I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.
What about either matter or life is so inexplicable that the only way we could possibly account for it is that a God came along and poofed it into existence?
Also, are you aware that the God hypothesis was the preferred explanation for all sorts of other things, including disease and mental illness? I wonder why no one's advancing that particular claim any more. Oh right, a solid naturalistic explanation. Who's to say the universe and life won't be subject to the same process - scientific inquiry resulting in a naturalistic explanation supplanting the previously-held supernatural explanation.
Welcome to our little band of heathens.
So, you're kind of like deist? Or am I not getting that correctly?
While I totally disagree with you--welcome to this forum.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:45:27 PM
I'm a philosophical, not a religious theist. Given the facts of the existence of life and the universe I believe we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I have no opinion about the nature of God other than it would take God to cause the universe and life to exist.
I totally agree with you, and in spite of that ... welcome ;-)
I am not completely opposed to the idea of a universal creator. But not to one that has existed forever, or that gives a fuck about life forms on a speck of dust in a random speck in a vast universe.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 06:56:40 PM
What about either matter or life is so inexplicable that the only way we could possibly account for it is that a God came along and poofed it into existence?
Also, are you aware that the God hypothesis was the preferred explanation for all sorts of other things, including disease and mental illness? I wonder why no one's advancing that particular claim any more. Oh right, a solid naturalistic explanation. Who's to say the universe and life won't be subject to the same process - scientific inquiry resulting in a naturalistic explanation supplanting the previously-held supernatural explanation.
I created summary post under Religious discussion the thread present evidence here.
The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 09:49:04 PM
If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.
If naturalistic "forces" existed that did not "intend" the car to exist this would suggest that everything that exists was intended to exist. Such was Hydra's point. Disease, deformity, all the ills of the universe thus were intended.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 09:49:04 PMThe naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.
Watchmaker argument. Never seen that before.
I have a running tally of people who have successfully used that argument. (I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as the number of world wars that Germany has won)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 09:49:04 PM
I created summary post under Religious discussion the thread present evidence here.
The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.
Correct ... but materialists don't accept personal agents, even themselves ... they do what they do, "unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend for a person to exist" ;-)) Reductionism doesn't allow teleology. And rationalists frequently aren't ... usually rationalism just means agreeing to materialism/reductionism. I do agree that "intelligent design" is stupid ... because clearly reality isn't intelligent at all ... "stupid design" is a much more accurate term. Basically reductionism assumes, that all the fancy structures we see, particularly in living things, are implicit in the equations, and if we were smart enough, we could calculate why bacteria have flagellum (rather than engaging in the usual post-facto Darwinian explanation). Flagellum as a means of escaping predators is such an obviously advantageous adaptation for collective and individual survival (even though not for survival for sex ... bacteria divorce without getting married first) that all bacteria should have them by now, since all the slow-pokes should have gone extinct. After 4 billion years, bacteria should have evolved Evinrude outboard motors ;-) Other arguments go ... that reductionism is all we got ... so it can't be anything else. They even use this if they are super-string theorists.
People here usually argue regarding cause/effect that an "unmoved mover" is unnecessary as an explanation .. that a structured semi-chaotic status-quo is sufficient. In my case, I dispense with cause/effect arguments entirely. My view is "shit happens". People rationalize a fallacious cause/effect on everything. In Greek terms, the Greeks were optimists that we are in a Cosmos ... in fact we are in Chaos, playing connect-the-dots with semi-random dots. We impose an imagined order on randomness ... because it is sometimes beneficial to survival, not because of its ontological status (Platonism).
Quote from: aitm on January 28, 2017, 09:57:06 PM
If naturalistic "forces" existed that did not "intend" the car to exist this would suggest that everything that exists was intended to exist. Such was Hydra's point. Disease, deformity, all the ills of the universe thus were intended.
The horrible answer is ... if there is universal intent not just individual intent ... that yes, all the ills or mortality are intended, and deterministically too. While quantum mechanics would say that you have a 50/50 chance of stubbing your toe, so it isn't certain on any particular occasion (experiment) ... the fact that it is allowed at all is part of the malignant nature of reality.
If there is a creator of the Universe, he doesn't give a rats ass about our existence.
I'll save the debate for your other threads, because you seem friendly enough. So for now I will simply bid you welcome, and I hope you stay awhile.
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 10:34:37 PM
Watchmaker argument. Never seen that before.
I have a running tally of people who have successfully used that argument. (I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as the number of world wars that Germany has won)
The counter argument
The naturalistic explanations argument doesn't actually hold water. For instance a car can be explained by nothing more than an appeal to natural known laws of physics yet we know cars are designed and caused by personal agents to exist. If the argument held water it would mean a car was caused to exist unintentionally by naturalistic forces that didn't intend a car to exist.Isn't a watchmaker argument. It just demonstrates that naturalistic explanations of how something works isn't indicative of whether something was created by design or by unguided forces that unintentionally created something as you imply. Things known to have been created by design have naturalistic explanations...
By the way no theistic argument persuades an atheist...if it did they'd be theists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 29, 2017, 11:10:18 AM
The counter argument
By the way no theistic argument persuades an atheist...if it did they'd be theists.
Yeah, I agree. Why do you think a person is an atheist or a theist??
Welcome to the forums. I apologize if I come off as antagonistic, but most theists who come here do not contribute anything of intellectual value. They just come here to proselytize to us with tired arguments we've seen a million times before, often times acting arrogant like they're intellectual giants with a mission to utterly destroy our arguments left and right. So long as you prove yourself to be different, I'll respect you the way I respect our resident theist, Baruch.
As for your appeal to the watch-maker argument, there's one vital flaw in that logic. Just by pointing to an obviously man-made object, something that was clearly designed by a intelligent person, the argument implodes on itself. If nature is so obviously designed by an intelligent being, then why would man-made objects like a car stand out? The fact that they do shows that there is a difference. The reason you can't appeal to the sand on the beach is because it is not clearly intelligently designed, unlike the watch.
PS: On an unrelated note, why "Drew_2017?" Are you running for office, or is it to remind yourself how long you've been here?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 29, 2017, 01:14:49 PM
Yeah, I agree. Why do you think a person is an atheist or a theist??
Most theists are raised theist as I was. At some point I challenged my theism and for all practical purposes was an atheist. Later looking at is as objectively as possible I concluded a Designer/Creator is a better explanation that accounts for what we can observe to factually be true (like the existence of the universe, life and so forth). Other people never question it but never have any reason to, it makes sense to them.
Most atheists I have met seem far more loathsome of religious belief and religious people than the philosophical question of whether we owe our existence to a creator or unguided naturalistic causes. The disgust of religion leads them to believe God (certainly as described by any holy writ) is false.
What do you think? Fair analysis?
Quote from: Blackleaf on January 30, 2017, 09:37:05 PM
Welcome to the forums. I apologize if I come off as antagonistic, but most theists who come here do not contribute anything of intellectual value. They just come here to proselytize to us with tired arguments we've seen a million times before, often times acting arrogant like they're intellectual giants with a mission to utterly destroy our arguments left and right. So long as you prove yourself to be different, I'll respect you the way I respect our resident theist, Baruch.
As for your appeal to the watch-maker argument, there's one vital flaw in that logic. Just by pointing to an obviously man-made object, something that was clearly designed by a intelligent person, the argument implodes on itself. If nature is so obviously designed by an intelligent being, then why would man-made objects like a car stand out? The fact that they do shows that there is a difference. The reason you can't appeal to the sand on the beach is because it is not clearly intelligently designed, unlike the watch.
Thanks for the welcome I appreciate it.
I assume you are referring to the argument I posted elsewhere so I will recopy it here...
QuoteThis is the evidence that persuades me of theism.
We all have the same evidence for or against the existence of God defined here as a personal intelligent agent capable of causing a universe with the conditions for life to exist. Evidence is merely facts that comport with a belief.
The following indisputable facts lead me to believe we owe our existence to an intelligent agent commonly referred to as God as opposed to the counter belief that mindless unguided forces are responsible for all we observe.
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
These are the primary facts of our existence and one can believe these facts came into existence minus any plan, intent or designer or doubt that claim and believe it was the intentional result of a personal agent. I subscribe to the former belief. I don't care if anyone else does everyone can decide for themselves...
I don't classify this as a watch maker argument. I'm citing 6 facts and arguing these facts are better explained by a theistic explanation. I don't state theism as a fact and I don't offer this as conclusive proof but as evidence that favors my belief.
I agree as you state it the watch maker argument has weakness but not necessarily fatal. You claim that known designed contrivances that humans create are obvious compared to what is alleged to be something caused by nationalistic forces.
Let me throw out some caveats.
