News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

Started by Drew_2017, February 19, 2017, 05:17:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Drew_2017

Suppose 200 years from now scientists could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings arose who believed they really existed. Would the people who believed they owed their existence to a transcendent Creator(s) be right or wrong?

Quote from: fencerider on April 29, 2017, 01:53:47 PM
Technically they would never be sentient, they would just be running a program. We were already programming virtual toy robots to attack each other in the 80's. In 200 years from now a virtual machine will be able to run its program fast enough to appear to be thinking at the speed of humans but it will never think. If it has a belief in god, it would only be there because a programmer put it there.

The 'programming' of virtual sentient beings wouldn't be anything like a program today. The virtual universes scientists are creating today begin with laws of nature we are familiar with but then take off on their own so they can see how well it reflects the real universe. If new or unusual things occur its not because a specific line of code caused it, it was due to the initial parameters. The same would be true of virtual sentient beings, there 'programming' would be there experiences, knowledge and so forth. Sentient probably isn't the best word as it only means something that can feel and sense the external world. What I'm getting at is volitional autonomous beings who can act and initiate action autonomously. There is a line of reasoning out there that suggests that human autonomy is only an illusion. We think we independently come to conclusions and initiate action but in reality we only do what could be predicted if all the variables were known. However that would mean all of our opinions are worthless since we're only reflecting a result of the variables.






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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Baruch

#1021
Drew - "It appears to me you assume your worldview is correct then proceed from there to declare things true based on them comporting with your worldview."  ... that is what all sentient beings do.  Our meme bank is a virtual reality machine, providing automatic interpretation of sense data, into perceptions.  It takes self reflection to step outside the Matrix.  But you have your Matrix too, you aren't free of it, even with self reflection.  When we become self conscious, be step back one level, "seeing" ourselves in the act.  And one can step back further, but not without a limit.  To interpret your own consciousness, you have to have already developed your mind, it isn't virgin.  The virgin mind is nearly infantile.

You also seem to think that AI is a thing, that people are computers, and thought is programming.  This is a metaphor, not a literal reality.  But taken to grandiose lengths, to think that the universe is a program, not just your own mind.  Programming, 50 years ago, was just moving 1s and 0s around, and it still is.  I see no reason for that to be different, 200 years from now.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

Quote from: Baruch on April 29, 2017, 07:58:45 PM
Drew - "It appears to me you assume your worldview is correct then proceed from there to declare things true based on them comporting with your worldview."  ... that is what all sentient beings do.  Our meme bank is a virtual reality machine, providing automatic interpretation of sense data, into perceptions.  It takes self reflection to step outside the Matrix.  But you have your Matrix too, you aren't free of it, even with self reflection.  When we become self conscious, be step back one level, "seeing" ourselves in the act.  And one can step back further, but not without a limit.  To interpret your own consciousness, you have to have already developed your mind, it isn't virgin.  The virgin mind is nearly infantile.

No my mind has been playing the field and fooling around for a long time.

A worldview is very useful...it provides context and a 'thesis' around which to interpret the world. However to be useful it can never be canonized to the point it becomes gospel and the truth which of all else must wrap around. My worldview regarding many issues and beliefs have changed over the years as has my belief in Creator. That is why I chose the symbol of the yin and the yang because its a mixed bag. I can see the strengths and weakness of each side. I can't rule out the possibility we owe our existence purely to naturalistic causes. I listed 5 facts that support naturalism unlike my opponents here, I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support naturalism. I don't question the intelligence or sincerity of those who disagree with my point of view. That said there isn't enough information by a wide margin to slam the books shut and say its a fact the universe was caused unintentionally by unknown but unguided forces that caused the universe without plan or intent to do so.

There is an article I read many years ago that has influenced my thinking along these lines...

