Stanley Kubrick on God and the universe - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-28-2001, 04:33 PM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: atlantis
Posts: 171
Local Time: 04:27 PM
Foray,
I honestly don't believe your theory what so ever because I think their is absolutely no evidence to back it up besides what a religion says and i don't give that much credit.

~rougerum
__________________

__________________
rougerum is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 04:47 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lucca, Tuscany, Italy (soon I will become an american citizen though :D )
Posts: 167
Local Time: 04:27 PM
Quote:
How does it present only some minor difficulty? And should we not address even the minor difficulties?

If you accept as a given that my points about the Author of creation is God are somehow minor, you can say with a GREAT deal of care that it *could* be time to "separate both concepts".

As it is, I certainly don't accept it as a given, so jumping immediately to the "it is time" comment seems VERY premature.
First of all, I dont consider that the problem of idetifying God to the creator is a minor problem. From what i said you cannot deduce that. So, there is no need to answer your second question.

Quote:
Again, the first sentence may lead to the second sentence, but the first sentence CANNOT be taken as a given, and you do nothing to convince me or the rest of this audience of the validity of the first sentence.

(In reality, God may not be omnipotent in terms of His realm. But He created this realm, and it's generally believed that creation is FAR more difficult than destruction. Thus, He holds the power of both the creation and destruction of our ENTIRE existence; from our point of view, that's pratically omnipotence.)
My comments are:
1) my first sentence derives from Psychoanalysis and from the psychology of religious dependence.
So, its validity comes from scientific research and has more depth and trustworthiness than speculations or wishful thinking ( please note that I am not trying to debase religious thought or even your beliefs). I am just trying to emphasize the difficulties of the matter). I must confess, on the other hand, that I thought it somewhat odd that you should speak for the rest of the audience...
2) As to your saying on omnipotence,i consider it utterly unacceptable. It is a typical petitio principi , considering that you are taking for granted (God's omnipotence) exactly that quality whose existence is being discussed. That is not good logic.

Quote:
The Creator may not be infinite, omniscient, or omnipotent Himself. We could all be a simulation of a universe being run a very large computer, in which case the programmers need not be immortal and all-powerful or even knowledgeable of all the events in our existence. But those programmers would still be our God (or our Gods) in that they created our universe.
My comments:
Your remarks are very interesting. However, except in the realms of science fiction - which btw, I enjoy very much - i cannot contemplate such a hypothesis. Again, you bring up the question of a creator, insisting on a sheer act of faith, which, though respectable, cannot prove anything, considering that you cannot prove or disprove anything outside Science.

Quote:
It may also be possible that the universe did "just come into being". In that case, there is no God -- even other inhabitants of this creation aren't responsible, so they can't take that role of "God".

Finally, it may also be the case that advanced life forms within this universe are aware of and manipulating our existence on the quantum level. They have "god-like" powers, in the sense of Greek gods (who themselves were created and not the Creator), but they too are merely other creations. They too CANNOT be God.
My criticisms:

As to the first paragraph:
The question of responsability does not entail necessarily that only a Creator can be responsable for its creatures. This is, again, not good logic at all. Every1 of us is responsable for our fellow-beings, even though we have not created them. This is, btw, one of the foundations of Morals, Ethics and Law. So, it is a fallacy to equate creation and responsibility. I'd beg ya permission to insist on yer using a saner logic .


As to your second paragraph:
Your argument is again flawed by the same logic inconsistency, the same petitio principi . You insist in attributing to the Godhead the necessary quality of being a creator! Now, if we are questioning exactly the condition of creator, then your arguments crumbles down. I am sorry, you should be more attentive to that.


Quote:
Here: I've laid out a well-reasoned argument. You cannot merely brush it away as "some difficulty" and proclaim that you're right. Start defending your position, or there's really no sense in continuing this discussion.
My criticism;

As to your first sentence, i am glad to see that you self-praise has good foundations. I belive i have not brushed your arguments away without discussion (just read the above )
I did not consider it very polite on yer part to invite me to start defending my position. It was being defended all the time. Now, i throw you the glove.... will you pick it up?