In fact its not always easy to detect 'naturalistic forces' from what appears to be obvious design. For example underwater sounds can sometimes sound very mechanical put prove not to be. Secondly within the laws of physics random events clearly occur and is part of the process. The slack (if you will) in between the laws of physics allow for random unguided events to occur. However its a carefully controlled chaos where incredible things can occur but not in defiance of established laws of physics. The things humans design are far more compact. We don't create on a universal level. A good example is Newton's law of universal gravitation which allows for incredible range of things to occur, the formation of stars, planets and black holes yet only within the confines of the law.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 30, 2017, 10:43:32 PM
Most theists are raised theist as I was. At some point I challenged my theism and for all practical purposes was an atheist. Later looking at is as objectively as possible I concluded a Designer/Creator is a better explanation that accounts for what we can observe to factually be true (like the existence of the universe, life and so forth). Other people never question it but never have any reason to, it makes sense to them.
Most atheists I have met seem far more loathsome of religious belief and religious people than the philosophical question of whether we owe our existence to a creator or unguided naturalistic causes. The disgust of religion leads them to believe God (certainly as described by any holy writ) is false.
What do you think? Fair analysis?
Interesting view. I find that the atheists I'm come across simply find it difficult, if not impossible, to think a god or gods exist. They simply don't see any evidence. I have not found the 'loathsome' attitude often. I have found most theists I've talked with to simply accept god/spiritual creator to be something that is the most likely explanation of our world and universe.
Personally, I find it matters little what individuals believe or think about god--one a one-to-one basis, we, as humans seem to be after the same things in general. They share a desire to be left alone to live, love and play with their loved ones and friends. What I find 'loathsome' is the religious hierarchy--the priests/minsters and all the official rules and regulations that come along with that hierarchy. The deep desire of the religious thirst for power comes from the hierarchy. In the end, the hierarchy always makes religion deeply dangerous and destructive.
"Let me throw out some caveats."
The watchmaker argument depends on a similitude between G-d and man. If one denies G-d, then the similitude doesn't exist, and one can attribute creation to an impersonal nature ... though this forces the atheist to assume that epiphenomenalism will "save appearances", so that the apparent self contradiction of randomness producing order, can be avoided. There is no scientific evidence for ephiphenomenalism ... physics is the same at all scales. In fact, at a larger scale, almost all matter is characterized as a turbulent chaos ... hard to get order from that (what little regularity chaos has, this is studied in chaos dynamics). So the theist argument vs watchmaker contains a hidden assumption. And the counter argument is consistent with itself, but not with reality (except by appeal to scientism, not science). This appeal to scientism, is itself questionable, because science isn't the results of investigation, but the incrementally improved means of investigation. The question of whether humans have any true knowledge, remains open, as philosophy remains always arguable.
A full discussion would need to be held in the science section of this blog. BTW .. there is a whole similar situation in number theory ... number theory has aspects that mirror our theories of the physical world. How can we tell if a sequence of integers is random or not? Turns out there is much nuance in pseudo-randomness. We humans can conceive of something fully random, but we can't produce an example. A close approximation is important, it is used in cryptography. It is possible that no purely random thing happens in the physical universe and that our mathematical notion of the purely random, is the limit of a sequence of progressively more random, pseudorandom numbers. This matches chaos theory, turbulence isn't completely random, though it can be approximated thru statistical physics. But chaos theory is more than that ... it has structure ... attractors and repellors. The watchmaker argument recurs in cryptography. How can we tell, if a pseudorandom sequence of symbols (we can number them, so this is reducible to a number sequence) is just junk or conceals a message? There are ways to guess, or cryptanalysis would be impossible (making it as nearly impossible as possible, is the point of cryptography).
Marvel Comics personified the concepts:
Lord Order and Master Chaos
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11125/111253355/4817311-8566827731-maste.jpg)
So did Babylon 5:
Vorlons(Order)
(http://www.burnteffects.com/old_tvseries/babylon5/b5-vorlon-500.jpg)
Shadows(Chaos)
(http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/5/54/Shadow_(Babylon_5).jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120923222728)
I'm just an uneducated hick, but it seems to me that order and chaos, are in the measuring, in the same way that light seems to be both wave and particle, depending on how we measure it. Order and chaos may be the same thing.
EDIT:
Again, Uneducated Hick chiming in, but Isn't the obvious flaw in the watchmaker argument, that the watch is made primarily of metal, and that metals don't make up the majority of any life form, because they don't possess the necessary properties, to evolve, or for that matter to set the dynamo of life in motion. It's a more complex question than the analogy allows for.
It is my feeling that there is more to the nature of order than is completely understood. If life is the current end-result of order, then perhaps order does tend toward order, with respect to our small, randomly exceptional molecular base structures. That is, in the case of life and how it progresses, blindly toward greater complexity. If you observe it one way, you see random forces, and if you observe it another way, you see meticulous, high-functioning order. It's a long, slow-acting, mathematical process, of weeding out dead-end equations, over billions of years.
What if our consciousness, is just the highest level(that is known) of the experiential phenomenon of order itself? I don't know if that makes sense. Anything that exhibits the behavior, of self-actuated accessing of memory, might be called a rudimentary consciousness, because that is the foundation of experience. What if the impetus to reproduce memory strands, is the beginning of that experiential phenomenon, on a simpler level, in a way that we can't conceive? Am I talking out of my ass, or does it seem plausible?
But I recognize it, as speculation and mental masturbation. No delusions.
Mental masturbation was good enough for the Greeks ;-)
Rationality and irrationality aren't opposites either ... just as chaos and order aren't opposites, as you presciently observe.
Quoteauthor=Mike Cl link=topic=11251.msg1164143#msg1164143 date=1485838092]
Interesting view. I find that the atheists I'm come across simply find it difficult, if not impossible, to think a god or gods exist. They simply don't see any evidence. I have not found the 'loathsome' attitude often. I have found most theists I've talked with to simply accept god/spiritual creator to be something that is the most likely explanation of our world and universe.
We all see the same evidence the question is what belief does the evidence lead to. Atheists (IMHO) see the evidence, it just doesn't persuade them a Creator caused it.
Suppose there was no universe at all...the claim there is no evidence of a Creator would actually be true. Suppose there was a universe but with no laws governing the universe and it was utter chaos and lifeless. One could still propose a Creator caused it but it was a test universe not ready for prime time. What we have is a universe with seemingly inviolable laws of physics in a narrow range that allowed for the existence of stars, planets solar systems life and even intelligent life. Evidence is merely a fact the comports with a belief. Atheists can claim there is no evidence that persuades them but they are whistling Dixie if they claim there is no evidence to support theistic belief.
QuotePersonally, I find it matters little what individuals believe or think about god--one a one-to-one basis, we, as humans seem to be after the same things in general. They share a desire to be left alone to live, love and play with their loved ones and friends. What I find 'loathsome' is the religious hierarchy--the priests/minsters and all the official rules and regulations that come along with that hierarchy. The deep desire of the religious thirst for power comes from the hierarchy. In the end, the hierarchy always makes religion deeply dangerous and destructive.
That sounds very cynical and a terribly sweeping generalization. There are many groups motivated by religious belief that go to the ends of the earth to provide food, shelter and medicine to the poor. Look at how many hospitals in the USA were created or run by religious organizations many of whom treat the poor free of charge. There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 08:59:33 PM
There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things.
True, but one must admit that it is easier to be a benefactor when you have conquered the minions. Religions, most of them, were spread by the sword, and afterwards did the benevolence come to be. Once you are the overlord, it becomes a necessity to ensure the little people are as enthused about your correct religion as you are so they can bask in your generosity. A little self serving but thats okay, they had to kill alot of people to get that right.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 08:59:33 PM
Evidence is merely a fact the comports with a belief. Atheists can claim there is no evidence that persuades them but they are whistling Dixie if they claim there is no evidence to support theistic belief.
A fact is something that does not need a belief to support it. Belief is saying something is real without any facts to back it up. I don't 'claim' there is no evidence to support theist beliefs--I just flat out say it. And never will I be singing or whistling dixie. Show me one fact that supports any of your beliefs.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 08:59:33 PM
That sounds very cynical and a terribly sweeping generalization. There are many groups motivated by religious belief that go to the ends of the earth to provide food, shelter and medicine to the poor. Look at how many hospitals in the USA were created or run by religious organizations many of whom treat the poor free of charge. There is some truth to your claim and many terrible things have been done under the banner of religious belief as well as many benevolent things.
I am not saying that religious people or even some religious organizations don't do good things. Of course they do. But the hierarchy that supports that is also very cruel and dangerous. Christians have judged groups as evil from day one and persecuted them--starting with the Jews. It is simply a classic 'us vs them' in action. I have read the argument that without religious people and organizations good things for society would not happen. I suggest that if all religions were to evaporate, the good would continue. People are people and generally are fairly generous in helping those in need. Religion is not needed.
Welcome.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
God defined here as a personal intelligent agent [. . .] a personal agent.