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism

A hundred years or so ago, C. S. Peirce, a working scientist as well as the greatest of American philosophers, distinguished genuine inquiry from “sham reasoning,” pseudo-inquiry aimed not at finding the truth but at making a case for some conclusion immovably believed in advance; and predicted that, when sham reasoning becomes commonplace, people will come “to look on reasoning as merely decorative,” and will "lose their conceptions of truth and of reason.”2

Pseudo-Inquiry; and the Real Thing

A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. This is a tautology (Webster’s: “inquiry: search for truth . . .”). A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.

Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bullshitter.)3 Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.

The genuine inquirer wants to get to the truth of the matter that concerns him, whether or not that truth comports with what he believed at the outset of his investigation, and whether or not his acknowledgement of that truth is likely to get him tenure, or to make him rich, famous, or popular. So he is motivated to seek out and assess the worth of evidence and arguments thoroughly and impartially. This doesn't just mean that he will be hard-working; it is a matter, rather, of willingness to re-think, to re-appraise, to spend as long as it takes on the detail that might be fatal, to give as much thought to the last one percent as to the rest. The genuine inquirer will be ready to acknowledge, to himself as well as others, where his evidence and arguments seem shakiest, and his articulation of problem or solution vaguest. He will be willing to go with the evidence even to unpopular conclusions, and to welcome someone else’s having found the truth he was seeking. And, far from having a motive to obfuscate, he will try to see and explain things as clearly as he can.


My belief in theism is a secular belief, there is no reward or punishment involved so I don't believe in theism for ulterior motives. I've subjected my beliefs in this forum to lots of scrutiny but regardless of majority opinion, I still opine we owe our existence to a Creator for the time being. However my belief is malleable I've listed a few facts that if they came to light would alter my thinking.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Drew_2017

QuoteYou also seem to think that AI is a thing, that people are computers, and thought is programming.  This is a metaphor, not a literal reality.  But taken to grandiose lengths, to think that the universe is a program, not just your own mind.  Programming, 50 years ago, was just moving 1s and 0s around, and it still is.  I see no reason for that to be different, 200 years from now.

I've been programming computers for 20 years in several languages. I'm not making a case for AI or the notion our universe is a virtual playground like the holidecks on star trek. However it is a great illustration of theism. The scientists who are like transcendent beings who cause that universe to exist and exert god-like power over it. Every so many years computer power has grown exponentially. If it can continue we will have computers that make today's super computers seem like a commodore 64 (the first computer I programmed on). By then virtual reality will be indistinguishable from actual reality. However in that case I'm only viewing virtual reality I'm not actually in it. The next step would be a virtual reality suit, 360 degree visual all the way around including the ceiling and the floor, you can keep in walking in any direction because the floor moves as you move.

Its raises an interesting question though. Can unintelligent naturalistic forces cause things to happen by chance that we can't figure out or duplicate using intelligence which one would think would give us a huge leg up. Humans are truly the one eyed man in the land of the blind. If naturalistic forces can cause sentient beings to exist without trying or planning to how can it be beyond our ability when we can plan, design, engineer learn from failure and so forth and are purposely trying to cause it? Unlike naturalistic forces we have a proto-type we can copy...ourselves.

In either event assuming we could create a virtual world with self aware sentient beings in a universe like our own they too would have this same debate about the existence of a Creator only they would be correct.

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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Sorginak

To people with theories regarding the world around them, what they believe to be true can always be proven as false given time.

History shows that.

Until a time that something can be proven as factual, one should not adhere to theories regarding the world around them.