------------------
- Laura -
Mrs.rougerum
(definately the better half)
__________________

__________________
+Laura+ is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 05:39 PM   #18
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
 
ABEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,844
Local Time: 10:27 AM


------------------
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-Albert Einstein

www.geocities.com/u2_celebrate/u2_celebration.html
__________________
ABEL is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 05:55 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ABEL:


LOL @ ABEL!

but in reference to the topic:

I, I believe in Love..*cough*God*cough*
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 05:55 PM   #20
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 08:27 AM
HAHHAHAH ABEL! Beam me up, Scotty!

"We come to this planet in search of intelligent life - oops we made a mistake"

------------------
Look...look what you've done to me...You've made me poor and infamous, and I thank you...

My name is MISS MACPHISTO...I'm tired and i want to go HOME...

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 06:40 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Laura:

First of all, I dont consider that the problem of idetifying God to the creator is a minor problem. From what i said you cannot deduce that. So, there is no need to answer your second question.

I'll quote you again, emphasizing certain words to make my point:

"As to your observations conserning the concept of a self-making God, it only presents some difficolty for those who belive that idea of God is inextricably linked to the idea of a Creator. It is time that we should separet both concepts."

You said that the idea was "only" a problem that presents "some" difficulty. You didn't say what difficulties, and you certainly didn't refute them. That's why I came to my conclusion. (Where am I wrong?)

And it still begs the question, shouldn't we address these difficulties, minor or not?

My comments are:
1) my first sentence derives from Psychoanalysis and from the psychology of religious dependence.
So, its validity comes from scientific research and has more depth and trustworthiness than speculations or wishful thinking ( please note that I am not trying to debase religious thought or even your beliefs). I am just trying to emphasize the difficulties of the matter). I must confess, on the other hand, that I thought it somewhat odd that you should speak for the rest of the audience...


So, your first sentence comes from "psychoanalysis and psychology". That's about the first time I've read anything suggesting WHY I should give your thoughts any creedence. And with fields as controversial and, frankly, inconclusive, as psychology, I would like a better reason to believe the theory than "science says so".

As an aside, I don't think science is necessarily more has more "depth" or "trustworthiness" in all fields. What science has to say about what happened before the Big Bang is also just speculation, and science can say NOTHING about the existence of God outside the universe, the existence of the soul, or the imperatives of morality.

Back to our specific example, I'm not debating why humans believe what they believe (epistemology), but WHETHER what we believe is valid (metaphysics). Even if we came to believe in omnipotence for all the wrong reasons, an omnipotent being could still exist, and your statement about how we came to believe in omnipotence doesn't address that possibility.

(Oh, and calling religious faith "wishful thinking" is debasing that faith. Besides, it's often not wishful thinking, as it would be far easier for me to do what I want, rather than what I ought, if I didn't believe in divine judgment.)

Finally, I'm not speaking for the entire audience in terms of who agrees with you. I'm saying that you did not well defend your claims in your posts, and I'm implying that one should remember that not everyone who reads your posts knows or agrees with your basic assumptions.

2) As to your saying on omnipotence,i consider it utterly unacceptable. It is a typical petitio principi , considering that you are taking for granted (God's omnipotence) exactly that quality whose existence is being discussed. That is not good logic.

I don't see where I stumbled into that fallacy -- except on perhaps not saying, "assuming God exists" EVERY single time I use the word "God" -- and I certainly wasn't saying that omnipotence should for granted. I was saying that God may NOT be omnipotent, but he could still be practially omnipotent. This is what I meant:

1. God, if He exists, is the Creator of the universe.
2. If God has the power of creation, he most likely has the power of destruction (since entropy suggests it's far more difficult to destroy than create).
3. From 1. and 2., if God exists, he probably has the ability to destroy the universe. EVEN if He is not all-powerful in His own realm, His ability to create and destroy this realm is -- from our point of view -- practically omnipotence.

Granted, my argument's a little tenuous, but I don't see where it makes the assumptive fallacy.

My comments:
Your remarks are very interesting. However, except in the realms of science fiction - which btw, I enjoy very much - i cannot contemplate such a hypothesis. Again, you bring up the question of a creator, insisting on a sheer act of faith, which, though respectable, cannot prove anything, considering that you cannot prove or disprove anything outside Science.