What do you mean by "personal"
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range
Exactly how far can these characteristics vary, both inside and outside the range necessary for . . . ?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 28, 2017, 06:03:38 PM
that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
Why does it need to be "life as we know it"? Would some unknown form of life throw a wrench into everything?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 08:59:33 PM
Suppose [. . .]
Suppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?
Could the PIA create a universe with "several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range" to disallow "life as we know it" and/or "planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies"? Could PIA create a universe without knowable, uniform, predictable laws of nature? Could PIA have not created any universe at all? If "no", why not? If "yes" then how would the existence of our actual universe be evidence of PIA as opposed to any universe supposed by you or I?
Using the same line of reasoning that lead you to conclude that a PIA is necessary to explain the existence of the universe and life, what is necessary to explain the existence of PIA?
Quote from: aitm on January 31, 2017, 09:12:39 PM
True, but one must admit that it is easier to be a benefactor when you have conquered the minions. Religions, most of them, were spread by the sword, and afterwards did the benevolence come to be. Once you are the overlord, it becomes a necessity to ensure the little people are as enthused about your correct religion as you are so they can bask in your generosity. A little self serving but thats okay, they had to kill alot of people to get that right.
For the record I'm a philosophical theist. Secondly not all religions teach benevolence so lets not group all religions in the same bucket.
I don't dispute what you say but I will add some caveats for thought. You seem to be asserting a standard of human behavior as if some known standard actually exists. If we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that didn't care about our existence and never intended us to exist then any standard of human behavior is merely an opinion and there is no real right and wrong. Only theistic belief provides a philosophical platform to assert standards of behavior. In order for your complaint to have any merit there has to be an actual standard of behavior to measure by. Where do you get such a standard from?
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 31, 2017, 10:22:59 PM
A fact is something that does not need a belief to support it. Belief is saying something is real without any facts to back it up. I don't 'claim' there is no evidence to support theist beliefs--I just flat out say it. And never will I be singing or whistling dixie. Show me one fact that supports any of your beliefs.
No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?
Not only do I believe they're facts that support theistic belief, I claim there is a preponderance of evidence that leads to that conclusion.
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
If none of these facts were true your claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true.
On moral claims ... I claim that humans are amoral. We virtue signal all the time however. But we are lying to ourselves and each other. Nature is amoral, humans are natural, therefore humans are amoral. Doesn't matter if you are religious or not. And it isn't true that classical theism is necessary for moral claims ... G-d told me to do it/not do it ... those kinds of claims are bogus. G-d never told anyone, anything ... because G-d is amoral. You either see reality as a whole as personal or impersonal. Theists see it as personal, atheists see it as impersonal. Both positions are bias. The idea that there is an objective reality, is a Platonic assumption, that simply isn't true. Each person has their own subjective reality, and these overlap, making interaction and communication possible. Meaning comes from what each person does, not externally.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 11:23:27 PM
No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?
What I see is how you use facts and beliefs in the wrong way.
This is a belief:
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.
This is a fact:
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.
I believe the Yankees will win the world series next year. I have facts that suggest they win the world series more than any other team. But I don't 'think' they will win this year for there are no facts yet that they have the best team or the luckiest team, so I believe they will because I chose to.
A belief does not have to have any facts whatsoever to be believed. A fact has to have some basis in truth and it is demonstrable as being a fact. I don't believe 2+ 2=4, I know it equals 4, for I can demonstrate that that is a fact. Some facts may be involved in a belief, but that is not necessary. I can believe the earth is flat--don't need any facts to back that up--and I can then have faith in my beliefs. A theist can believe jesus of the bible existed, and they can be totally sincere and have the most faith of any human ever--but there is not one fact that would support that belief and faith. But that does not stop the theist from having those beliefs and faith; facts not needed.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 11:23:27 PM
No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?
Not only do I believe they're facts that support theistic belief, I claim there is a preponderance of evidence that leads to that conclusion.
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact intelligent life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
If none of these facts were true your claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true.
The problem with this position as I see it is god isn't the only possible answer. Naturalism is a possibility too. One you've rejected despite the fact that every answer we have ever figured out with any degree of certainty has been naturalistic in nature.
Each chooses their own bias. I could be insane, with multiple personalities, and all these posts are by me, myself and I ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 12:31:49 PM
Each chooses their own bias. I could be insane, with multiple personalities, and all these posts are by me, myself and I ;-)
He's close to a breakthrough!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on February 01, 2017, 02:19:40 PM
He's close to a breakthrough!
Yes, but I need to do a better job of liking all my alter egos ;-)
(http://diamondmlmtraining.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/what-is-project-breakthrough.jpg)
If you make a mess with torn paper, you get to clean it up.
Quote from: Baruch on February 01, 2017, 06:57:37 AM
On moral claims ... I claim that humans are amoral. We virtue signal all the time however. But we are lying to ourselves and each other. Nature is amoral, humans are natural, therefore humans are amoral. Doesn't matter if you are religious or not. And it isn't true that classical theism is necessary for moral claims ... G-d told me to do it/not do it ... those kinds of claims are bogus. G-d never told anyone, anything ... because G-d is amoral. You either see reality as a whole as personal or impersonal. Theists see it as personal, atheists see it as impersonal. Both positions are bias. The idea that there is an objective reality, is a Platonic assumption, that simply isn't true. Each person has their own subjective reality, and these overlap, making interaction and communication possible. Meaning comes from what each person does, not externally.
God needn't say anything to anyone. If theism is true and the universe was created for the benefit of humans, it elevates humans above the universe itself. Other wise humans are merely the unintended by product of the laws of physics. Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created. In the declaration of independence we read.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 01, 2017, 10:15:48 PM
God needn't say anything to anyone. If theism is true and the universe was created for the benefit of humans, it elevates humans above the universe itself. Other wise humans are merely the unintended by product of the laws of physics. Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created. In the declaration of independence we read.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â€" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.
And he believed that so deeply that he freed all of his slaves.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 01, 2017, 10:37:11 AM
The problem with this position as I see it is god isn't the only possible answer. Naturalism is a possibility too. One you've rejected despite the fact that every answer we have ever figured out with any degree of certainty has been naturalistic in nature.
I don't reject naturalism as a possibility in fact if theism isn't true, its second runner up.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 01, 2017, 10:05:50 AM
What I see is how you use facts and beliefs in the wrong way.
This is a belief:
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.
This is a fact:
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
Space travel is now a fact.
So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.
I believe the Yankees will win the world series next year. I have facts that suggest they win the world series more than any other team. But I don't 'think' they will win this year for there are no facts yet that they have the best team or the luckiest team, so I believe they will because I chose to.
A belief does not have to have any facts whatsoever to be believed. A fact has to have some basis in truth and it is demonstrable as being a fact. I don't believe 2+ 2=4, I know it equals 4, for I can demonstrate that that is a fact. Some facts may be involved in a belief, but that is not necessary. I can believe the earth is flat--don't need any facts to back that up--and I can then have faith in my beliefs. A theist can believe jesus of the bible existed, and they can be totally sincere and have the most faith of any human ever--but there is not one fact that would support that belief and faith. But that does not stop the theist from having those beliefs and faith; facts not needed.
Even the dictionary definition of belief contradicts your re-definition...
be·lief
bəˈlÄ"f/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
Its true someone can believe in something for no rational reason minus any evidence such a position is true. That doesn't dictate how belief works or that it always is blind belief.
So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.You make my case for me. You think the sun will rise because you believe it will rise. Prior to it rising you don't have a fact it will rise only a belief. Your belief becomes fact once the sun rises.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 01, 2017, 10:15:48 PM
Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created.
[. . .]
The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.
So now, your caveat that "God needn't say anything to anyone" notwithstanding, you have clearly moved passed god merely creating the laws of the universe and have him purposefully creating humans and giving them rights; compared to that leap it is a small step indeed to go all in and have him hand write the ten commandment for Moses or send Gabriel to dictate the Quran to Mohamed
Quote from: Poison Tree on January 31, 2017, 10:55:35 PM
Welcome.What do you mean by "personal" Exactly how far can these characteristics vary, both inside and outside the range necessary for . . . ?Why does it need to be "life as we know it"? Would some unknown form of life throw a wrench into everything? Suppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?
Could the PIA create a universe with "several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range" to disallow "life as we know it" and/or "planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies"? Could PIA create a universe without knowable, uniform, predictable laws of nature? Could PIA have not created any universe at all? If "no", why not? If "yes" then how would the existence of our actual universe be evidence of PIA as opposed to any universe supposed by you or I?
Using the same line of reasoning that lead you to conclude that a PIA is necessary to explain the existence of the universe and life, what is necessary to explain the existence of PIA?
I didn't state that any variation can occur. If you want a better idea how narrow the range is check Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers"
QuoteWhy does it need to be "life as we know it"?
Because life as we know it is the only life we know of.
QuoteSuppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?
