Stephen Fry on confronting god after death

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

No, you think he doesn't exist.

s-l-o-w h-a-n-d-c-l-a-p
This is also fantastically ignoring the argument entirely that, yet again, a theist is assuming Fry is "blaming god" for evil.
Is it an inability to listen or to comprehend that has so many on the theist side making this laughable error time and time again?

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

No, you think he doesn't exist.

Anyway, now you're back, you've obviously carefully skipped the last ten times I've asked:
Can god predict what people will do?

EDIT: It occurs to me that I am more powerful than god as I can predict no theist will touch this question with a holy bargepole.

Zubeneschamali

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I almost asked if she'd actually looked around the ward at all the walking shells of people and why has her god given us all cancer in the first f*cking place.

Free will?

Something something apple tree?

Dan_Solo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Free will?

Something something apple tree?

Or we've been presented with the alternative that god hasn't done anything at all in the entirety of history.
Which begs the question how the hell can anybody know anything about him, but there you go.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Anyway, now you're back, you've obviously carefully skipped the last ten times I've asked:
Can god predict what people will do?

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

ScumLord

StormWarrior wrote: »

Don't know if it's been posted already as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but interesting response here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/02/stephen-fry-is-wrong-without-god-there-would-actually-be-more-evil-in-the-world/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm

The problem with these aritcles is they're still lookig at the problem from the inside out and have fixated on the idea that steven said that natural evil disproves a loving god.

I think what he means is that if god exists, he created a world full of evil. Saying he's a loving god makes no sense given the world he made, supposedly especially for us.

But Steven doesn't believe god exists, if you watch QI he obviously has a fascination with the natural world as many non theists tend to do. When you look at nature from a scientific perspective that takes into account evolution then bad things that happen make sense. The fly that borrows into a childs eye isn't evil, it's bad from a human perspective but from a natural perspective that fly is just eking out a living. It has no bad intentions, there is no evil.

Zubeneschamali

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

OK, but at any given moment, God (being omniscient and out of time and so on) could materialise a book detailing exactly what I am going to do for the rest of my life. If he wanted to. That may not be what you'd call a prediction, but it is what I'd call a prediction.

That sort of God is completely incompatible with free will: he knows exactly what I am going to choose and why before I am born - I am just a puppet.

shruikan2553

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Horrifically **** argument. Fry, like many of us here, do not believe there is a god at all. Whatever happens when you "remove god" is irrelevant because he doesn't exist. What we are left with is the hypothetical all powerful god who allows and indeed designs suffering for us.
If god existed he must be a cnut, but he doesn't exist, basically.

Some people are incapable of not missing the point. He wasnt saying it means god does or doesnt exist. He was talking about a hypothetical situation where he met god.

By saying if there was no god things wouldnt change just suggests that god is irrelevant in the whole good vs evil thing.

Dan_Solo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

If he knows the future then he is predicting. Your lame attempt at fudging will not go unnoticed.
Now, if god knows what we will do, what is the purpose of giving us free will to test us? He already knows if we will pass or fail. The suffering is futile.
If god created us exactly the way we are and knows everything we will do, where does free will come into it again?

timetogo

Emersyn Deep Destroyer wrote: »

He knows everything he doesn't need to predict.

I'm not being smart. I just really can't get my head around this kind of argument.

He knew that Adam would eat an apple and that Jesus would have to be born and crucified to himself to "save" us.
He knew that earth 1.0 would have to be wiped with the flood because people were bad. He knew that Abraham would sacrifice his son if asked which would totally negate the need for the test, in which case we're back to him being a see you next tuesday.

etc. etc.

We're back to the god works in mysterious ways argument so. Very ****ing mysterious.

If I knew a pile of stuff was going to go wrong before I did it, I'd make sure it didn't go wrong to start with. Obviously I'm not omnipotent or anything but that seems kind of obvious.

Shurimgreat

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Or we've been presented with the alternative that god hasn't done anything at all in the entirety of history.
Which begs the question how the hell can anybody know anything about him, but there you go.

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

K4t

ScumLord wrote: »

I actually think our expanding historical knowledge, which has been helped along greatly by other sciences like DNA, has done more to discredit religion than anything else. We can see our development from a pretty special animal to a civilised being, we can see religion develop from remembering ancestors, to gods, to god. when you can see our history laid out it's clear the current gods were invented and adapted to our needs throughout the centuries.

Quantum physics and other advanced sciences almost opens the door to gods again because things can get so strange and some parts of them seem so ideal for humans that it would make you wonder. I think it's a bit like the early days of science in that you could read a lot into results because we're only beginning to scratch the surface.

