Life of Pi
discussion
Is this book meant to make you believe in God?
message 51:
by
Bhavana
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Mar 02, 2012 11:07AM
I am agnostic and I continued to read the book with a hope that it might somewhere make me a believer in God. It actually is more like the movie Cast away to me. I just flipped through some of the pages real fast I should say.
reply
|
flag
Made me feel that god believes in us
I think this story isn't meant to "make" the reader believe anything. The point of the story is to inspire the reader to think about his or her preconceived notions about faith and what is "real." The two stories--one more fantastic and one more "rationally acceptable"--are a bit deceptive. He writes the entire book in such a way to make the fantastic story more believable so that by the time you're done with the story, you're much less likely to believe the more mundane narrative. Martel's toying with us. He sets us up to believe the fantastic and then makes the rational incredulous. It's brilliant.
I don't believe in God , I believe in Allah
Atheist here. No, this book is not meant to make you believe in God. The theme in the book is that of comparative religion, indeed a favorite starting point for many Atheist arguments against belief.
No. I didn´t think of this novel in that respect at all. I liked it and think it gave you a lot to think about. But - a hidden agenda - no, I don´t think so. God works in His one ways though, maybe He wanted you to wonder...
Did this book make me believe in God? The honest answer is know. If anything it made me feel that rites and rituals take a back seat when mere survival is the concern.But it was pretty interesting to read everyone's views about the topic. I mean, I did not know such deep symbolisms and inner meanings were associated with the book. It was a good experience reading through this thread.
I liked Pi. He was imaginative and inventive. He had an instinct for survival. I believed the second story and I believe in God. But like the tiger that disappeared he doesn't always stick around to show his face to the unbelieving. The part of the ending that I liked was that even though the official who came back with the affidavit for Pi to sign believed the second story he chose the first for his report. The most interesting question for me is, why did he choose the first story? He appeared to know which story was true, yet he chose the first as the official version.
Well, if that was the purpose of the book, then it failed for me!
Well the fact is we know the truth in this book, and we can choose which thing to "believe" but that doesn't change what we "know". In real life we don't know the truth and we can't. For this reason I think it's chalk and cheese.
I didn't find anything in the narrative that I thought might make a person change there belief system one way or the other apart from the sleight on agnostics, however one of the ideas that I did come away with was the reasonable need to assess, prioritise or even review beliefs according to your situation, as when Pi gives up his vegetarianism on the lifeboat without losing his faith in God. The exploring faith element of the book is discussed openly in the first third of the story and explored more artistically in the latter two, I thought.The peripheral narrative voice in the book does say that life has a moral orientation that is more satisfying than the rational. He is discussing the spiritual side of our existence and how we align ourselves with it or integrate it much more than whether God exists or not
Yvonne wrote: "He appeared to know which story was true..." He didn't appear that way to me. He thought second story was more plausible. But he chose to pretend to believe the first story because it felt like the right thing to believe. How could he know which one was true? It was Pi's word against Pi's.
From the very beginning I felt like it was trying to make you believe in God. It was very preachy because Pi believed in three different religions, and he would go on and on about them. It's one thing to talk about religious belief, but another to preach it to the reader. I could be wrong, it might not have been the intention of the author at all, but that was the feeling I got when I read it.To be honest, I was not a fan of this book at all. There was one bit that I particularly didn't like - he says that atheists will give up their atheism and turn to religion when on their deathbeds. I found that quite offensive - as if a person's atheism can be changed just like that.
The book is too boring...Read it at your own risk..;)
Sid wrote: "...he would go on and on about them. It's one thing to talk about religious belief, but another to preach it to the reader..."Sid, Pi didn't realize he had a reader, he was just thinking to himself. If you felt he was talking to you, than Martel haven't succeeded in making you suspend your disbelief.