I have no idea how God came about, I'm not attempting to answer that question. I'm more interested in how intelligent life and the conditions that allowed intelligent life to come about arose.
Quote from: Poison Tree on February 01, 2017, 11:01:21 PM
So now, your caveat that "God needn't say anything to anyone" notwithstanding, you have clearly moved passed god merely creating the laws of the universe and have him purposefully creating humans and giving them rights; compared to that leap it is a small step indeed to go all in and have him hand write the ten commandment for Moses or send Gabriel to dictate the Quran to Mohamed
Its not a caveat. If we owe our existence to a creator who intentionally caused the universe for sentient beings to live (not necessarily just human life) we have a philosophical platform to elevate human kind above all else that is created. We also have reason to claim brotherhood and sisterhood with all people because we owe our existence to the same Creator. This in contrast to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended humans to exist. From that point of view we can draw a much more cruel philosophical view point, that since humans were never intended to exist human life is nothing remotely special, we don't have a right to live or exist or any rights whatsoever least of all rights endowed by a Creator.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 01, 2017, 11:20:20 PM
Its not a caveat. If we owe our existence to a creator who intentionally caused the universe for sentient beings to live (not necessarily just human life) we have a philosophical platform to elevate human kind above all else that is created. We also have reason to claim brotherhood and sisterhood with all people because we owe our existence to the same Creator. This in contrast to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended humans to exist. From that point of view we can draw a much more cruel philosophical view point, that since humans were never intended to exist human life is nothing remotely special, we don't have a right to live or exist or any rights whatsoever least of all rights endowed by a Creator.
I don't see how in either of your scenarios we are more related than we currently are IRL and since you can't tell what the real answer is, apparently it doesn't matter.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 01, 2017, 10:57:05 PM
You make my case for me. You think the sun will rise because you believe it will rise. Prior to it rising you don't have a fact it will rise only a belief. Your belief becomes fact once the sun rises.
You still want to 'believe' so deeply that you would not recognize a fact if it slapped you in the face. I don't 'believe' the sun will rise. I have several decades of facts to guide my thinking. Not only have I seen it rise daily all that time, but I have photo and tapes to show that it does just that on a daily basis. And science has demonstrated why that is so--why the earth rotates around the sun. I know the sun will come up because of the underlying facts and scientific proof. Belief has nothing to do with my knowing the sun will rise; it's called critical thinking, something theists resist at all costs. And you are no different.
MikeCL demonstrates, that people here aren't nihilists, or even as skeptical as David Hume. At times the OP is very much in the 18th century model, both in terms of quoting 18th century documents, but also alluding to a Humean skepticism, as a rhetorical gambit. The usual POV here is taken from Voltaire, another 18th century thinker, and politically from Rousseau ... so it is rather French. So yes, conservation of angular momentum defeats David Hume in the sun rise example ;-) Though while humans living on a gravitating ball is anything but obvious, and was first proven by the surviving crew of the Magellan expedition. The spinning Earth first proven by the Foucault pendulum, again contrary to naive common sense. The limited but relentless regularity of nature, being one good point of objective analysis.
I agree that sentient beings are special .. and while materialism denies this, I have to conclude that materialism is false. Analysis is not superior to synthesis ... so in that abstract way, I am a creationist. Art triumphs over science, painter over mere paint. I don't agree that religion is necessarily more humanistic than atheism ... though I have rhetorically used that position myself at times (if we are all predators, then there is no reason why I shouldn't kill and eat you). Human motivation vs behavior is complicated. Seculars will claim that while natural theology (a creation of the peruke people) is senseless, that natural law (another creation of the peruke people) does make sense. I would say, show actual people who think like that (in terms of universal human rights constrain what I can or can't do, based on reciprocity) other than peruke people. One has to escape all historical periods, otherwise one is simply in a different annex of the Matrix. I happen to believe that humans have no political or moral rights, precisely because I reject the empirically obvious absurdity of a beneficent G-d. G-d is clearly amoral.
Attempts to divine a unique condition under while life can exist in only our particular universe ... is a fallacy. To be consistent with the fact that we are alive, it is logically impossible for the physics "numbers" not to be consistent with that, tempting even materialists into the Anthropic Principle argument. Human life is the only life we can know, no matter what other sentients may exist, we can only know them partially. Aren't dolphins the superior species here ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2017, 03:38:49 AM
Aren't dolphins the superior species here ;-)
No, I'd vote for Bonobos!
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 02, 2017, 08:49:09 AM
No, I'd vote for Bonobos!
Bonobos are the only apes that are matriarchal, so that is a feminist vote ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 01, 2017, 10:46:49 PM
I don't reject naturalism as a possibility in fact if theism isn't true, its second runner up.
Deism would be my 1st runner up.
I don't have a second as theism (as least as it pertains to any of the gods of the theistic religions of men I've ever heard about) goes into the same category as healing crystals and alien abductions. That category heading would be Woo.
Quote from: Baruch on February 02, 2017, 12:44:35 PM
Bonobos are the only apes that are matriarchal, so that is a feminist vote ;-)
Feminist society that loves to screw---what's the downside here?????
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 02, 2017, 06:31:37 PM
Feminist society that loves to screw---what's the downside here?????
That's what I thought!
... They don't allow me into the zoo anymore.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 02, 2017, 12:05:08 AM
You still want to 'believe' so deeply that you would not recognize a fact if it slapped you in the face. I don't 'believe' the sun will rise. I have several decades of facts to guide my thinking. Not only have I seen it rise daily all that time, but I have photo and tapes to show that it does just that on a daily basis. And science has demonstrated why that is so--why the earth rotates around the sun. I know the sun will come up because of the underlying facts and scientific proof. Belief has nothing to do with my knowing the sun will rise; it's called critical thinking, something theists resist at all costs. And you are no different.
Obviously no meeting of minds is going to occur here. I recognize and listed 6 facts of the universe that lead me to
believe the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. Known facts can lead to beliefs. Do you know for a fact our universe was unintentionally caused by unguided naturalistic forces or is that a belief due to known facts?
Probably not a meeting of the minds here. All of the facts I understand that science has determined about the beginning or origin of the universe and life lead me to think there is no need for a creator; and I see not a single fact that leads me to think there is a creator. A creator would leave some tracks; there are no divine tracks out there. I think a creator does not nor ever did exist. I do understand that from the beginning of the time of humans, they have wanted answers--humans are curious. 'I don't know' is not a satisfying answer; god did it can be very satisfying. It's called wishful thinking and not critical thinking.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 02, 2017, 09:52:14 PM
Obviously no meeting of minds is going to occur here. I recognize and listed 6 facts of the universe that lead me to believe the universe was intentionally caused by a Creator. Known facts can lead to beliefs. Do you know for a fact our universe was unintentionally caused by unguided naturalistic forces or is that a belief due to known facts?
Depends on the definition of G-d. If the god in question is the one from Sunday School, fed to children, then that is no more real than Santa Claus. Also as I pointed out before, materialists deny agency (at least out of one side of their mouths). There is also a categorical error involved. In the Aristotelian example, one takes existing matter and reforms it into a new form. This isn't creation ex nihilo ... and naturalists can argue that no truly new forms arise, because the future was implied by the past ... either as classic determinism or as quantum regulated probability. Uniformitarianism implies that there is not only nothing new under the Sun, but that it is sunny everywhere, no shadows. Usually the Sunday School god is the straw man, for both theists and atheists. It is so easy to bash Santa Claus, or even turn him into the Grinch.
If you wanted to engage me, you will have to up your theistic game. The others here have no interest in even indirect evangelism, nor are they interested in empty philosophical arguments ... they are harsh empirical realists.
Quote from: Baruch on February 03, 2017, 07:22:08 AM
Depends on the definition of G-d. If the god in question is the one from Sunday School, fed to children, then that is no more real than Santa Claus. Also as I pointed out before, materialists deny agency (at least out of one side of their mouths). There is also a categorical error involved. In the Aristotelian example, one takes existing matter and reforms it into a new form. This isn't creation ex nihilo ... and naturalists can argue that no truly new forms arise, because the future was implied by the past ... either as classic determinism or as quantum regulated probability. Uniformitarianism implies that there is not only nothing new under the Sun, but that it is sunny everywhere, no shadows. Usually the Sunday School god is the straw man, for both theists and atheists. It is so easy to bash Santa Claus, or even turn him into the Grinch.
If you wanted to engage me, you will have to up your theistic game. The others here have no interest in even indirect evangelism, nor are they interested in empty philosophical arguments ... they are harsh empirical realists.
It depends more on my definition of theism. If we were to find out our existence was due to a scientist from some other plane of existence that caused this universe to exist then theism (or deism) would be more accurate than atheism which just means not or without God. Another possibility that seems to be gaining scientific currency is the notion our existence and universe is a computer simulation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
We are now capable of creating virtual universes and computing power is doubling about every few years. Imagine 500 years from now we could create a virtual universe so real that we could cause sentient beings to come into existence in a universe very similar to ours and no doubt those beings would question there existence as well only in their case we know the cause was theistic...