All I was doing was demonstrating one way in which the creator of this universe might not be ultimately omnipotent, omniscient, etc. It's a bit silly, I admit, but there are few other sensible examples.

And, yes, I'm talking about things outside of the realm of science, but this again leads me back to my ORIGINAL point:

IF there is a God, He is the creator of the universe.

The two salient consequences of this assertion are these:

1. If there is no Creator, there is no God.

2. No creation (such as an alien race), having been created, cannot be the Creator, and thus cannot be God.

As to the first paragraph:
The question of responsability does not entail necessarily that only a Creator can be responsable for its creatures. This is, again, not good logic at all. Every1 of us is responsable for our fellow-beings, even though we have not created them. This is, btw, one of the foundations of Morals, Ethics and Law. So, it is a fallacy to equate creation and responsibility. I'd beg ya permission to insist on yer using a saner logic


I THOUGHT I was being explicit enough, but apparently not:

...other inhabitants of this creation aren't responsible FOR CREATION ITSELF, so they can't take that role of "God".

Certainly, a finite sentient being is responsible for its own actions, but it's not responsible for creation. It didn't create the universe, and since God (if He exists) is the Creator of the universe, the being cannot rightfully claim to be God.

As to your second paragraph:
Your argument is again flawed by the same logic inconsistency, the same petitio principi . You insist in attributing to the Godhead the necessary quality of being a creator! Now, if we are questioning exactly the condition of creator, then your arguments crumbles down. I am sorry, you should be more attentive to that.


Yes, I AM knowingly attributing to God the assumption that, if He exists, He is the Creator of the universe. I don't feel too bad about that assumption because it's inexorably implied by the definition of God.

Here are the first two definitions of "god" (my emphasis added) in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/ ):

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

(Remember that Meaning 1 and Meaning 2 are different; one doesn't lead to the other, just as an elephant's trunk isn't the same as a suitcase.)

It seems to me that Kubrick and those who have supported him in this debate are saying, "aliens could be gods, therefore they could be God". My objection is this:

*God is defined to be "supreme" in power.

*These aliens couldn't have created the universe, so they're aren't supreme in power.

*Thefore, these aliens aren't God.

And there isn't the problem of petitio principi because a definition isn't an assumption of existence.

(Example: Say we define "three" to be "the number greater than two and less than four". If someone claims "Three is the largest number!", the easiest, clearest, and best defense is to say, "No, it's defined as being less than four". That's never assuming anything about the existence of the concepts of two, three, or four.)

In this case, someone is claiming God may not have created the universe, and I claim that the definition of "God" implies otherwise.

The only way I see that my argument can be refuted is to suggest that a creation can somehow be supreme. Good luck showing that.


As to your first sentence, i am glad to see that you self-praise has good foundations. I belive i have not brushed your arguments away without discussion (just read the above )


Well, perhaps my arguments are not "well" reasoned, but they were certainly reasoned well enough to invite more than being merely brushed off.

I thank you for now more fully addressing my arguments, but up until your last post, I didn't think you were addressing my points fully enough.

I did not consider it very polite on yer part to invite me to start defending my position. It was being defended all the time. Now, i throw you the glove.... will you pick it up?

Again, at the time, you weren't defending your arguments very fully. I may have been out of line to invite you to "defend your position", but I still feel I was within reason to ask you to defend it better.

I again thank you for having done so.

I've now laid out more argument in an even more explicit fashion. I ask, what's wrong with it?

Thanks.

Bubba

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 10-28-2001).]
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 10-28-2001, 11:31 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by rougerum:
Foray,
I honestly don't believe your theory what so ever because I think their is absolutely no evidence to back it up besides what a religion says and i don't give that much credit.

~rougerum
But don't you see that your 'evidence' is as good as mine, that Kubrick's concept is mostly speculation as well? I honestly don't see why his/your theory is superior to mine. You don't have proof that aliens are a spiritual Higher Being.

foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 12:55 AM   #23
An Angel In Devil's Shoes
 
ABEL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,844
Local Time: 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by foray:
You don't have proof that aliens are a spiritual Higher Being.
what more proof do you need?:




------------------
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-Albert Einstein

www.geocities.com/u2_celebrate/u2_celebration.html
__________________
ABEL is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 02:25 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lucca, Tuscany, Italy (soon I will become an american citizen though :D )
Posts: 167
Local Time: 04:27 PM
Thank you very much for your observations, which are very interesting indeed. I am preparing a more comprehensive reply to them. I ask you to be kind enough to wait a little bit more.
And, btw, may I compliment you on your argumentative skills.