You don't need to have any of that knowledge to discredit religion. Sure it might help you to win a debate, but even if you win the debate, you will never discredit religion in the mind of the believer. The world can never be rid of religion because it can never be rid of the human impulses behind it. You can use all the scientific arguments and advancements you want in an attempt to discredit religion, but ultimately what really makes a religion, the necessary condition, is faith. And an exclusive faith that trumps other sources of truth. Religion is not the belief there is a God. Religion is the belief God tells you what to do.

circadian

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Of course it does. A silly question since the tree is a physical entity on Earth. On the other hand there has been no physical, tangible evidence of a higher being.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Hypothetical things don't exist.
Your life must be very confusing if you believe otherwise.

Dan_Solo

circadian wrote: »

Of course it does. A silly question since the tree is a physical entity on Earth. On the other hand there has been no physical, tangible evidence of a higher being.

Nah, it's a nonexistent imaginary tree.
Now if he wants to specify WHICH tree then we can discuss whether that exists or not.
It's not a real question so doesn't get a real answer. It's like asking how long unicorns live for.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hypothetical things don't exist.
Your life must be very confusing if you believe otherwise.

Though this complete inability to comprehend what a hypothetical question is explains a lot about theists being confused by Fry "blaming god".

The_Valeyard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Though this complete inability to comprehend what a hypothetical question is explains a lot about theists being confused by Fry "blaming god".

Are you debating yourself?

Dan_Solo

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are you debating yourself?

Be a good lad and read the thread next time.

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

Shurimgreat puts another poster on ignore. Do his posts still exist?
Apparently yes!

route9

You'd have to wonder when Fry was on about how he thought a lot of the things Jesus said didn't make sense. He talked about how 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' not making sense, and how nobody would ever be punished for wrongdoing if that principle applied. Seems he is missing or not grasping the context around that one.

Ghost Buster

route9 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder when Fry was on about how he thought a lot of the things Jesus said didn't make sense. He talked about how 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' not making sense, and how nobody would ever be punished for wrongdoing if that principle applied. Seems he is missing or not grasping the context around that one.

Go on then.........

I'm surprised at Stephen Fry. He could do better than this. I expect if you played this interview back to him, he'd admit deficiency. The best thing about the interview was Gaybo's face!

route9

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Go on then.........

Calling attention to the fact that you should look at yourself before judging others and condemning them, and not that people shouldn't be punished for the wrongs they do.

The_Valeyard

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Be a good lad and read the thread next time.

Now now.

Go look at yourself, quoting yourself, responding to yourself.
Ego post much?

cloud493

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm surprised at Stephen Fry. He could do better than this. I expect if you played this interview back to him, he'd admit deficiency. The best thing about the interview was Gaybo's face!

deficiency in what?

Shurimgreat

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Are you debating yourself?

Haha funny...maybe he has a split personality

Dan_Solo

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Haha funny...maybe he has a split personality

Bit like you answering me when I'm supposedly on ignore, eh?
Or indeed not answering. Have you worked out what a hypothetical is yet? There's dictionaries online now too you know.
You never explained how you know about this god who has never interacted with our universe either.
Almost as if you just can't answer these. Too busy or something?

pueblo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Bit like you answering me when I'm supposedly on ignore, eh?
Or indeed not answering. Have you worked out what a hypothetical is yet? There's dictionaries online now too you know.
You never explained how you know about this god who has never interacted with our universe either.
Almost as if you just can't answer these. Too busy or something?

You still on about your 'thesaurus theism'?? :rolleyes:

Means Of Escape

We are an alien ant farm .

Dan_Solo

pueblo wrote: »

You still on about your 'thesaurus theism'?? :rolleyes:

I just described what you were doing. I'm sorry if an accurate description of the nonsense you were spouting is upsetting for you. Swapping "god" for "spirituality" doesn't work here I'm afraid. Do try again.

PS: Maybe you need to look up "dictionary" in a dictionary... it isn't a thesaurus...

Loafing Oaf

Means Of Escape wrote: »

We are an alien ant farm .

Akrasia

timetogo wrote: »

Also with the infinite amount of universes theory there could be an infinite amount of universes out there or before this one that did have the variables different so life couldn't evolve. We're not lucky to have this universe with the laws of physics we know, the laws of physics in this universe were just right for life to emerge.

Yeah. Once upon a time a Human's entire world was his tribe, then it became a country, then it became a continent, then it became a planet.