I don't think Yann Martel would try to make us believe in God. Instead, he's playing with the idea of God. Haven't we all, at some point in our lives or another, questioned the existence of God and tried to use evidence to prove or disprove his existence. This is the kind of book I would write if I was in a similar mood.I think the book is also about tolerance: notice where the book is set. India, a country in which religion battles have have been waged for centuries.
Артём wrote: "Sid wrote: "...he would go on and on about them. It's one thing to talk about religious belief, but another to preach it to the reader..."Sid, Pi didn't realize he had a reader, he was just think..."
I felt that the author was trying to preach to the reader through Pi's inner musings. Of course I knew that Pi didn't know he had an audience. You're right in that Martel didn't succeed in suspending my belief, but that was not because I'm a bad reader but becuase he is a bad writer (and yes, I'm aware that he won the Booker, but the Booker prize does get it wrong sometimes)
It is meant to make you think about whether you do or not, although there don't seem to be many undecided people here!
I think Pi's story is an improved version of Pascal's wager ("there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter can't actually be known"). Pi takes this seriously and tries to improve his chances even greater by believing in three religions at once. Depending on reader's own religious inclination, this can be seen as absurd (one of believed in gods may be offended/hurt/jealous by Pi's believing in the others, thus invalidating the ploy), a clever fit (huh! Pi has tripled his chances at eternal bliss!) or a half measure (what about all the gods Pi doesn't believe in?).
I think Pascal's wager was likely a joke by Pascal, but I feel as though the story was a way to show how eager we can be to want to accept fantasy over reality, despite how absurd it might be.
Will wrote: "I think Pascal's wager was likely a joke by Pascal, but I feel as though the story was a way to show how eager we can be to want to accept fantasy over reality, despite how absurd it might be."It's a story, anything can happen in a story. I for one find a boy following three religions at once much less plausible than a carnivorous island, but everybody keep on questioning the latter. The author haven't left us much clues to decide what sort of story this is - a magical story with miracles and talking animals or a sad story of a delusional shipwreck or maybe a recursive self-referential story about stories. At least I haven't found any evidence supporting any of the hypotheses, so either I have to actively chose one - but then on what grounds? Or I can refuse to chose - but then I'm choosing the last version, no?
Yes, anything can happen in a story. In this one, seemingly impossible events one after the other unfold, but we tend to believe it, or we want to believe it, because it's told with such care and passion. When, at the end, we are presented with an alternative version, one which is more grounded in reality, we don't want to believe it. We want to believe the fantastical version. I think this was the whole goal of the book. To show us how we tend to suspend belief because of wishful thinking.
I agree that a boy following three religions at once isn't very plausible, but less plausible than a carnivorous island? I don't know about that.
If you read the book as being about "suspension of belief", than you're closer to my third alternative ("recursive self-referential story about stories"). In some moods I see it like that too. But look. In the Usual Suspects they show us all sorts of signs that the story of Keyser Söze was fictional (nested within the fiction of the movie), in the Life of Pi the alternative story only suggests that the magical chapters might have been fiction-within-fiction. Or they could just as well be truth-within-fiction. The fact that the insurance guys chose the talking animals story for their report suggest that in the world of the book the second story was improbable, but not impossible. And the triple-faith boy reminds us that the story isn't happening in our world, but in a fictional one. So why would we prefer a story more plausible in our universe to the other? That's like saying that there weren't real Lilliputians in Lilliput and Gulliver just made them up.
Actually, the insurance guys do not choose the story with the animals for their report, they conclude that neither matter since neither explain the sinking ship, so Pi asks them which one they "like better," they reply the one with animals, and Pi replies "and so it is with God." Then one off-handedly remarks that he should be careful on his way out in case the Tiger is around, and Pi says not to worry, that the tiger is hiding where he can never be found, which suggested to me that the tiger could only be found in his imagination.So, my argument is that, within the fictional story, there was a true one, and a false one. The fantastical one with the animals was made up, although it is the one we would prefer to be true, and the other is the truth, the one we do not want to accept because of how horrendous it is. And so it often goes in this reality.