That is reality.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
And "cause" means "political agenda" ... see ... bad English.  So you hate some words, because they trigger you?  I didn't think you were Millenial ;-)  Cause/effect isn't scientific it is prescientific.  And yes, you can't give a good answer to a kid, even if you have a PhD and dumb it down ... because you don't know.  Parents totally lie all the time about everything (not just Santa Claus), even in the sense that they don't know anything, yet claim they do.  Did you explain basic arithmetic?  You aren't qualified nor am I ... get a PhD in Number Theory first.  You gave, and I gave ... a more elaborate version of "because".  So you explained nature to your child?  How did that go, given that you aren't a biologist or a geologist?  See ... authority creeps in, even with science.  Unless you think Gilligan has a Nobel Prize.
Aren't we full of pronouncements! No, 'cause' does not mean 'political agenda'.  It simply means what made it happen.  Or the 'why' as I prefer.  I don't hate many words.  If they trigger me, then I usually don't use them.  And yes, I can give a good answer to a child.  I can answer the child to the best of my ability and with whatever info I have to offer.  And I can always let a child know that I may not have the full answer--and if they are interested I will tell them why.  Yeah, I did explain basic math to children.  And yes, I was and am qualified.  In order to understand something one does not have to be a PhD.  I did not usually explain 'nature' to my child, but elements of it.  And if a longer explanation was needed about nature I explained it.  I also used that approach with religion and theology.  I encouraged my child to experience whatever religion or theology she wanted to try.  And I stood by to answer any questions she may have had about it.  And she did try several.  She is still more 'spiritual' than I and not an atheist.  That is her own choice.  Of course authority creeps in--into everywhere, actually.  I accept that.  But I reject any implied authority that people want to attach to religion and theology, especially the christian religion and the bible.  There is not authority attached since both are fictions. 

You can make all the sweeping generalizations you wish--and often you are correct.  But you know little about my interaction with my child nor how I interact with the rest of my family to make any specific pronouncements with any accuracy attached to them.  When you do that you have been, by and large, wrong.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#1026
Quote from: Sorginak on April 29, 2017, 11:05:49 PM
To people with theories regarding the world around them, what they believe to be true can always be proven as false given time.

History shows that.

Until a time that something can be proven as factual, one should not adhere to theories regarding the world around them.

That is reality.

So they shouldn't do unproven experiments based on untested hypotheses?

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jo/einsteins_arrogance/

In fact, we now know that Eddington may have spin doctored the eclipse data.  It wasn't until recent times that the light bending was proven successfully.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.0685.pdf

Do you know that Einstein proved Newton wrong, and Bohr proved Einstein wrong.  So do you reject Newton and Einstein?

Science is a drama ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxVUq7IWyB8
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
No it doesn't and you have only shown you have faith a Creator isn't necessary.
Stop that. You are in no position to tell me what my views are or whether I have faith in anything.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
You state your belief as fact (that a creator isn't necessary) because you have such complete total faith it is true that for you it is a fact. We have a difference of opinion you believe it isn't necessary but can't prove it I believe it is necessary but can't prove it. All we can do is make our case and let the undecided decide.
The scientific fields have already decided this in my favor. Goddidit is a dead, barren family of hypotheses and are thus religated to the dustbin of history.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
Occams razor is only applicable if we have enough information to demonstrate the simpler explanation is all that's necessary and additional explanations such as a creator-designer are unnecessary. For instance if I said aliens are necessary to cause laptops to exist you could apply Occam razor because you can demonstrate human engineers and designers are sufficient to cause laptops to exist. You have no idea that natural forces is all that's necessary to cause all we observe. 
You do realize that "happenstance" is a sufficient explanation for what we find in the universe and its form, right? After all, you have not said that the forms the laws take and life developing according to these laws are impossible naturalistically, right? Just unlikely? Well, unlikely is still possible, therefore even if I were to accept your claim that the universe would be unlikely to be fine-tuned without intervention, and that life and sentient life would still be unlikely, that does not mean that they are impossible and accessible by happenstance. Hence, naturalism is still a simpler and viable explanation than supernaturalism, and Occam's razor applies.

False. The fact that a universe exists and we observe one is all we need to confirm that the universe necessarily exists. Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
I don't think I have met someone as ideologically committed to naturalism as you are. Does the fact I exist or you exist make our existence necessary? How does observing the existence of a universe mandate its necessity? If we weren't here to observe it would its existence then be unnecessary? Do you apply an iota of skepticism to the beliefs you cling to so desperately they become unsubstantiated facts?
Ignored the second statement of that very quote, did you? Here it is again:

"Not "necessary" in the sense of ontology, but epistomologically, which by the way, is the only "necessity" we have access to."