For thousands of years we didn't know there were other planets. Then we discovered other galaxies.....

Humanity always presumed that the universe couldn't be as big as it is because we were central to everything and it would be an awful waste to have so much empty space.

Now we're faced with the possibility that even our entire universe is just a single bubble in a foaming ocean of universes we now call the multiverse.

Given this possibility it is utterly ludicrous to think that we're unique and specially created by a god

Mr Velo

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah. Once upon a time a Human's entire world was his tribe, then it became a country, then it became a continent, then it became a planet.

For thousands of years we didn't know there were other planets. Then we discovered other galaxies.....

Humanity always presumed that the universe couldn't be as big as it is because we were central to everything and it would be an awful waste to have so much empty space.

Now we're faced with the possibility that even our entire universe is just a single bubble in a foaming ocean of universes we now call the multiverse.

Given this possibility it is utterly ludicrous to think that we're unique and specially created by a god

Unless of course God made the multiverse

timetogo

Mr Velo wrote: »

Unless of course God made the multiverse

Yep.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/537/976/57b.jpg

Akrasia

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A tree falls in a wood somewhere and no-one hears it.

Does it exist?

you've completely ballsed up that question.

Of course the tree exists, Logically it's stated as a premise in the question. But it doesn't make a sound, because sounds only exist inside of the minds of things that can hear them. (i'm interpreting no-one to mean any living organism that can hear sound)

The tree would have made vibrations which then cause a wave of pressure and displacement in the air and ground as it fell. Our ears and brain interpret these vibrations and we call that sound.

The first sound in the universe was not the big bang, it was an emergence of complexity in the ways primitive life forms were able to distinguish nuance in the vibrations around them.

captbarnacles

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/why-i-just-cant-believe-in-stephen-frys-illconsidered-atheist-outburst-30968948.html

Uh oh. David Quinn is sad.

circadian

captbarnacles wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/why-i-just-cant-believe-in-stephen-frys-illconsidered-atheist-outburst-30968948.html

Uh oh. David Quinn is sad.

Wow, that really is drivel.

Akrasia

David Quinn completely missed the point.

Free will does not require a god. The fact that god knows what we will do next implies that the theological universe is much more determanistic than the natural one.

Quinn is fundamentally dishonest. He says that god gave us 'free will' but the 'free will' given to us by god is subject to exactly the same limitations that a so called 'determanistic naturalist' allows for.

Our choices are all determined by the present state we find ourselves in.

Right now, I'm sitting at a computer near a window. I do not have the 'freedom' to fly in a rocketship to the moon, because I don't have access to those resources. I do have the 'freedom' to go and make myself a cup of coffee. A naturalistic explanation of how I make the decision to get a cup of coffee depends on the 'state' i am currently in.
Am I thirsty
Do I have other tasks that I need to do that are more urgent than coffee
Am I awake
Is the Kettle working
Is there coffee in the jar
Is it a long walk to the kitchen
Do I like coffee
Does my body crave caffeine
Are there other people who will make me a cup of coffee and bring it to me....

There are millions of factors that decide what we do,, when we do them, what choices are available to us, why we choose one thing and not another. Our brains evaluate the options available to us and make a decision based on these. Most of the decision making process is sub conscious and relies on heuristics. The fact that there are so many millions of paramaters means our ability to evaluate which ones to do next is functionally equivalent to free will. The fact that so many decisions we make are roughly equivalent but have long term butterfly effects, means it is impossible to predict the future and the future is more or less unpredictable, which means it is not 'pre-determined' what will happen in a naturalistic universe without a god.

The natural framework allows for human decisions to affect what happens in the future. The theological framework states that the future is known, and humans are just playing out our roles and everything we do is part of the bigger plan that god has for the universe.

Also, there is no good and evil.

There are things that we like, and things that we don't like. We call the things that we like good, and the things that we don't like evil

We like living successful happy lives, so this is good, we don't like being murdered by axe wielding maniacs, so we call this evil.

We like chocolate biscuits, so we call them good

We don't like having our entire community wiped out by a tsunami so we call that evil (natural evil, whatever that is)

Theology is the art of taking the world and systematically misunderstanding how it works by putting it through a filter of 'what does god intend by this'

There is no natural evil, it's a ridiculous concept. The very earth we live on was formed by massive geological upheaval. It sucks to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and get caught up in a natural disaster, but rather than 'accepting that it's god's plan' we should be investing in science and understanding so that we can better protect against these in the future (early warning systems, better building designs, evacuation procedures etc etc

Dan_Solo

circadian wrote: »

Wow, that really is drivel.