------------------
- Laura -
Mrs.rougerum
(definately the better half)
__________________
+Laura+ is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 05:01 PM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: atlantis
Posts: 171
Local Time: 04:27 PM
His theory is ten million times more likely than yours foray, sad to say it but i think it really is.

~rougerum
__________________
rougerum is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 05:40 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Achtung Bubba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 11:27 AM
No problem, Laura.

I have a test tomorrow, so it's probably for the best that I don't have to spend a good deal of time reading, analyzing, and replying to your latest response.

------------------
- Achtung Bubba

I believe in truth, beauty, freedom, and -- above all things -- love.
__________________
Achtung Bubba is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 09:39 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by rougerum:
His theory is ten million times more likely than yours foray, sad to say it but i think it really is.

~rougerum
Elaborate then, please. Why do you think so?

foray
__________________
foray is offline  
Old 10-29-2001, 10:27 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by foray:
Elaborate then, please. Why do you think so?
foray
Yeah, I'd like to read it myself, see as I believe as foray is inclined to believe, that aliens may just be demons. Makes perfect sense to me. Demons want people to be pre-occupied with anything besides God or the Devil. If they can get people to believe in intelligent life from other planets, then maybe people will start questioning not only God, but Satan also. And Satan wants people to not believe in him.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 01:00 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lucca, Tuscany, Italy (soon I will become an american citizen though :D )
Posts: 167
Local Time: 04:27 PM
1. I think that at the root of our discussion lies a basic difficulty: You start from the axiom that God is necessarily apoditically omnipotent ("He is not God that is not omnipotent").
I do not accept this axiom.
2. I consider that the most important characteristic of the Godhead is His (or Hers) quality of being the Fountain Of Infinite Love.
3. Being omnipotent is, therefore, according to my belief (shared by other ppl for whom omnipotence is not an apoditic trait of God), a non-essential category.
4. Besides, what is omnipotence after all? What interest would have an infinitely loving God to exercise it, or to destroy (for instance) something? If omnipotence should be considered as the total capacity to fulfill His desires, we would have a God with wishes and desires, that is, an INCOMPLETE BEING, something which clashes head on with the infinite completude (or completeness) of an omnipotent or absolutely self-contained or self-satisfied Entity
5. Summing up, and having in view that no last word can ever be said on this transcendental subject, here are my beliefs:
a) Whether God is or is not omnipotent, I assume that His essencial quality is Love.
b) Creationists will never be able to dissociate God's responsibility from the things that He supposedly created.
The system detectable in the world (In the Biosphere, in which the alimentary chain forces species to prey on each other in order to survive; in the astronomical realm, the incredible violence that presides over the birth of the worlds; chance and disaster everywhere, etc, etc) IS A CRUEL AND RUTHLESS SYSTEM, which begs the question of why a supremely Good Being would give birth to such a wild mess.
c) Accordingly, God's temple is the human heart. If He is omnipotent or a creator, although those might be very impotant qualities, is a moot question, totally unanswerable.


------------------
- Laura -
Mrs.rougerum
(definately the better half)
__________________
+Laura+ is offline  
Old 10-30-2001, 04:55 PM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: atlantis
Posts: 171
Local Time: 04:27 PM
Foray,

since with the fact that I don't believe in any religion comes the idea that you would realize it is obvious that I don't believe aliens are demons sent by satan or whatever. Since I don't believe in any religion it is frankly obvious that I would hardly believe it because to believe in that is also to believe in demons and satan in the first place, which I don't. Kubrick's view looks at the facts of the world and with them the probable possibilities that would come along with them. I think you foray and 80s should have a much better time replying to the next portion of the Kubrick/Playboy interview in which he speaks on aliens directly.

~rougerum
__________________

__________________
rougerum is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com