Epistomology revolves about how we know stuff, rather than their actual existence (ontology). The fact that we observe life around us means that because of this we know that there is life in the universe actually existing. It catagorically does not mean that you are necessary because you exist. The fact of their existence doesn't necessitate existence; the fact that they are observed to exist necessitates the conclusion that they do, in fact, exist.

If you can't appreciate the difference between epistomology and ontology, then you need to go back to philosophy class, because that difference is very fucking important.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
I agree God (defined as a transcendent being) could exist apart from the existence of the universe. That wasn't what I said.

Theism- Requires the existence of a place for sentient beings to exist to have any reason to think they were intentionally created.

I'd have no reason to think humans were intentionally created by a Creator if we didn't exist.
Obviously. The problem comes in that even if we exist, that doesn't prove that we were intentionally created. So far, you have not supported your burden of proof that human beings were created with any sort of the required intention. It's simply asserted without evidence.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
Life, sentient life, a life causing and life permitting universe isn't necessary for atheism-naturalism to be true.
It's just "naturalism." A completely naturalistic universe (formed and operating) can exist along with a god, especially if that god is indigent. It also might be that the god in question is indifferent to that universe, simply leaving it to its own devices, letting it spawn and dissolve, while it busies itself with other concerns.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
If a chaotic lifeless universe existed and could some how be observed there would be no reason to doubt it was caused by mindless unguided forces that didn't give a hoot if life, planets, stars or galaxies existed which is precisely what we'd expect from such forces. If you knew only mindless mechanistic forces existed would you therefore predict such forces would culminate in producing something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind? Would you say lifeless mindless forces exist so I predict they will by happenstance create life and mind?
Yes, and yes. Because if they didn't, I wouldn't exist as a life or mind to make the observation. That's the entire point. It's a selection bias. In naturalistic universes, ONLY naturalistic universes that both have mechanisms capable of producing life and mind and have the happenstance of producing life and mind will produce life and mind to be able to ask these questions in the first place. This is the Weak Anthropic Principle, which I have repeatedly pointed out to you supports naturalism.

You make a show about chaotic lifeless universes "could some how be observed" â€" we can't, so it's moot. We have no capacity for observing or existing in universes other than our own. Under naturalism, each and every universe we could originate from would have life in it and naturalistic laws allowing for that life. Every single one. If we were to observe otherwise, even a little bit, then it would be fatal for naturalism.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
If I said a transcendent being exists I might well predict such a being might cause a universe to exist that causes life.
Nothing about "transcendence" makes the assertion that such a being will make life and mind exist â€" transcendent beings can be indigent, too.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
As sentient beings we create virtual universes and play god.
Nobody is playing god. We're playing virtual universe constructor.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
By this line of reasoning anything that exists necessarily has to exist the proof being that it does exist.
Again, read the damn quote as written:

False. The fact that we are alive is all we need to verify that life exists. This is all the epistomological proof that we need to say that there is necessarily life.

"Verify that life exists." This is an epistomological term, having to do with what we can sensibly conclude given the evidence. See above: the only kind of universe where I may observe myself to be alive is a universe where life exists.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
I can think of no epistomoligical reason that states or reasons that things that do exist have to exist. At best this amounts to a tautology that whatever exists has to exist because it exists. A corollary would be that whatever doesn't have to exist doesn't exist and its non-existence is proof it doesn't have to exist. Once again you state your beliefs no matter how suspect as fact.
Your ignorance is not proof of my arrogance. Epistomology has fuck-all to do with this "whatever exists has to exist because it exists" bullshit you keep on about. You know that life exists because you see quite sufficient evidence that life exists, and that restricts the possible kinds of universe we may be living in. Namely, that universe has to permit life forms in some way. Basic shit.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
And we know natural law has to exist because......drum roll please...... it does exist and that's all the proof you need. I await your response to tell me I misunderstood and don't comprehend what you say.
So you propose a universe that contains nothing, does nothing, and is nothing? How is that a universe?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
No because I spoke about conditions which would lead sentient beings to think we owe our existence to a creator.
Which is epistomology, not ontology. Way to miss the point.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
Its because of the existence of sentient life that leads sentient humans beings to question the narrative we are the result of naturalistic forces that you agree didn't have to cause any naturalistic phenomena never mind sentient beings. If we found ourselves in a self-sustained cocoon that appeared to sustain us miraculously you would think it was an unknown naturalistic phenomena in search of a naturalistic explanation.
Again, that word, "EPISTOMOLOGICALLY" â€" sentient human beings know that there exist sentient beings in the universe because they observe themselves as sentient beings existing in the universe. Basic fucking observation; basic fucking conclusion.

