in-particular, rather I have disdain for the individual who does not appreciate the value of questioning their beliefs.

I am and always will be fully open to the discussion of religion, philosophy and the reasons for my own beliefs, but the IGS, in my opinion, is a poor medium for such a discussion so I will leave it there.

Edit: I would just like to add, that i agree with Saede Riordan's rather elegant explanation of the circular reasoning conundrum. It is certainly a complex matter.