The two basic alternative explanations for the existence of the universe are that it has a maker, namely God, or that essentially it came from nothing.

Theories are like computer programs, if you put **** into them, **** comes out the other end.
I have never once heard a physicist claim the universe "came from nothing".

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

you've completely ballsed up that question.

Of course the tree exists

I still contend that in the absence of specifying which particular tree, the tree remains hypothetical and therefore does not exist.
Much like asking theists to specify which god they're talking about...

dancingchicken

Stephen Fry is a legend. He says the kinds of things I'm thinking but I just can't find the right words. He's a genius.

Pherekydes

captbarnacles wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/why-i-just-cant-believe-in-stephen-frys-illconsidered-atheist-outburst-30968948.html

Uh oh. David Quinn is sad.

Sad? He always looks completely sour.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I still contend that in the absence of specifying which particular tree, the tree remains hypothetical and therefore does not exist.
Much like asking theists to specify which god they're talking about...

Logically, the premise started with 'if a tree falls in the forest'

This means that the argument only starts if and when a tree falls in the forest. If no tree ever falls, then the argument never gets off the ground and there may or may not be trees or forests, but if a tree does fall, than logically, that tree definitely exists

dancingchicken

Akrasia wrote: »

Our choices are all determined by the present state we find ourselves in.

There are millions of factors that decide what we do,, when we do them, what choices are available to us, why we choose one thing and not another. Our brains evaluate the options available to us and make a decision based on these.

I thought the same thing too but now I'm thinking what if time is just a perception. I mean what if our brains are just perceiving time as a past present and future and maybe it doesn't even exist. Scientists have proven that tiny insects like flies perceive time at a different rate to us. So if all organisms perceive time differently then how do we know there is a correct time? Unless our brains are just making up the existence of time.
I think theres a lot of things we will never understand because we are programmed to see the world in such a limited and specific way. For example the way bats would perceive the world would be drastically different to the way we perceive it. Then some other creatures have different types of sensors, even plants have senses that allow them to react to stimuli.

dancingchicken

Akrasia wrote: »

Free will does not require a god. The fact that god knows what we will do next implies that the theological universe is much more determanistic than the natural one.

There is also no way to prove that free will actually exists. We will never know if we are actually choosing our actions or if we were destined to make these choices anyway.

Akrasia

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Theories are like computer programs, if you put **** into them, **** comes out the other end.
I have never once heard a physicist claim the universe "came from nothing".

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A universe from nothing'
But the crux is in what the definition of 'nothing' actually is. Quantum particles pop in and out of existance 'from nothing'

If I have 100 euros and I owe you 100 euros, in accounting terms, I have zero assets 'nothing', but I still have a hundred euros in my pocket.... until I pay you back and then I have nothing again, but I can always borrow more tomorrow...

The universe has 'positive' (eg light) and 'negative' energy (eg gravity). when we add up all the positive and negative energy in the universe, the total energy content of our entire universe could be zero.

Universes could be created from nothing just like money can be created from nothing by doing things 'on credit'

It's a headwrecker, but at least its an honest attempt to understand reality. Theologans are dishonest and say 'Everything has to have a cause...... Except god'

floggg

StormWarrior wrote: »

Don't know if it's been posted already as I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but interesting response here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/02/02/stephen-fry-is-wrong-without-god-there-would-actually-be-more-evil-in-the-world/

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/stephen.fry.says.god.is.capricious.mean.minded.stupid.but.lets.not.get.angry/47174.htm

I only read the first, which was rather lacking IMO.

He doesn't actually offer any form of rebuttal to Fry's point, which is that if god exists, he is not the caring, loving benevolent god we have been sold on.

The author doesn't even try to address that, but rather just really discusses the benefits of having belief. But Fry never denied the benefits of belief - and most atheists acknowledge that belieb provides to comfort and hope the author refers to.

But that neither provides evidence for god or of his loving nature. It simply explains why one might want to cling to their faith in the face of logic and reason.

To the limited extent he does address it, he refers to mans fallen nature, without addressing how we came to fall in the first place (and gods own role in that), nor how punishing all future mankind for the mistakes of two people is just, loving or caring.

Also, his suggestion that without belief there is no morality or value for human life (or at least need for it) is both insulting to atheists and also revealing in that it exposes the flawed premise of "Christian morality."

If a Christian only does good out of fear for God or hope for personal gain in the afterlife, then they can't really claim to be a moral person - they are simply a selfish one motivated by the desire for self preservation or self enrichment.

