Yes!
Truth, is good.
Reviews for "We Are Science Probes"
Only applies to small subset of religious reasonin
I like this. It's a good attempt to try to understand belief, but it falls short because it only accurately describes an out-lier portion of the belief spectrum.
Well, that's when the logical believer steps in and totally throws the premise out the window.
Shall I be the hero?
Ok,
The problem lies in the belief in a set of rules (science) and a belief in God are opposite ends of the spectrum. When in fact, they are independent variables.
One the one hand, you have a science which theories about things yet 'unseen' and you have a segment of the science community which has a belief about these things. Inherently it is impossible to not have a belief about a particular theory. Thus in order to create a world absent of God, they have to believe a set of theories that have yet to be proven (and simply can't be proven) for two reasons.
1. Just because we can cause an event to occur, does not mean observed event actually occurred, which is becoming a fatal flaw in the search for the big bang, etc.
2. We are unable to witness the actual events (even with a time machine).
Now, on the other end, we have just as many God believers that must view a world including God as coexisting with some laws of science, simply because what they see actually occurs, and there is some set of scientific 'rules' that can accurately predict the world.
These two groups represent the majority of people. Outliers on this spectrum are those that believe that nothing in science should be followed with belief and are able to miraculously maintain this position, and those that believe that every single event is instantly and uniquely orchestrated by God, and the accuracy of scientific 'rules' is just plain luck.
Both deny the opposite fact from the other side.
Meaning, you can't logically be an atheist, and you cannot logically be a dogmatic.
There must be some reason you believe what you do, therefore there must be some structure to what you believe, therefore there must be some practical guidelines that the physical realm follows unless intervention occurs.
That's where I come in, smack in the middle. The believer of God driven logic.
It follows a few hypothesis.
1. At the end of a long and narrowing road, there must be some point where the cause and effects in the physical world, or physics, are no longer divisible. (Similar to a machine, where this rule would be binary state 0 or 1. The state of reality is a binary string). There is a single action that occurs that sets the 0th state of reality.
2. There must be some reasoning entity, an actor, that derived this rule, and acted on the 0th state. Whether you want to believe said entity is intelligent or not, is your fault. There are consequences to each side of the argument. You also choose to believe whether the primary state is the only state this actor affected or not. (In the case of the big bang, the actor was the volatility of the 0th state).
So far, most people are with me. This is where I start to lean on belief.
I believe that the entity must be able to tug at the level of the indivisible 'rule' at any state making it possible to control everything. Therefore said entity must be intelligent. In short, this means the Creator is not limited by the rules because his existence defines the rules and can change/bend them at will (at the smallest level possible, at the "indivisible rule") without effort. No energy consumed.
From there I can actually derive the Christian beliefs, by actually identifying the rules of reality and the personality of the Creator as inseparable.
In short, God is a programmer, not a magician.
No matter how many thought experiments I run, I end up at the same conclusion.
Of course, I don't need to think about it, and maybe my bias lies in my personal experience with God, which confirmed him long before my attempt to reason. Trying to explain that to someone who's never literally heard a voice without a source that no one else heard.... or someone who's never felt a presence other than the ones they can see..... is a waste of time.
Great
I thought it was a damned good. Very interesting. And I think people really know how to waste their time over-analyzing and nitpicking every fucking detail when they should really focus of the point of the animation itself.
But I'd have to say that most people on this planet are fucking dumb.
Thumbs up to you, and middlefingers to everyone else! ^-^
In Response to Ytaker
Felt the need to respond to this post because it's very uneducated.
His first "paragraph" that states that Kansas doesn't teach astrology misses the point entirely. The presentation is that of an old joke of the entire Kansas situation that simply addresses the issue of the Kansas board REDEFINING what actually falls under science. If Ytaker was to actually understand the history of the debate he might understand it was actually one of the proponents of ID(intelligent design) that actually said himself that under HIS definition of science such a thing as astrology would be under that definition. All you have to do is check the transcripts of the Dover trial in Pennsylvania over ID taught in the schools. The verdict of that trial found that ID was creationism disguised and that it did not follow under a basic understanding of what science is. The redefinition that proponents of ID want to make is that science only covers that of the NATURAL WORLD, and that it SHOULD include the SUPERNATURAL. Which with common sense one can deduce means that you no longer require EVIDENCE to make a claim, much like a pseudo science called ASTROLOGY.
To address Ytakers second paragraph I am first going to address the claim that Christianity doesn't like "magic." A miracle is considered an act of god, or in some other term(following some of the arguments made by Hitchens) A suspension or diversion of natural law. If you were to witness a bowling ball levitating, one would instantly call it MAGIC. Under a Christian definition if one were to believe it was an act of god would call it a "miracle." The same phenomenon under a different pretext (OF BELIEF MIND YOU) gives it a completely different definition. Of course when you consider that if you arn't Christian you're probably going to call it magic anyway. My argument is a Suspension of Natural Law = Magic = Miracle...both are the same thing with a different pretext to a believer.
3rd...the meteor. This is just laughable, and I don't mean to disrespect Ytaker. This is just a plot devise in a story to illustrate a point. But I will even address this in some manner. It is not impossible for a meteor to strike that bot, it is statistically highly improbable...but not impossible. Which even this follows under some of the basic arguments believers want to make for that of a creator. Simply because something is statistically improbable does not denote that for such a phenomenon to occur means that it had a mind behind it. Probabilities are happening within smaller instances of microseconds and all the probabilities have numbers we havn't even made yet...but even so eventually something so improbable will occur, which gives people like Ytaker the opportunity to prey on the ignorant and say "SEE SEE, Thats IMPOSSIBLE without INTENT of a CREATOR." Probabilities occur all the time, eventually something improbable will happen.
4th, (running out of typing room) I'll address the next two "paragraphs" as one. Yes people are illogical. we have, by evolutionary processes needs that are "illogical" in appearance. But through Darwins inversion of reason we can understand our basic needs through Darwinian understanding. Just look at Daniel Dennetts videos of "inversion of reasoning." Im running out of room to type quickly here. But basically Darwinian understanding can explain much of your confusion on this topic.
Last point I address is Ytakers ATTEMPT at logic. Look up the word syllogism. it's a 3 pat LOGICAL argument. And I can make a syllogism out of the last few statements Ytaker makes--
-the author made a video that is in opposition to "illogical" people
-The author must dislike "illogical" people
-Therefore the author wants bad things to happen to "illogical" people
Watching the video this "syllogism" only makes assumptions and does not incorporate fact. You have made an AD HOMINEM fallacy. Ytaker needs to learn what logic is before attacking someone for "hating" illogical people.
to finish. I could write this better, but I'm down to a few characters remaining in the limit. But hope that helps.
here's your biggest problem
people don't like it when you have a message in your cartoons that are different from what they believe. if you do, then you're just being pushy and preachy.
i thought this was some very clever storytelling. i liked the metaphors. regardless of weather or not i agree with the theme, i have to admire how you approached it. thought provoking indeed.
in terms of animation, i thought it worked perfectly with your art style.
i imagine this was probably a lot of fun to make. its not often on newgrounds we get a flash that actually makes us think. but like i said, some people are going to refuse to think no matter what you try to tell them.