That's not what I remember, so you're probably right :-)
the narrator says its the readers decision what to believe? then y all of u are taken this as a public debate.
To me, the entire movie and book Life of PI is a parable that does not have to hold any meaning to somebody while it may hold meaning to someone else.Regarding the nature of the story, I choose to summarize it as PI got stranded on a boat. He was there alone, with a couple of animals, and had to survive a long time out on the water all by himself.
He therefore exaggerated events, to suit the nature of the voyage he was on. There really was a tiger, but not a magical fish. The Zebra really did get killed but there was not a hyena since no hyena bones were on board. The tiger ate the Zebra out of necessity.
The mythical so called Island really did occur, but not in the way we were told it occurs.
Due to his calling out to God/Creator, he did land on an Island. It was not a giant plant Island that could grow like a tree.
I surmise it was this Island, which history has found ample evidence of that exists in the South Pacific region.
"It was in 1581 that the valiant explorer learned of an atoll in the South Pacific that one might not visit, save on peril of his life, for this coral ring enclosed a group of islets on one of which the Death Flower grew; hence it was named El Banoor, or Island of Death. This flower was so large that a man might enter it — a cave of color and perfume — but if he did so it was the last of him, for, lulled by its strange fragrance, he reclined on its lower petals and fell into the sleep from which there is no waking."
http://www.archive.org/stream/carnivo...
El Banoor, is a mud Island Atoll that does exist in the South Pacific region and has been encountered on several occasions. It is out the way of Madagascar. El Banoor does hold life, such as an exotic plant, Meerkats, Rats and Large Beetles.
However, the Death Flower is a combination of many various Poisonous Algae rolled into one shape so it appears like a giant trap. Also it doesn't float, it's made of mud & partly touches the bottom of the Sea Coral floor.
I surmise PI landed on this terrifying Island, imagined it the way he wished to see it and imagined it also floated in the water with an eerie glow. I believe some force "sent" him to this Island (which is hard to chart, but today's ships can easily visit the remains of this Atoll Island) in order to teach him a valuable lesson: There is no such thing as the Tree of everlasting perfection. The Life he thought he was nourishing was not his own, as he was in the middle of a dangerous place, Death Island, which is quite a few kilometers SOUTH of Mexico. At night it got easier for the carnivorous Algae to attack him, the Tiger and those Meerkats. They thought they were entering paradise but awoke to the reality it was a giant Cave, one that rots with the real taste of death. That would explain all the Algae on his boat, the Meerkat bones, and evidence he carries but also explain how he exaggerated this aspect of his journey in LUMINOUS detail - by making the viewer wish to believe it was a glowing phosphorous, perfect paradise.
And in that, lies a valuable lesson for us all. You can learn more about El Banoor's tainted world in National Geographic magazine & plant documentaries.
I think that the story the Pi tells is between reality and fantasy. I also believe that the author wants you to choose the magical story of the tiger. Choosing that story is just like choosing to believe in God. Perhaps it isn't just one conception of God, but incorporating all religions - all beliefs. Even in the face of losing everything, for Pi, there is still meaning, there is still a reason to live just as there is for the rest of us. This is a case for tragic optimism. "And this in turn presupposes the human capacity to creatively turn life's negative aspects into something positive or constructive." Since you can't prove God one way or the other, which do you choose?
I don't disagree with you but I think the real problem with the film is, he never shows you the story happened. It may have happened or may not have happened at all. Thus its meaning, regarding God and all those other things, doesn't hit home the way it should.
Also I do disagree on the instance of deity, I think there is so much ample archaeological evidence, first hand experiences & old tablets that point to the form of some kind of supreme being in this world...that it's very hard to conclude there is not a scientific answer for God. He exists, the question is more what does he mean to you.