If I observe a nail clipper on my desk, pick it up, use it to clip my nails, hear the snap of fingernails coming off, and then put it down, am I in a "self-sustained cocoon" in concluding that I really have a fucking nail clipper on my desk? Of course not.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
Its a foregone conclusion that if mindless naturalistic forces (somehow came into existence or always existed) and could cause all that resulted, a universe, life, sentient life then a Creator would be unnecessary. By assuming your belief is true you obviate the need for a creator.
You have failed to support the case that the above list is incomplete in resulting in life. At best, you merely make the case that such an outcome is unlikely. Unlikely is still possible, and furthermore, we are not justified in concluding a god from observing that the universe only contains phenomena that are allowed by naturalistic laws, like life. This is what the WAP and the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem concludes. You can cry and scream all you want about me and others concocting circular arguments, but it won't change the fact that the probability calculus, inference, and the scientific diciplines have come down squarely against Goddidit.

If, on the other hand, you were to find some direct evidence of your god, some solid proof that we or the universe conformed to any sort of descernable design, or any one of a number of points you brought up yet failed to support, then you would have something to talk about. Unless and until then, the hypothesis of theism is unsupported and unwarranted.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 28, 2017, 08:54:31 PM
Suppose 200 years from now scientists could create a virtual universe in which virtual sentient beings arose who believed they really existed. Would the people who believed they owed their existence to a transcendent Creator(s) be right or wrong?
Both, strangely.

Ontologically, they would be right, because that's actually the case.
Epistomologically, they would not be right, because there is no evidence in their universe that would lead to that concludion (unless the scientists deliberately put some there).

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 29, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
No my mind has been playing the field and fooling around for a long time.
The thing about playing the fool is that you always look foolish.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 29, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
I can't rule out the possibility we owe our existence purely to naturalistic causes. I listed 5 facts that support naturalism unlike my opponents here, I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support naturalism.
"Unlike your opponents?" No, I had some evidence to back me up â€" the only problem is that I reversed your own evidence on you and showed you that the evidence you thought was in support of supernaturalism actually supported naturalism. You have not shown how the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem is wrong or misapplied. Therefore, it's conclusion stands: the fine-tuning of the universe is evidence for naturalism, not against it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 29, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
I don't question the intelligence or sincerity of those who disagree with my point of view. That said there isn't enough information by a wide margin to slam the books shut and say its a fact the universe was caused unintentionally by unknown but unguided forces that caused the universe without plan or intent to do so.
There is no way to "slam the books shut" in science. The many, many scientific revolutions are proof of that. If anything we have an embarassment of riches of how many potential explanations are out there, so many that if we were to seriously entertain each one, then we would simply be overwhelmed by the deluge and never get anywhere. That is why we use tools like Occam's razor and require evidentiary support. It's to weed out the explanations that are least likely to be true or to work in favor of explanations that are more likely true and work. Goddidit fell out of favor because it doesn't seem to work as an explanation for anything we have tried to apply it to, whereas blind naturalism has yielded great bounties in understanding and control of our world. We now have very good explanations for a whole plethora of natural phenomena both on the grand scale of the universe down to ourselves individually. The theists still cling to their hope that God will show his face someday, but with each hole filled by naturalistic theory, that hope is becoming increasingly forelorn.