On the other hand, as an atheist I try to live my life in the best way possible, not because I fear God or seek heaven, but simply because I think it is the right way to live, and it is its own reward.

Finally, the idea that Christianity was the thing which facilitated the great works and learning he referred to is simply absurd. We have many great and wonderful works from all over the world, from people of different faiths and no faith.

We also have islamic, pagan and Chinese scholars (amongst others) for some of the most important scientific, mathematical other developments in our history. Indeed, Europe contributed relatively little to the world for much of its time under Christianity.

It was only once Europe began to worship at the altar of the nation state and the concept of Empire that it truly became a world power.

circadian

dancingchicken wrote: »

I thought the same thing too but now I'm thinking what if time is just a perception. I mean what if our brains are just perceiving time as a past present and future and maybe it doesn't even exist. Scientists have proven that tiny insects like flies perceive time at a different rate to us. So if all organisms perceive time differently then how do we know there is a correct time? Unless our brains are just making up the existence of time.
I think theres a lot of things we will never understand because we are programmed to see the world in such a limited and specific way. For example the way bats would perceive the world would be drastically different to the way we perceive it. Then some other creatures have different types of sensors, even plants have senses that allow them to react to stimuli.

Time is a perception. It behaves differently all over the universe. If you have an atomic clock on earth and sync it with a second one and send that into the outer atmosphere, they will go out of sync. This is due to the effect gravity has on our perception of time.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Dan_Solo

Akrasia wrote: »

Logically, the premise started with 'if a tree falls in the forest'

This means that the argument only starts if and when a tree falls in the forest. If no tree ever falls, then the argument never gets off the ground and there may or may not be trees or forests, but if a tree does fall, than logically, that tree definitely exists

But we can discuss 10000ft ice cream cones falling in a sea of custard if we want. This doesn't make these things real, they are still as hypothetical as the tree until it is specified what particular tree he's talking about. You can't switch between a hypothetical argument and reality at an arbitrary point without specifying its real world existence.

Akrasia

dancingchicken wrote: »

I thought the same thing too but now I'm thinking what if time is just a perception. I mean what if our brains are just perceiving time as a past present and future and maybe it doesn't even exist. Scientists have proven that tiny insects like flies perceive time at a different rate to us.

A little bit of analogy with how computers work really helps to understand these concepts better. If you have a computer program running, you can set the 'tick rate' to be a higher or lower value. The faster the tick rate, the faster the program runs, the slower the tick rate, the slower it runs. A faster tickrate can perform more operations in the same length of time than a slow one. It's like asking a video to show 60 frames a second instead of 30 frames a second. The video will look like it's in fast forward from the perspective of the person watching it, but from the perspective of the people acting in the film, it's happening at 'normal speed'

Brains also have a 'tick rate' which can speed up or slow down. If we are in a stressful situation, your brain automatically ramps up it's attention so that time appears to slow down. If our brain usually notices 10 things a second, but then starts to notice 20 things a second, then time will appear to run at half speed (this explains why people in car accidents often describe it as happening in slow motion)

An insect like a fly needs to notice things very fast, because the things it eats, and the things that eat it can also notice things very fast, so for an insect, the tick rate is much higher than a human and time appears to move at a slower speed. But despite the experience of rates of time being different, time is never experienced backwards, there is a definite arrow of time and this is related to entropy.

So if all organisms perceive time differently then how do we know there is a correct time? Unless our brains are just making up the existence of time.

The concept of 'correct time' is itself a difficult one. 'Time' itself doesn't change, but relative time does. Two clocks of identical precision will both tick at the same rate according to their own perspective, but if viewed from different places in one clock have ticked 10 times, while the other has ticked 11 times and this is due to the warping of space/time due to gravity. It's a terrifically confusing concept and common sense breaks down completely here. We have to go with the evidence from experimental observations and trust in science when the predictions are accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

I think theres a lot of things we will never understand because we are programmed to see the world in such a limited and specific way. For example the way bats would perceive the world would be drastically different to the way we perceive it. Then some other creatures have different types of sensors, even plants have senses that allow them to react to stimuli.

You're partially right on this, we can never intuitively understand all of nature. We can only experience the world through our own senses, but we can measure nature through science and using instruments, that can detect things we can not percieve ourselves, and though these tools (including cognitive tools like logic and mathematics), we can 'understand' the universe in ways that are beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors (the ones who thought lightning was because of an angry man in the sky)