I don't need to up my game or convince anyone, I'm merely offering justification for my own beliefs.
Computer geeks like to think that existence is software (but where is the hardware?). Some Santa Cruz billionaires want to reboot the universe ... such is their megalomania. Perhaps politics is proof that our universal Windows Registry is corrupt ... boat anchor time ;-)
What is software? We don't even agree on what consciousness is, let alone unconsciousness. And I appreciate that you are seeking answers, rather than just giving them ;-)
For Von Danikin ... aliens with enough technology are gods. I wouldn't agree ... humans are demigods and so are sufficiently advanced alien species. So what is a demigod? Usually in monotheism, G-d is a metaphysical projection.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 02:17:55 PM
Computer geeks like to think that existence is software (but where is the hardware?). Some Santa Cruz billionaires want to reboot the universe ... such is their megalomania. Perhaps politics is proof that our universal Windows Registry is corrupt ... boat anchor time ;-)
What is software? We don't even agree on what consciousness is, let alone unconsciousness. And I appreciate that you are seeking answers, rather than just giving them ;-)
For Von Danikin ... aliens with enough technology are gods. I wouldn't agree ... humans are demigods and so are sufficiently advanced alien species. So what is a demigod? Usually in monotheism, G-d is a metaphysical projection.
No possible answer to our existence doesn't raise yet other questions. If we are the result of naturalistic forces that didn't intentionally cause our existence what caused natural forces to exist and can that cause be called naturalistic also? If we are the result of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life one can ask what caused God to exist? These questions don't negate either possibility it just shows we will probably never dig down to ultimate truth.
What is ultimate truth? What is truth?
This is a matter of temporal logic vs non-temporal logic. It is a real thing ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic
In temporal logic, we sorry abut necessity and sufficiency in the context of cause/effect with a time-like lag. in non-temporal logic, we are dealing with things like Quantum Entanglement ... which shows that logical necessity has no time limitations. In non-temporal logic (aka eternity) there is no separation between cause/effect, no separation between creator and creation (or creature). Buddha would tell you that the temporal is contained within the non-temporal, at least as I understand it in Mahayana Buddhism. And in that sense, the temporal is illusory. As is individuality (salt boy parable).
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 11:03:06 PM
In order for your complaint to have any merit there has to be an actual standard of behavior to measure by. Where do you get such a standard from?
Anthropology 101. The evolution of life creates its own behavior modifications for that life to best survive. Mutual cooperation and sharing of "wealth" promises a better chance of survival. Your "creator" is not needed for any aspect of the existence of the universe or humanity and certainly not human behavior.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on January 31, 2017, 11:23:27 PM
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
Example?
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 03:57:57 PM
Anthropology 101. The evolution of life creates its own behavior modifications for that life to best survive. Mutual cooperation and sharing of "wealth" promises a better chance of survival. Your "creator" is not needed for any aspect of the existence of the universe or humanity and certainly not human behavior.
Cooperation? Prisoner's Dilemma ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:00:29 PM
Example?
Perhaps he thinks that video games are real, in a way that fiction books are not.
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 03:57:57 PM
Anthropology 101. The evolution of life creates its own behavior modifications for that life to best survive. Mutual cooperation and sharing of "wealth" promises a better chance of survival. Your "creator" is not needed for any aspect of the existence of the universe or humanity and certainly not human behavior.
Our values and morals are based on a process called survival of the fittest?
You state your deeply held conviction a Creator isn't necessary as a fact. What evidence supports this declarative statement?
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
Quote from: aitm on February 05, 2017, 04:00:29 PM
Example?
Any virtual universe created is an example of how we can trace the existence of a virtual universe to sentient creators. The creators of virtual universes are the gods of that universe, they are transcendent to the universe they create. They can change the 'laws of physics' at will. Virtual universes are a working example of the theistic model of our actual universe. Any naturalistic models available?
This universe is analog, not digital. Digital approximation to analog doesn't count ;-) Human creation of an analog feedback control system ... is more germane than a video game.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:24:07 PM
6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.
Any virtual universe created is an example of how we can trace the existence of a virtual universe to sentient creators. The creators of virtual universes are the gods of that universe, they are transcendent to the universe they create. They can change the 'laws of physics' at will. Virtual universes are a working example of the theistic model of our actual universe. Any naturalistic models available?
What do you mean by 'virtual universe'?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 06, 2017, 12:51:26 PM
What do you mean by 'virtual universe'?
He may be a follower of the game of Life, cellular automata, and the cult of Stephen Wolfram?
Quote from: Hydra009 on January 28, 2017, 10:34:37 PM
Watchmaker argument. Never seen that before.
I have a running tally of people who have successfully used that argument. (I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as the number of world wars that Germany has won)
Yes, but one of these numbers is subject to change!
Quote from: Baruch on February 06, 2017, 12:45:28 PM
This universe is analog, not digital. Digital approximation to analog doesn't count ;-) Human creation of an analog feedback control system ... is more germane than a video game.
I'll let those who consider the notion decide if the creation of virtual universes (on a computer using software) is analogous to the theory of a Creator causing the universe to exist. Right now we can only create virtual universes perhaps due to our limitation of knowledge. The irony is, we may never be smart enough to create what is alleged to have occurred (a universe) by mindless natural forces without plan or any intent to do so...
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 06, 2017, 12:51:26 PM
What do you mean by 'virtual universe'?
Something like this...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:47:37 PM
Something like this...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10
I like those kinds of simulations. Good stuff.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 07, 2017, 11:47:37 PM
Something like this...
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10
I can simulate a simple harmonic oscillator (mass and spring) on a spreadsheet. And per Pythagoras, that is analogous to the actual thing. But I could have just hand calculated it, instead of using a computer. In what way is the graph of the variables on the spreadsheet which recalculate each time I change the parameters of the model more ... creative ... than using pencil and paper? A mathematical system can be used to simulate nature, but not emulate it. A small wooden boat (such as used in ship design) is an emulation of the larger ship ... as is the small airplane model in the wind tunnel an emulation of the full airplane in flight. The usual reason for doing those design techniques, is because the math is too hard, but with powerful computers (like the one mentioned in your link) we can simulate the same thing. Why is a simulation not the same as an emulation? Well, because like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure. The simulation only does what you tell it to, if something is missing, then it isn't there. With the emulation however (a bridge in a wind tunnel) one could discover this problem during small scale testing (though problems develop with "scale" even with wind tunnels and ship buoyancy/drag tanks). Today we know by example, that the roadway of a suspension bridge functions also as a wing ... but what of the next real phenomena that was left out of our equations? This is why numerical simulation, and even closed form equations, aren't the same as the real thing, particularly not at full scale. Pythagoreanism is useful, but ultimately it is a fallacy to confuse simulation with emulation ... for the same reason that interpolation is more reliable than extrapolation. Ultimately you have to build the full scale ship, and have sea trials. Similarly build the full scale airplane and have a test pilot test fly it .. to extremes. We could have perfect equations or perfect calculations ... but not without omniscience. As humans we are limited to quantitative approximations, that might not display all qualitative behavior. Science philosophers try to cover this by hypothesizing "different physics at different scales aka emergent behavior" .. but my examples disprove this. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge could have been tested against wind shear in a wind tunnel before it was built, and having had that experience, we now do that as part of the design process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFzu6CNtqec
Similarly ships have been lost at sea due to large rogue waves and unanticipated oscillatory stress on the framework of the ship. For a long time rogue waves .. and rogue lightning (sprites) were denied to even exist, because they didn't match the knowledge of academic experts.
On the other hand, when my wife and I created a new person, the natural way ... we did create a new universe, because each human being is its own, semi-independent universe of psychology and life.
The problem that I see, with "the universe is a simulation" premise, is WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SIMULATING? Where did the pattern come from? Somewhere there has to be an original to simulate. One where fingers and toes and smiling faces have the same function and meaning. Doesn't Occam's razor suggest, that this universe is the original?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:18:49 PM
Our values and morals are based on a process called survival of the fittest?
YES! Our morals have evolved by the same rigorous process as all other things. The morality which best serves the living, is the morality that survives. That is why Judaeo-Christian morals are being surpassed, by a more modern and universal application of the Golden Rule. Christianity is not the perfect example of Love, that it claims to be.
QuoteI can simulate a simple harmonic oscillator (mass and spring) on a spreadsheet. And per Pythagoras, that is analogous to the actual thing. But I could have just hand calculated it, instead of using a computer. In what way is the graph of the variables on the spreadsheet which recalculate each time I change the parameters of the model more ... creative ... than using pencil and paper? A mathematical system can be used to simulate nature, but not emulate it. A small wooden boat (such as used in ship design) is an emulation of the larger ship ... as is the small airplane model in the wind tunnel an emulation of the full airplane in flight.
I agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement. However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.
If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.
You mean like The M(atrix) model of M-theory (https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0002016) or Cosmology from quantum potential (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3093v3.pdf)? The second one says there was no Big Bang singularity, and the visible universe has always existed.
There are plenty of others out there for your consideration.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.
If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.
Your main point is wrong. There is no 'theistic' model. There are millions of them; each theist has their own model with is different than any other model. Scientists aren't "creating" anything. They are building a model which reflects what they see and what they understand (by testing and retesting) the underlying physical laws to be. They are trying to build their simulation of what they see so they can come to a deeper understanding of the underlying physical laws. Theism is built upon faith--which means reasoning does not matter; theism basically equal fiction. All religious texts and teachings are based on a man made fiction of one sort or another. How does one go about testing a fiction? Yeah..........I'd like to test and see if the Tooth Fairy really exists.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:13:35 AM
I agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement. However, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.
If there was a naturalistic model of how the universe came into existence by happenstance it would be good for comparison.
Logic, math, science, engineering ... all involve abstraction. Abstraction implies that something is left out ... otherwise even going to the toilet would be an intractable problem ;-(
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 08, 2017, 11:13:35 AMI agree a model of something is a model...not the real thing obviously. You're correct that if the model doesn't produce the similar results its a sign something is missing or something is added that shouldn't be. That's a good thing, it leads to knowledge and refinement.
It also leads to the conclusion, that this is the original pattern, and not a copy.
QuoteHowever, my main point is by scientists using knowledge, engineering and purposely creating virtual universes they are unwittingly demonstrating the theistic model of the universe in that such are intentionally created by sentient beings using intelligence and knowledge.
You do NOT have a "model." You have a
myth, that you are trying to rationalize.
I will give you credit for one thing: I've never seen the virtual universe angle taken so seriously before.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 09, 2017, 09:08:03 AM
I will give you credit for one thing: I've never seen the virtual universe angle taken so seriously before.
I remember casparov.
I Like The new Guy better though.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:18:49 PM
What evidence supports this declarative statement?
The entirety of life on this planet and others when we find it. You certainly have provided nothing for your so-called virtual universe being that which we live in.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 06, 2017, 12:24:07 PM
Any virtual universe created is an example of how we can trace the existence of a virtual universe to sentient creators.
which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one. I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...
Quote from: aitm on February 09, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one. I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...
I understand your need to believe Naturedidit. In order for theism to be true (not just believed but actually true) there are certain facts that need to occur. There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true. As a thought experiment suppose we could have this conversation apart from the universe existing and I said to you I think a creator known as God exists. You'd say that's interesting what fact leads you to believe that? I'd say nothing just a hunch. The claim many atheists and naturalists make, there is no evidence God exists would be true! Its false now its just a meaningless slogan. Now suppose there is a universe, you ask the same question and I point to the existence of the universe that God exists. Barring some other non-God explanation its as good as any competing idea. Suppose however, that the universe is just absolute and utter chaos with no discernible or recognizable laws of physics and of course no life. I could still claim God caused it but I couldn't say any reason God would create a universe of utter chaos with no other known purpose and a naturalistic explanation would be just as plausible. Suppose we observe a universe with discernible laws of physics that allowed for the existence of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. Now I can make a much better case we owe the existence of this universe to an agent that wanted to cause planetary systems to exist and created laws of physics to accomplish that. Now what if these same conditions not only caused stars and solar systems but this universe also had the necessary conditions to cause life and not just life but at some point sentient life? For theism to have any credibility at all a host of conditions have to be true in order for us to even discuss whether its true. Do you have any counter explanation for why unguided naturalistic forces would cause a multitude of conditions to obtain that would lead a person to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? There is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 08:17:09 PM
I understand your need to believe Naturedidit.
ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.
Quote from: aitm on February 11, 2017, 08:39:21 PM
ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.
Ironically, from an eternal perspective, you are correct ;-) That is what predetermination means. "Did" implies choice. Atheistic versions of Hinduism and Buddhism would agree of course. If the ego of man is false, then the ego of G-d must be false too.
Quote from: aitm on February 09, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
which is fine and dandy for xbox and assorted other games.....so far you have provided absolutely nothing that suggests a creator for the "real"universe other than your emotional demand for one. I understand your fear and ignorance, try reading some real science instead of Ham or bacon or pork...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8u8Z3bUQfs
But I am immune to your porcine temptations ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 11, 2017, 08:17:09 PM
There is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.
Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an
Argumentum ad populum.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 01:59:31 AM
Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an Argumentum ad populum.
And indoctrination. Those are the two key players.
QuoteI understand your need to believe Naturedidit.
As aitm already said, nature is not sentient, it doesn't “do†anything.
QuoteIn order for theism to be true (not just believed but actually true) there are certain facts that need to occur.
Facts don't “occur.†Events occur, and information which accurately describes those events, are called facts. For Theism to be true, only one event has to happen: God creating the universe.
QuoteThere are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true.
This statement is complete and utter bullshit. Who is teaching you this crap? Facts are necessary for anything to be true(factual).
Quote...I point to the existence of the universe that God exists. Barring some other non-God explanation its as good as any competing idea.
NO! It is NOT “as good an explanation as any competing idea.†It requires a whole additional layer of explanation, to show where God came from, how he got his knowledge, and by what mechanism he created the universe, or effects changes in it.
QuoteSuppose however, that the universe is just absolute and utter chaos with no discernible or recognizable laws of physics and of course no life. I could still claim God caused it but I couldn't say any reason God would create a universe of utter chaos with no other known purpose and a naturalistic explanation would be just as plausible.
You have it completely backwards. A universe of chaos would be more likely created by magic, than an orderly one, because it would require magic to hold it together. Order IS nature. It is necessary for everything. No magic found.
QuoteSuppose we observe a universe with discernible laws of physics that allowed for the existence of stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. Now I can make a much better case we owe the existence of this universe to an agent that wanted to cause planetary systems to exist and created laws of physics to accomplish that.
The “laws†of physics are not like some man made thing. You cannot conceive of a universe where 1+1=3, because such an equation is nonsense. It is a false statement, and cannot happen. That is what violating the laws of nature is. It simply cannot, and does not happen.
QuoteDo you have any counter explanation for why unguided naturalistic forces would cause a multitude of conditions to obtain that would lead a person to believe we owe our existence to a Creator?
“Why†assumes
intention again. There is no “why,†only “how.†How it happened, is not clear yet. But the processes are becoming clearer, every day.
QuoteThere is a reason about 85% of the people of earth believe we owe our existence to a Creator and its due to what we do know, not what we don't know.
That is completely false. As Mr. Obvious pointed out, the popularity of theistic beliefs is due to indoctrination, not “what we know.â€
1. Nature as a whole, isn't sentient. But humans are an example of one way that part of nature is sentient
2. Physics isn't math. 1+1=2 is a logical tautology, which science is not. Rationalists think that natural law or natural theology is a thing ;-( Some think economics has laws ;-(( Math has logic envy, physics has math envy, the rest of physical science has physics envy. There is no Nobel Prize for geology, but there is for economics ;-(( The rest of scholarship has science envy (except for medicine and economics, medicine has a Nobel Prize).
3. Natural laws aren't ... it is a law, that matter is conserved and energy is conserved. Nuclear power is a violation of natural law? Now, we have a new law, mass-energy is conserved ... until we find a process where this isn't true (gravitational waves and Big Bang). Mass and energy are still conserved however, under most circumstances. Science isn't the discovery of facts, it is a method for discovering facts (approximately anyway).
Quote from: Baruch on February 12, 2017, 08:36:25 AM
Science isn't the discovery of facts, it is a method for discovering facts (approximately anyway).
When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts. And it also allows us to retest those facts. I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist. Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered. That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist. I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method. Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 01:59:31 AM
Lack of reason comes to mind, considering that you just pulled an Argumentum ad populum.
My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit. For instance if belief in God were like belief in Santa Claus the overwhelming majority of people would reject belief in God for the same reason they lack belief in Santa, a far better explanation for gifts under the tree is available.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 10:57:52 AM
When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts. And it also allows us to retest those facts. I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist. Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered. That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist. I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method. Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.
So what is he mass of the Earth ... please put on a scale ;-)
So Newton is correct, gravity is action at a distance, instantaneously? ;-)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 12:25:03 PM
My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit. For instance if belief in God were like belief in Santa Claus the overwhelming majority of people would reject belief in God for the same reason they lack belief in Santa, a far better explanation for gifts under the tree is available.