The first time I read this book it was for a reading group i belong to, and as I can recall the question of belief in God was not a question discuss. Our question was more do you believe the story is for real or was it a way to tell a tale about human beings. And if it was tale, was justice given in portraying someone life experience. I really like PI observing or practicing all the different religion, but on another side were all the chartacter from religion background.
This book transcends description. Does it make you believe in God? Maybe, but the poor Pi also calls on Vishnu, Allah and Moses, he embraces all of what was good in faith. Helps when you have a Tiger in a small boat with you, even if the cat does have a proper name.
I think it's amazing how different everyone's reaction in this thread is to this book and how it makes many of you think about God and your beliefs. I can honestly say that not once did it have me consider or re-evaluate my spiritual beliefs.
I took it more as a statement about written word and story telling and how religious texts may not be even close to what actually happened and how you will never know. But I certainly didn't find that concept new or thought provoking. Sorry everyone!
Liz Wrote: "And I still don't think you can prove where I live! To do that you would have to be able to prove alot of other things first. Am I actually a real person? Documents and the like are called 'proof' but they are only artificial. Plus, they can be faked. You would also have to be able to prove that you are not, lets say a disembodied mind if you prefer that to 'brain in a jar', which if you were, would mean that I and wherever I live are a figment of your imagination and do not actually exist."I think that's largely the whole point of the wider context in this story, and why PI's flirtation with belief in a higher power is just a fantasy and not really more then that. Meaning, PI likes the idea of doing things "for" God - he likes the luxury, the fantasy, not the reality.
To compare PI's fixation on God to something more tangible, I akin it to another movie/Book that is fairly glossed over a lot titled "The Center of The World." In that movie, the viewer is led to assume that Richard is just a poor boyscout who got taken for a ride by a stripper. Thusly, it becomes the girl's fault his life falls apart.
When in reality, in the story for The Center of The World this guy who calls himself Richard (ironically) already has no life to speak of and it fell apart long ago. Richard is a recluse who rarely ever ventures outside of his house, plays on the computer all day, and can't even bring himself to attend his sister's open eye surgery.
Richard, not the people around him; shows absolutely no signs of desiring human contact at all. However, his "fantasy" about how human contact works is fulfilled by online porn, hyper realized sexual innuendo & a Strip Club. Thus that is all he knows about the real world or about life, by his own choosing. His only known "acquaintance" is his financial advisor, a common thread in Silicon Valley. Thus when he meets Florence, the audience is tricked into believing he is actively seeking a friend or at least something outside his droll existence. However, reality shows that Richard ignores her the entire time and actually doesn't even notice Florence is there until she mentions one day.."I'm a stripper."
Then, miraculously Richard is suddenly interested in this girl and in that moment creates a fantasy around her that is neither real nor can ever be fulfilled. An astute reader pointed out that if Richard truly had any interest in this girl, or in being her friend, he probably would have gone to the coffee shop after work to introduce himself & what he does. He would have asked her what she likes to do, shown some kind of interest in her life and asked to find out Florence's real name. Also, Richard would have actually done something like gone to the place she plays drums and gotten to know the band or even supported her to get a gig.
Of course, Richard never does anything of the sort and skips it all in favor of Lap Dances with this girl after-hours...in a highly glitzy, hyper-surreal fantasy world he calls the Strip Club. Or the porno website, as expected.
