5 ms·

Nope. Your statement is completely illogical... I get the point that you're trying to make but I think you phrased it quite poorly. Unless of course you litera

by ZoF 13y ago

Nope. Your statement is completely illogical... I get the point that you're trying to make but I think you phrased it quite poorly. Unless of course you literally mean that god(s) physically exist simply because the concept of "gods" helped shape our society... In which case, elves and dwarves must also exist, fairies and dragons as well; after all, the effects of those can be felt in the lives of individuals, although to a much lesser degree. >But if you can experience the effects of something it is very likely that it does in fact exist. Once of the most ridiculous things I have read in recent history.

keiferski 13y ago
His point is that something doesn't need to literally exist in physical world for it have a real impact on reality. Of course, the bigger point is that everything boils down to what you mean by "exist." The predominant opinion of today is strongly biased toward physical sciences, so if it doesn't exist in flesh and bone it's meaningless. Which is strange coming from a site catering to software engineers.
- ZoF 13y ago
  Yep, the disagreement stemmed from our personal definitions of exist in the context of the subject at hand. When you're talking about god I would argue that the typical(most commonly used) definition of "exist" would be "physically", or even "spiritually", but not just mentally or based on a concepts impact on the world. I would never argue that religion hasn't had a huge impact on society, but I think his original statement could definitely have used a qualifying statement as to his actual intended meaning. I think a more accurate representation of his point would be "the concept of god exists" because the _actual_ diety itself doesn't exist in the traditional physical sense.
Swizec 13y ago
I didn't say physically exist, I said exist. Two different concepts. Yes I do mean to say that gods exist simply because the concept of gods exists. Because that's all that they are - concepts/ideas. You see the problem is, unless you accept that is enough for gods to exist, then you must also deny the existence of things like justice, law, copyright, mathematics, software, et cetera. Otherwise your belief system isn't even consistent with itself.
- ZoF 13y ago
  I maintain my stance that your original statement was phrased poorly. It's a semantic argument at this point. We're both using the term "exists", but our personal meanings are different. I personally believe that stating something "exists" in the context of religion/mythological-creatures/magic/otherfakethings usually means that you believe it exists physically. Obviously I don't deny god exists in the sense that he/she/it is a delusion held by a large portion of the population which effects the world around us; but I do deny that god "exists" in the physical sense... I don't adhere to your train of logic... as I stated before, for your belief system to be consistent with itself elves/dragons/magic/fairies/etc.. "exist"; Of course the concept of them exists and the world is altered as a result, but your original statement seemed to imply a more literal meaning to the term "exists".
  - Swizec 13y ago
    I concede that my original statement was written in haste and thus not phrased the best. But here's the thing: As soon as you start talking about existence of things, it's nothing but a semantic argument. I will finish with a youtube clip from a Prattchet-based movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfCGf_suxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfCGf_suxs The gist is that a lot of things exist solely because we believe in them.
    - waps 13y ago
      Of course most things do not "exist" if you demand physical material existence as semantics. soul -> doesn't exist. law -> doesn't exist. countries -> don't exist justice, peace, war, good, evil -> don't exist computer programs -> don't exist hacker news -> doesn't exist and one might even say You don't exist. You're merely a set of partially filled ion channels in a bag of liquid some existing system likes to simulate for some reason. Just like minds seem to like to simulate God (which is independant of whether God has a physical manifestation or not). Your mind only exists in the same way God exists, no more, no less. God is simply found in more than a single bag of liquid. (I've studied AI, so I would argue the same -partially- applies to your mind, in that people with memories of you effectively simulate your mind to e.g. know if you'd agree or disagree with a proposal of theirs) And frankly, if I were free to choose, I wouldn't have a physical manifestation at all, if I didn't need it to affect the real world. In fact, I am a computer programmer, one way of describing that job would be that I spend my days making other physical systems do what I'd have to do myself otherwise. I'd love to cut out the middleman that is my body. It's fragile, it's distracting, it fails from time to time, it hurts sometimes, it communicates through talking and typing and that makes it fucking slow to communicate with, it's ... Why would you want that if you can avoid it ?

by ZoF 13y ago

keiferski 13y ago

His point is that something doesn't need to literally exist in physical world for it have a real impact on reality. Of course, the bigger point is that everything boils down to what you mean by "exist." The predominant opinion of today is strongly biased toward physical sciences, so if it doesn't exist in flesh and bone it's meaningless. Which is strange coming from a site catering to software engineers.

ZoF 13y ago
Yep, the disagreement stemmed from our personal definitions of exist in the context of the subject at hand. When you're talking about god I would argue that the typical(most commonly used) definition of "exist" would be "physically", or even "spiritually", but not just mentally or based on a concepts impact on the world. I would never argue that religion hasn't had a huge impact on society, but I think his original statement could definitely have used a qualifying statement as to his actual intended meaning. I think a more accurate representation of his point would be "the concept of god exists" because the _actual_ diety itself doesn't exist in the traditional physical sense.

Swizec 13y ago

I didn't say physically exist, I said exist. Two different concepts. Yes I do mean to say that gods exist simply because the concept of gods exists. Because that's all that they are - concepts/ideas. You see the problem is, unless you accept that is enough for gods to exist, then you must also deny the existence of things like justice, law, copyright, mathematics, software, et cetera. Otherwise your belief system isn't even consistent with itself.

ZoF 13y ago
I maintain my stance that your original statement was phrased poorly. It's a semantic argument at this point. We're both using the term "exists", but our personal meanings are different. I personally believe that stating something "exists" in the context of religion/mythological-creatures/magic/otherfakethings usually means that you believe it exists physically. Obviously I don't deny god exists in the sense that he/she/it is a delusion held by a large portion of the population which effects the world around us; but I do deny that god "exists" in the physical sense... I don't adhere to your train of logic... as I stated before, for your belief system to be consistent with itself elves/dragons/magic/fairies/etc.. "exist"; Of course the concept of them exists and the world is altered as a result, but your original statement seemed to imply a more literal meaning to the term "exists".
- Swizec 13y ago
  I concede that my original statement was written in haste and thus not phrased the best. But here's the thing: As soon as you start talking about existence of things, it's nothing but a semantic argument. I will finish with a youtube clip from a Prattchet-based movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfCGf_suxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIfCGf_suxs The gist is that a lot of things exist solely because we believe in them.
  - waps 13y ago
    Of course most things do not "exist" if you demand physical material existence as semantics. soul -> doesn't exist. law -> doesn't exist. countries -> don't exist justice, peace, war, good, evil -> don't exist computer programs -> don't exist hacker news -> doesn't exist and one might even say You don't exist. You're merely a set of partially filled ion channels in a bag of liquid some existing system likes to simulate for some reason. Just like minds seem to like to simulate God (which is independant of whether God has a physical manifestation or not). Your mind only exists in the same way God exists, no more, no less. God is simply found in more than a single bag of liquid. (I've studied AI, so I would argue the same -partially- applies to your mind, in that people with memories of you effectively simulate your mind to e.g. know if you'd agree or disagree with a proposal of theirs) And frankly, if I were free to choose, I wouldn't have a physical manifestation at all, if I didn't need it to affect the real world. In fact, I am a computer programmer, one way of describing that job would be that I spend my days making other physical systems do what I'd have to do myself otherwise. I'd love to cut out the middleman that is my body. It's fragile, it's distracting, it fails from time to time, it hurts sometimes, it communicates through talking and typing and that makes it fucking slow to communicate with, it's ... Why would you want that if you can avoid it ?