Why do you need an explanation? Just accept what is. Or is it that people love stories? Some stories are more entertaining than others, but that is all they are, they aren't truth. An honest person has integrity, and integrity is synonymous with truth. Facts aren't true, unless you have integrity when you state them.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 12:25:03 PM
My point wasn't that theism is true because a large % of the population believes it...the point is they believe it because known facts lead them to believe it and because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit...
That large percentage of the population who believe in God, believe in it because they were indoctrinated as children, not because they see some facts that lead to that conclusion. So your premise is mistaken.
Hello Soloman,
QuoteFor Theism to be true, only one event has to happen: God creating the universe.
I agree the existence of the universe is one line of evidence but alone it doesn't favor a theistic explanation over any other explanation. The real wrench in the monkey works is the existence of life and sentient life and the myriad of exacting conditions that allow the only life we know of to exist. For us to think theism is true we have to exist.
There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true. QuoteThis statement is complete and utter bullshit. Who is teaching you this crap? Facts are necessary for anything to be true(factual).
Would naturalism or atheism be any less true if no universe existed? Does a universe have to exist for naturalism to be true? Does the universe have to have laws of nature for naturalism to be true? What fact is naturalism dependent on to be true?
BTW I'm self taught in some matters.
QuoteNO! It is NOT “as good an explanation as any competing idea.†It requires a whole additional layer of explanation, to show where God came from, how he got his knowledge, and by what mechanism he created the universe, or effects changes in it.
With the exception of the theory the universe came into existence un-caused out of nothing (a magic event) naturalistic explanations require a never ending back log of events and we are still left to ponder how that occurred. I'm not attempting to find the answer to all questions, just the answer to our existence and the existence of the universe.
QuoteYou have it completely backwards. A universe of chaos would be more likely created by magic, than an orderly one, because it would require magic to hold it together. Order IS nature. It is necessary for everything. No magic found.
We do observe order in nature but there is nothing endemic to naturalism that would lead us to believe such forces would create order, be knowable and and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic. What do you mean its necessary for everything? I agree for sentient humans to exist a great many exacting conditions are necessary...the mystery is why did those conditions obtain by naturalistic forces that don't care if anything exists.
QuoteThe “laws†of physics are not like some man made thing. You cannot conceive of a universe where 1+1=3, because such an equation is nonsense. It is a false statement, and cannot happen. That is what violating the laws of nature is. It simply cannot, and does not happen.
I'm not suggesting the laws of physics (in this universe not virtual ones where in fact we do dictate the laws of physics) are man made. I'm arguing they're not caused by unguided naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if any laws exist. The existence of the laws of physics are one of the lines of evidence that leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator/designer. We look for order out of chaos as a sign of intelligence. The constant babble of chaotic radio waves scientists hear is what they expect of naturally occurring phenomena. Its if that noise turns into some discernible pattern that alerts scientists to the possibility of an intelligent source.
Quote“Why†assumes intention again. There is no “why,†only “how.†How it happened, is not clear yet. But the processes are becoming clearer, every day.
Why assumes there is some answer, not intention. Knowing why a volcano erupts makes no assumption it intentionally erupted. You haven't been critically examining your many assumptions.
QuoteThat is completely false. As Mr. Obvious pointed out, the popularity of theistic beliefs is due to indoctrination, not “what we know.â€
No its due to the fact naturalists offer little compelling evidence we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended themselves or us to exist. For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 07:21:21 PM
For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...
In the meantime, in a world where it is proven the only magic that happens is on a Vegas stage, you would prefer to believe in the magical sky daddy?
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 07:21:21 PM
Hello Soloman,
I agree the existence of the universe is one line of evidence but alone it doesn't favor a theistic explanation over any other explanation. The real wrench in the monkey works is the existence of life and sentient life and the myriad of exacting conditions that allow the only life we know of to exist. For us to think theism is true we have to exist.
There are no facts necessary for naturalism to be true.
Would naturalism or atheism be any less true if no universe existed? Does a universe have to exist for naturalism to be true? Does the universe have to have laws of nature for naturalism to be true? What fact is naturalism dependent on to be true?
BTW I'm self taught in some matters.
With the exception of the theory the universe came into existence un-caused out of nothing (a magic event) naturalistic explanations require a never ending back log of events and we are still left to ponder how that occurred. I'm not attempting to find the answer to all questions, just the answer to our existence and the existence of the universe.
We do observe order in nature but there is nothing endemic to naturalism that would lead us to believe such forces would create order, be knowable and and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic. What do you mean its necessary for everything? I agree for sentient humans to exist a great many exacting conditions are necessary...the mystery is why did those conditions obtain by naturalistic forces that don't care if anything exists.
I'm not suggesting the laws of physics (in this universe not virtual ones where in fact we do dictate the laws of physics) are man made. I'm arguing they're not caused by unguided naturalistic forces that couldn't care less if any laws exist. The existence of the laws of physics are one of the lines of evidence that leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator/designer. We look for order out of chaos as a sign of intelligence. The constant babble of chaotic radio waves scientists hear is what they expect of naturally occurring phenomena. Its if that noise turns into some discernible pattern that alerts scientists to the possibility of an intelligent source.
Why assumes there is some answer, not intention. Knowing why a volcano erupts makes no assumption it intentionally erupted. You haven't been critically examining your many assumptions.
No its due to the fact naturalists offer little compelling evidence we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended themselves or us to exist. For instance at one time people believed the Rain God caused rain. Most people don't anymore because scientists have offered a better explanation that makes sense. If the day comes they have a better explanation for why a universe with the right conditions to cause sentient life to exist came about they will believe that...
This is too much BULLSHIT, for any one man to handle, on an evening with the family, I leave it in the capable hands of the rest of you.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 12, 2017, 07:30:57 PM
This is too much BULLSHIT, for any one man to handle, on an evening with the family, I leave it in the capable hands of the rest of you.
I have found that in long posts, the person's premise is also included in their conclusion, with the middle just being a bunch of babble. Therefore, I skip to the end and respond to that.
Yes, Drew_2017 ... you are using counterfactual arguments. These are inherently invalid (as in what if G-d were African-American instead of Israeli) in any empirical system. You can only argue from facts on the ground, which are never ever counterfactual.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 12, 2017, 10:57:52 AM
When the scientific method is followed properly, it does lead us to facts. And it also allows us to retest those facts. I find it compelling, and interesting, that the scientific method (whose sole purpose is to uncover facts) has not found one fact that can lead us to think god(s) exist. Not even a glimmer of an idea that there is such a fact out there to be discovered. That, for me, is proof that god(s) don't exist. I would think that if god(s) did exist, that that would be one of the first facts discovered using the scientific method. Proof that god(s) don't exist and never did.
Science is philosophically committed to naturalistic answers. They're not seeking God. This is the impetus behind the theory this is one of an infinitude (or great many universes). Scientists have come to realize the odds of one universe obtaining the characteristics necessary not just for sentient life, but stars, planets solar systems and galaxies is so astronomically low (unless intentionally designed) they are left to conclude this
must be one of quadrillions of universes with differing characteristics so it was inevitable that one would exist with the characteristics to cause sentient life. This is what you call making reality fit your preconceived notions. The same thing occurred when it became obvious that the universe rather than always existing (the preferred explanation) came into existence. For many scientists it smacked of a supernatural event since most things observed have a cause.
Secondly like most things we can't directly observe (such as black holes) we infer there existence by what we do know. What we have found out over the last 100 years is how narrowly defined are the characteristics that allow for the possibility of life to obtain. That (whether you agree or disagree) is a fact that comports with the belief we owe our existence to a designer who intentionally caused the characteristics. It would be no different than if I walked on a beach and found sticks that clearly spelled out the word HELLO. In order for the sticks to be at the right place to spell the word hello is evidence someone intentionally placed the sticks. It could turn out the surf and wind time and chance caused it but that doesn't negate the evidence it was intentionally caused.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 05:08:12 PM
Science is philosophically committed to naturalistic answers. They're not seeking God. This is the impetus behind the theory this is one of an infinitude (or great many universes). Scientists have come to realize the odds of one universe obtaining the characteristics necessary not just for sentient life, but stars, planets solar systems and galaxies is so astronomically low (unless intentionally designed) they are left to conclude this must be one of quadrillions of universes with differing characteristics so it was inevitable that one would exist with the characteristics to cause sentient life. This is what you call making reality fit your preconceived notions. The same thing occurred when it became obvious that the universe rather than always existing (the preferred explanation) came into existence. For many scientists it smacked of a supernatural event since most things observed have a cause.
Secondly like most things we can't directly observe (such as black holes) we infer there existence by what we do know. What we have found out over the last 100 years is how narrowly defined are the characteristics that allow for the possibility of life to obtain. That (whether you agree or disagree) is a fact that comports with the belief we owe our existence to a designer who intentionally caused the characteristics. It would be no different than if I walked on a beach and found sticks that clearly spelled out the word HELLO. In order for the sticks to be at the right place to spell the word hello is evidence someone intentionally placed the sticks. It could turn out the surf and wind time and chance caused it but that doesn't negate the evidence it was intentionally caused.