This is because Richard doesn't really want any relationship with anybody....or the emotional problems, challenges, desires & triumphs which come with it. If he actually did, he would've noticed Florence was not feeling great and made some effort to cheer her & her friends up. He would have done "something" to initiate contact, yet of course he never does, in spite of her desire for that. Thus Richard knows nothing of the world, all he knows is fantasy. All he asks the "girl of his dreams" to embark on is also a fantasy. To which $10,000 is going to be supplied in the deal, and what kind of girl could ever resist that? So of course, Florence treats the entire thing as a fake fantasy and gives him what he asked. His dances with her border on the surreal, to the outright delusional. And it happens every few hours, not days. Surely by now he must get the picture, that none of it is real? The fact he never showed any interest in her life except for a lap dance, should tell as much. Yet Richard allows himself to EAT the fantasy, swallowing it whole & deludes himself into thinking he found his new wife. He swallows it so violently, that even if deep down he knows its fraud, he pretends to let the relationship blossom. In reality however, he only flirts with the "idea" of Florence...showing zero interest in her life as a locksmith nor complementing her or showing any interest outside of dance. He shuts down any sort of possibility and simply plays the part of the porn star/stripper. (In the same way a religious follower might play devoted attendee at the Baptist church in Life of PI - sadly)
When his world is turned upside down, that is when he realizes that the hyper-surreal fantasy of the titty bars & Adult Sites is NOT real....and provides nothing real. He gets his first glimpse at this upon meeting the second "hooker." In a fleeting glance, he realizes she was nearly killed and THAT is real. Not the make-believe video porn. After facing this uncomfortable truth & shattering his own world to pieces, Richard assumes that he's cured. But then he goes right back to the strip club, seeking out "Florence" again....just like nothing ever happened showing his mental instability. Thus, the fact Richard never seeks out Florence's band, seeks to aid Florence in any way, or seeks to know her beyond the fake person at the "club"....is proof he never desires any relationship with others.
Raised on high-action video games, entertainment and hyper surreal fantasy soap operas....For Richard, the make believe world is all he wants or needs. Given Richard's emotional detachment to life, most would say he is a deeply disturbed or unstable individual. But the point is, Richard chose his life that way & there's no reason to excuse his behavior. The story and book is a parable of how in the real world, "fake" relationship/situations and surreal fantasy is often just as prevalent & saturated as real relationships and emotional connections. And especially in a raw technology age, its about how one man's many fairy-tale mind games create the illusion of a perfect world he can escape to...to get away from the dull, pain filled existence he lives. And rather than face reality, he relies on that fantasy to COPE...never seeking to tell himself truth or allow pain in favor of some idealized "make-believe" world he likes. To prove it unabashedly, the author makes sure to note Richard doesn't even ask the Bellhop if he had a good day. He doesn't even ask Florence if she believes in God or what her favorite color is, showing zero interest in others entirely.
In the exact same way, PI adopts religion as a "coping" mechanism...he takes on rituals like bowing to Allah or showing up in Church on certain days & feeling good. He goes through the motions, doing things to enrich himself....never actually seeking out or PRAYING to God. He goes out of his way to "enjoy" the fantasy of bowing down to Idols, to Buddha, or eating cold rice in front of Allah statues because those are the rules. He likes the ecstasy of believing he is "close" to God, when reality shows it couldn't be any further from the truth. Because in PI's case, all the religion practices in the world can't get him closer to connecting with God. Or experiencing, or even caring whether God exists. To PI, all it is; is the "feeling" fantasy of feeling free and good. A parable of others who seek the presence of God, without actually doing anything to "earn" God's respect and adoration. So in a way, PI's fantasy of Richard Parker is no different from Richard in Center of the World the novel.
He goes through the motions, attends on Sundays, enjoys feeling "high" like a kite but never cries out in God's name nor in reality desires anything from God at all. Nor does he seek any connection with God beyond a fantasy. Therefore, this "fantasy" takes him over and he RECREATES it in an Island, a new home for Richard, a beautiful paradise & future life which has no meaning. Its only when this fantasy is shattered, and PI is ironically almost killed & drowned, that he finds a way to truly care for a higher power. Whether that be God or not, the conclusion leaves it very clear that this is the only time he ever desired that relationship. And it also leaves clear it is the only time he actually "sought" God, as a beginning step, since going through the motions in religions are fantasies that don't bring you any closer to your real self or God. In a nutshell, that is what Yann Martel admits.
