The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2021, 10:08:05 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  The first _good_ argument for god
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: The first _good_ argument for god  (Read 9941 times)
Dancing Fungus
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 150


Armor always looks cool with extra techno...right?


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2007, 09:22:29 pm »

Quote
I feel fail to see how there could be perceptions without perceivers.
That is exactly where that argument flops. But who knows? It might still be possible.

Quote
But what if things do not exist, but we can still percieve them?


But to be perceived is by definition to exist (at least as an imagined thing).
Defintions are all fine and good, but they are not necessarily correct.
Prove to me that you need to exist in order to be percieved. 
Logged

Thrice thy blinded cat hath mewed....
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2007, 11:18:57 pm »

Quote
But a lot of things process information, and most of them are neither intelligent nor a product of any intelligent being. If a cold raindrop falls into a thermal spring, then the raindrop-spring system is going to process some information - more specifically, the spring is going to transfer some heat to the raindrop, thus "cutting" some information from the spring and "pasting" it to the raindrop.

Uhh ok I guess.. That seems a stretch though, seems what you describe is simply the mixing or scrambling of information rather than processing it in any way.

Wiki [Processing typically describes the act of taking something through an established and usually routine set of procedures to convert it from one form to another, as a manufacturing procedure, such as processing milk into cheese. Processing can also refer to administrative procedure such as processing paperwork to grant a mortgage loan.

To me, Information processing can only be done by an intelligence and fit's more into that wiki description. So intelligence and information processing are mutually exclusive yes, but that doesn't mean information processing can only be done by intelligence, just that intelligence is currently the only know source. There lies my escape hatch from a circular argument. Smiley

As Elvish Pillager said,
Quote
Defining information, hmm? It's probably harder to define the act of "processing" it. ".
I'll admit, that is a tough one.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2007, 11:39:06 pm by RTyp06 » Logged
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 319


Rottem Tomatoes


View Profile
Re: The first _good_ argument for god
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2007, 02:31:44 am »

Defintions are all fine and good, but they are not necessarily correct.
Prove to me that you need to exist in order to be percieved. 

But there's not universal "correctness" for definitions, they're only needed for successful communication. And I think that most people would agree with the notion that "to do is to exist". It's like a trivial special case of existence. Another less trivial one is "to be perceived is to exist".
Logged

Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings  /  Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings  /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips  /  These are a few of my favorite ships!
       © meep-eep
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!