Look, Drew, you are hopelessly wordy. I find it very difficult to follow what you are trying to say. I do know that you think it impossible for this universe to exist except by a creator. Wishful thoughts at best. You keep telling me what scientists think--you are as far removed from science or scientists as one can get. It is clear you stuck on you deep need for a sky daddy. Fine--enjoy your fiction. I'll not bother posting about you or you silliness.
Quote from: Sorginak on February 12, 2017, 07:24:25 PM
In the meantime, in a world where it is proven the only magic that happens is on a Vegas stage, you would prefer to believe in the magical sky daddy?
In another thread I asked if there was an aversion to belief Goddidit VS Naturedidit. You responded quite reasonably...
QuoteAs an atheist, so long as real evidence is provided I can easily admit that a god exists.
Does this sound like the same person who marginalizes belief in God as a Magical Sky Daddy? It also sounds like you have a perfectly reasonable non-magical naturalistic explanation for how the universe came into existence and happened to produce sentient life without intending to. After all only a person with conclusive evidence to the contrary would hold someones else's belief to ridicule. Please provide that evidence so I can laugh at my own foolishness.
If the only two options at my disposal are between religious faith's gap of knowledge answer or what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?
Quote from: Sorginak on February 19, 2017, 06:40:14 PM
If the only two options at my disposal are between religious faith's gap of knowledge answer or what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?
I assume you believe this is an unbiased way of asking this question? Why not say, it depends on whether you're asinine enough to believe in utter hogwash nonsensical bullshit known as theism or whether you believe what science is offering through reason and logic, then should it not be clear which is the better choice?
I don't doubt science reason and logic; what I seek to change my mind is evidence (facts that corroborate a beilef) that natural forces minus any plan or design not only caused there own existence but ultimately the existence of the universe and sentient life. I'm assuming you have good solid evidential reasons to hold theism in contempt as a silly faith proposition. I know you'll make me look absolutely ridiculous for holding such beliefs but go ahead I'm ready. Then I will laugh at myself for being so naive.
Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 19, 2017, 07:26:28 PM
Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.
Hi Solomon
Why don't you tell me what you really think?
Its an assumed theory not a workable one. A workable theory would have some kind of model of how naturalistic forces and the laws of physics came into existence in the first place.
For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that everything that came into existence after the universe and the laws of physics has a naturalistic explanation. What's the workable theory of how the naturalistic forces we observe came into existence? Secondarily maybe you have a theory of why the laws of physics allow life to exist? It wasn't mandatory right?
No examples of magic, forthcoming? I thought not. If it's not a workable theory, then please show me an empirical example of an exception to it. Not some gap in our knowledge of the unfathomable past, but any example from the "here and now."
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 19, 2017, 07:26:28 PM
Give one single solitary empirical example of anything not caused by natural forces. Something magic. You can't. Therefore the assumption that natural forces caused everything, is the only workable theory, and your contention that God exists, is nothing more than a myth, that you are hell-bent on rationalizing.
Magic isn't the straw man people claim it to be. It is natural, just like everything else. I love stage magicians and card tricks ;-) In other magic, it is psychosomatic. As long as you allow that psychosomatic things are real and natural, then there is no problem. That isn't where the problem is, the problem is with materialistic reductionism. And that isn't science per se, that is a particular view of science.
Did you know, that quantum field theory pretty much describes every everyday experience ... and we can't calculate the outcomes, except in toy situations? What is a theory, that can't be used to calculate most things?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on February 19, 2017, 07:47:35 PM
No examples of magic, forthcoming? I thought not. If it's not a workable theory, then please show me an empirical example of an exception to it. Not some gap in our knowledge of the unfathomable past, but any example from the "here and now."
I disagree with your premise on two points. That if a Creator caused the universe to exist it would be an act of magic. It might be magic to us just as if an alien of an advanced race might dazzle us with technology we'd think of as magic today. Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist.
Quote from: Drew2017I disagree with your premise on two points. That if a Creator caused the universe to exist it would be an act of magic. It might be magic to us just as if an alien of an advanced race might dazzle us with technology we'd think of as magic today. Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist.
“Magic,†as I am using it, means any cause which is not physical. Show an example of anything not caused by natural physical forces forces, or else accept that “Naturedidit,†is a workable theory. What seems to us, must have been an uncaused cause, may or may not work itself out mathematically for us. But there is no alternative theory, that is based on anything observable, like cause-and-effect. “Goddidit,†is not a theory at all. It's the rationalizing of a preconceived notion, based on a myth, and has nothing to do with observation.
And I can only reiterate that there is no “why†sentient life exists. The laws of physics allow for life to exist, but they don't actually “cause†anything. They are very simply the manner in which things behave. There is no reason to believe, that things could behave differently, any more than you should believe that 1+1 can equal anything other than 2.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 19, 2017, 09:00:56 PM
Also the notion I need to demonstrate some magical event has taken place for my position to have any merit. That's your notion. I point to the gap in knowledge not to insert God into it but to demonstrate you don't have any clue how the universe and the laws of physics came into existence nor any answer as to why they would cause sentient life to exist.
Enjoyed moving that goal post?
Unfortunately, pop physics, like pop philosophy, pop psychology or pop religion ... is base and vulgar and wrong. But it is all the masses can handle.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 08, 2017, 12:03:33 AM
I like those kinds of simulations. Good stuff.
Yeah, it is pretty cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSFR40SY58
Quote from: aitm on February 11, 2017, 08:39:21 PM
ah, there is your problem, you think something "did" it. Nothing "did" it... it happened.
(https://accidentallygay.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ooooh-it-just-happened.jpg)
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 12, 2017, 12:25:03 PM
because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit.
So, instead of trying to find out how (or if) "nature did it" we should just assume God did it and quit looking for any other answers?
because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit.Quoteauthor=Unbeliever link=topic=11251.msg1167708#msg1167708 date=1487720352]
So, instead of trying to find out how (or if) "nature did it" we should just assume God did it and quit looking for any other answers?
First I want to retract the statement above...its been pointed out they're alternative naturalistic models so I stand corrected. How workable is another question.
Even if we became to believe God did it we'd still look for answers. Sir Isaac Newton arguably greatest scientist of all time believed he could find answers because he believed God did it (caused the universe and laws of physics). The question now is how nature did it...the question then would be how did God do it?
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 06:29:22 PM
The friendly Russian ghost?
Better than the Russian chess loser, Boris Spastic ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 06:32:20 PM
(https://accidentallygay.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ooooh-it-just-happened.jpg)
Sesame Street knows Hexadecimal ... maybe even FFFFH? Inform the Count!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 06:56:48 PM
because of a coherent lack of evidence or even a workable model of how Naturedidit.
First I want to retract the statement above...its been pointed out they're alternative naturalistic models so I stand corrected. How workable is another question.
Even if we became to believe God did it we'd still look for answers. Sir Isaac Newton arguably greatest scientist of all time believed he could find answers because he believed God did it (caused the universe and laws of physics). The question now is how nature did it...the question then would be how did God do it?
Galileo - The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.
Galileo - Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 21, 2017, 06:24:29 PM
Yeah, it is pretty cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjSFR40SY58
Somehow just saw this. Great! Thanks.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 21, 2017, 08:40:04 PM
Somehow just saw this. Great! Thanks.
We must be dumb asses. It takes us 100,000 lines of code running on the fastest super computers just to create a virtual universe to simulate what natural forces did without any planing, intent or design and they created a real universe!
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:28:50 PM
We must be dumb asses. It takes us 100,000 lines of code running on the fastest super computers just to create a virtual universe to simulate what natural forces did without any planing, intent or design and they created a real universe!
:banghead: OH FOR FUCKS SAKE MAN! Are you
REALLY this fucking DENSE?
Of course it takes a lot of code, to even
roughly describe
THE ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE! What did you expect?
Drew, examine what you just said, and you'll see that you have not actually made any kind of relevant point. You are hell-bent on rationalizing an unsupportable contention, and it is leading you to try and see evidence where there is none. The laws of physics are as immutable as anything we know. Our symbolic mathematical descriptions of those properties, may become more complex and refined, as we observe more closely, but the properties of matter and it's interactions, remain the same. The idea that there could have been any other set of physical laws, is nothing more than fantasy.
Our incomplete picture of the universe, is just one huge math problem, that can probably never be solved. Goddidit adds a million more questions, without actually answering any.
Quote from: Drew_2017 on February 21, 2017, 10:28:50 PM
We must be dumb asses. It takes us 100,000 lines of code running on the fastest super computers just to create a virtual universe to simulate what natural forces did without any planing, intent or design and they created a real universe!
Yes, we are dumb asses. We don't see the difference between G-d and demigod. That and we are atheist.