There are many messages in Yann Martel's Life of Pi, not just one. However, one of Martel's main messages in to have not be excessively reasonable, to the extent where you reject all the wonders of the universe. He encourages the reader to suspend disbelief and scepticism in relation to the story implausible with animals, in order to consider its possibility. In this same way, he encourages the reader to take a leap of faith in order to have faith in something; in particular to have faith in God.
There are many messages in Yann Martel's Life of Pi, not just one. However, one of Martel's main messages in to have not be excessively reasonable, to the extent where you reject all the wonders of the universe. He encourages the reader to suspend disbelief and scepticism in relation to the story implausible with animals, in order to consider its possibility. In this same way, he encourages the reader to take a leap of faith in order to have faith in something; in particular to have faith in God.
I disagree on that point. There aren't many extraordinary wonders of the universe that can't be explained.God may exist (given the high amount of archaeological evidence pointing to some kind of higher power) but I guarantee he does not want most people to be showing respects to him, through fantastical stories and ludicrous fantasies.
He definitely doesn't desire anyone who tosses their rationality out the door, attending one religion to the next one, even when most of the practices in those religions don't earn any sort of respect from God. In the end, God most likely appreciates only those who genuinely pray to him or seek his compassion upon their hollow lives. Everyone else he could probably do without it seems, as God especially appreciates rational people.
"given the high amount of archaeological evidence pointing to some kind of higher power"That's an extremely bold claim (and a false one I might add).
"That's an extremely bold claim(and a false one I might add)."No, it most certainly is not today. Scientists are equally divided on the existence of God. There is archaeological evidence on a mass scale, many equally perplexing writings that were uprooted on tablets, as well as catacombs that contain things that are inexplicably not human.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06...
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine...
http://xfacts.com/ancient/
http://www.equip.org/articles/biblica...
Add this all up and you have a very solid argument of data, things you can't explain, except to either be of the belief there was a freak accident in this universe or a divine entity orchestrated it all. Ancient Sumerian tablets don't just drop out of the sky. And humans aren't intelligent that they could write such scribbles.
Your argument literally boils down to a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, or other things which are completely explained.
"Scientists are equally divided on the existence of God."No, they are not. God does not factor in to science because god is literally "supernatural," viz. outside of nature. Science deals with the natural. There is nothing "mass scale" that is evidence of a supernatural being. Why are you spreading lies?
Will wrote: ""Scientists are equally divided on the existence of God."No, they are not. God does not factor in to science because god is literally "supernatural," viz. outside of nature. Science deals with th..."
Doesn't that depend on your definition of God?
Martell makes the point of the whole story very clear: -Life is filled with really, really cruel and unbearable stuff, and everyone you love will die (cue Do You Realize by The Flaming Lips here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zYOKF... ).
-So what do you do with this? you find a narrative that will allow you to tell the story of life in a way that gives it beauty, dignity and sense.
That narrative here is called religion.
Of course, humanity has created Thousands of gods throughout 150,000 years of history, and which one we worship, which one is really really the only true one, seems to depend on what our parents passed on to us culturally in 99.9999% of cases, which is really odd isn't it? ;-)
This thought never kept a Christian from being 100% sure that the guy believing in Odin is totally wrong, neither did it allow a Kali-worshipper to set his own believes in perspective in regards to ancient Greeks believing in Zeus.
Pi, however, doesn't choose, he stays a little kid all his life in that sense. A true follower of a revealed religion is of course forbidden to believe in other gods by definition, but a child who doesn't understand these rules but picks the parts he likes (the smells, the colors, the rituals, nice religious people..) can mix all religions together all he wants. Religious belief for Pi is his childhood prolonged, he stays a child spiritually. And he clings to it in old age. it helps him to cope with the unbearable reality of his experiences. It doesn't mean he forgot. He just chooses to tell it in a different way.
Be that as it may, Martell ultimately makes an agnostic point really, surprisingly enough!
With mixing different religions comes the realization that religion is narrative. Pi does not need to switch off his brain to decide that he prefers the narrative over a cold hard view on the fact that life is ultimately meaningless. It's existentialism really: Create your own meaning!
I think he is being far too clear about many things in the end of the book though. I don't want a full-on analysis of the story provided by the author himself. I guess that is why my favorite part is the most cryptic one, the island. Is it death, deliverance at first glance, but not all it's cracked up to be? And you return with a new hunger for life? Is it just a place in life you settle for that is ultimately not your destiny? Is it life itself, inviting but also hostile, consuming you? That part really made me uncomfortable. It made me sick. It's great.
William wrote: "Doesn't that depend on your definition of God?"In a way I suppose you are correct, but most definitions of God include at least some supernatural qualities, which would mean qualities outside of nature which would mean science can only say weather such a thing is probable or not.
Will wrote: "William wrote: "Doesn't that depend on your definition of God?"In a way I suppose you are correct, but most definitions of God include at least some supernatural qualities, which would mean quali..."
I don't want to sound too fatalistic, but there is a lot that the individual has no control over. I apologize for the following anthropomorphic metaphors: God is like the weaver of destinies, and science only takes the pulse of God. Someone once told me that Einstein referred to God as "The Ancient One". You can read that a couple of different ways.
Did someone just name-drop William Craig Lane? Bwa hahahahahahahha.The man thinks "Atheism" is a belief system. Watch the debate on youtube against Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens repeatedly explains to him what Atheism is or is not and Lane keeps hammering the same point home each time.
Saying that though, I admire his skills as an orator even if the content is lacking.
It's amazing to me that after all this time, Aethiests are still resorting to the same (implausible) scientific scenarios to explain away God. Or in lamen terms, explain why they think they can show God doesn't exist. Despite the scientific discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, despite the introduction of Heidegger's uncertainty principles, and the fact that our own Sun is made up of incalculable degrees of strata plus line ligaments that would be impossible by any natural event......Aethiest politicians/scientists have weaseled their way into an alternative hypothesis one which is the de-facto starter point.
Aethiest strongest argument against the existence of an omnipotent God, is the hypothesis that this entire universe exists inside an artificial simulation. That is it, the explanation for why all phenomenon occurs the way it does....the carbon dating of the tombs and natural-law physics. Everything that exists, is a simulation.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/jo...
They describe proof for this final argument, Simulated World, exists in the fact we have so-called natural evil. Because such natural evil exists, there can be no room for a creator/God to have constructed the universe...Rays from the Sun are high density manufactured particles existing inside a computer simulation.
http://www.simulation-argument.com/si...
Avoiding the fact that the entire analogy seems faulty in the onset of its argument, Scientists from the aethiest community are demanding a very large set of assumptions be made on their part. Since this is the main argument now justified by that community, I will deal with and refute that class of argument in entirety.
One, the avowed aethiest states that the bland indifference principle would assume technology capacities in twenty years would be strong enough to construct a simulation of this world & all its laws. The argument says that because cosmic rays and other strata, move in a certain defined pattern, there is enough evidence to suggest earth is a simulation.
Further, ignoring the fact of ultra-violet radiation events such as Supernovas...I will test this hypothesis on its face. Firstly, a single strata cosmic ray is going to be difficult for even today's fastest super computers to emulate....let alone machines twenty years in the future.
Assuming they could perform such a feat, the weight of an entire Black Hole is composed fully of dark matter which is PI(3.14) x circumference / 10 trillion. The very concept of PI times 10 trillion would be beyond the calculations of even the most "extra special" computer to actively simulate in detail. Also, Black Holes appear at a fraction rate which is much faster than the speed of sound or light - swallowing entire planetary stars into darkness. If such a concept of dark matter crashing into dark matter was a random event, our universe would have *self destructed* and presumably nearly collapsed long ago.
"There are so many fallacies, distortions, and false claims is your post Donald, it's bizarre how you can (if you can) convince yourself that you aren't completely full of it. "
Which once it pertains to your argument, would show there is even more holes in yours. A computer simulation of the entire world is hardly even a glimmer on the scale of modern math. It is as close to impossible as one gets, or blind guess work under another name.
It is folly, even under the most wild-eyed Wizard of Oz fantasies, to actively believe the universe including Black Holes could be simulated by any sort of computer. It is on the face of absurdity, to assume the entire Sun could be simulated with all 500 trillion of its different ultra violet ray patterns....super nova patterns and strata in such a way that it could heat a galaxy up to 500 billion photons estimated. Let alone provide light for planets millions of miles away, unless that is all our imagination. (Which I assume its not)
Thus, it behooves us to assume Newton's Law and Occum's Razor have to enter into account at some point. The world does not exist inside a computer simulation, and this theory is bullocks. It is an interesting hypothesis, but is provably false, in a way an episode of Gulliver's Travels is false.
Their second specious argument is that we might be living in a simulation, because natural evil exists. First, we must take in account that these natural disasters and tsunamis are "entirely God's fault" and not caused by laws of nature, global warming or man-made evils like HAARP. So therefore, we are being asked to assume an awful lot of things....that natural disasters are not caused by anything else, except the "wrath" of God. This is demonstrated false, when we look at the earthquake in Indonesia as clearly that did get started due to a myriad of factors. Yet even when taking into account "all" natural disasters are God's fault, who is to say that such disasters are given with any God's permission whatsoever? In this case, it would seem that nature is teaching mankind to respect nature's own laws....which is a far cry from natural evil. We can only assume just what exactly causes natural disasters, but I guarantee that the evidence shows many are man made; from abnormal heating of the Ozone layer to HAARP or simply C02 consumption in the rate of 100 million per minute the components behind natural disasters are always the same.
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artm...
In retrospect, I have seen further and further scientifically that there are some phenomenon that can only be explained by God's presence. That which is good must come from God, that which is evil...elsewhere.
Therefore, taking a page from Heidegger's uncertainty principle again and Newton's law....I would say this universe can only be explained due to God/A higher power. That which breathes life. For if God did not exist then the overwhelming amount of evil, to which man is accustomed to drift towards, would have destroyed our whole world. Using the Bland Indifference Principle model, there is (ironically) nothing that rebuts that fact. The movie Life of Pi is a good exploration of this hypothesis, but God is no theory, it/that is reality.
There are so many fallacies, distortions, and false claims is your post Donald, it's bizarre how you can (if you can) convince yourself that you aren't completely full of it.
Computer simulation? Did I just read that right? And the correct spelling is Atheist.
Years ago I attended a panel discussion on this book which included the author and a few philosophy and religion professors from Arizona State. It was a thought provoking discussion, with much praise given to the author by Indians and Hindus in the audience. When asked if the book was about God, or the existence of God, Mr. Martel replied that the book was about having faith, and each successive event required more faith in order to continue the journey.
“No one can tell which story is true and which is not,” Pi confesses. “In both, the ship sinks and I lose my parents and I survive.”**SPOILER ALERT**
But then the story takes a clever, but ultimately false turn. Pi asks the skeptic, “So which story do you prefer?”
“The tiger,” the skeptic answers. “It’s the better story.”
“Thank you,” Pi replies. “And so it goes with God.”
The point I infer – and the moral to the whole story – is that life can be explained in a fantastical but believable narrative (“so it goes with God”), or it can be explained in a grittier, more rational way; but we as people inherently prefer the God tale, because “it’s the better story.”
After all this discussion of faith – as syncretistic and anti-biblical as much of it is – the movie concludes with perhaps the most cynical stance of all: that God might not be real, but we want Him to be (His “story” is better), so we believe in Him.
That’s it? The story that will “make” us believe in God is simply that we prefer the amazing stories to the blandness of everyday life, so we choose to believe?
Anyway,I was obsessed by Piscine's story.
But I'm an atheist.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