In view of that, I do not see the problem of tabling that particular explanation of Goddidit, given its past lack of performance and... well, doesn't even seem to be much of hypothesis at all on close examination. If and when a deity shows that it exists by some means, that explanation can always be revisited. Until then, I'm not wasting my mental energy on the possibility.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 29, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
<snip article>
I can't help but feel that this is a dig at me.

But consider: the real debate is not going to be here on this forum. It's going to be out there, in the real scientific literature. That's where things are going to be decided, one way or another. It's also not going to be decided by the likes of the scientifically untrained, or even the trained on the outside of the relevant fields. It's going to be decided by the experts on the bleeding edge of knowledge. That's who are going to be deciding things. And when that final (yet tentative) answer comes down, it doesn't matter really what you think, or even what I think. It will be the best answer we as a species can come up with (pending new data).

Another thing: my unwillingness to re-think or re-appraise my position on behest of your arguments is not proof that I am somehow closed-minded and am not serious about inquiry. The problem is that what you have presented is a very poor case for theism, and not even original at that. A lot of theists a lot smarter than you have proposed that life, the universe, and everything was purposefully designed, and have been beaten back at every step. They have failed to support any instance of purposeful design that they claim on behalf of a god: not in life, not in the mechanisms of the universe, the universe itself, or anything. If I'm not impressed by people who should know best about purposeful, intentional design in the universe, then I don't see why you should be surprised that I fail to take your arguments seriously.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on April 29, 2017, 09:46:35 PM
My belief in theism is a secular belief, there is no reward or punishment involved so I don't believe in theism for ulterior motives. I've subjected my beliefs in this forum to lots of scrutiny but regardless of majority opinion, I still opine we owe our existence to a Creator for the time being. However my belief is malleable I've listed a few facts that if they came to light would alter my thinking.
If true, you would be one of the very few.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Unbeliever

God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Baruch

#1029
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 03, 2017, 07:14:17 PM


It helps to see the whole picture ... that still, was taken from an interview, where Russell told the interviewer that not only had smoking not harmed his health much, but that on one occasion it saved his life.  Here is a little more "big picture"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLj4iwa0__8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL--1Z_g4DE
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

popsthebuilder

I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics. 

Happenstance....can we have some sort of link for evidence of such please?

Thank you,

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


Hydra009

Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 04, 2017, 12:08:12 AM
I'm sorry but it seems to me that the observable universe is observed as being wholly controlled my laws of some sort and as such not chaotic at all. And we had spoken about how everything readily observable​ is too readily, perfectly described with mathematics.
Wasn't there a post earlier explaining how nature being "orderly" doesn't necessarily mean intentionally designed?

A bunch of rain falling from the sky forms a picturesque lake.  You might be tempted to call that lake a creation of God almighty, but there's no reason to suppose that's actually the case.  Lakes are just what happens when there's a lot of water on uneven terrain.

QuoteHappenstance....can we have some sort of link for evidence of such please?
I take it you believe everything is a part of some grand divine plan? (sans evidence, ironically enough)

Sure, I could show you a bunch of stuff that seem like chance occurrences.  In fact, examples of happenstance would undoubtedly outnumber any sort of intentional occurrences.

Here's a couple pretty intense examples.  Most of them aren't nearly that photogenic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYGJYnJTi0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Xd7nHBfDA

Drew_2017



QuoteStop that. You are in no position to tell me what my views are or whether I have faith in anything.

Yes I am and your next statement proves it.

QuoteThe scientific fields have already decided this in my favor. Goddidit is a dead, barren family of hypotheses and are thus religated to the dustbin of history.

Science at this time has no way of making such a determination. Theories of how the universe came into existence, why it has the properties it does abound; actual hard evidence for any of them remain elusive. However my belief in favor of theism doesn't rest on gaps in our knowledge.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gP5KBek7ULrStudhV4HmuCUTDeZnVc0ym8_3ydsN3jI

On Occams' razor we will have to agree to disagree. A simpler solution isn't enough to cut off a more elaborate explanation if its unknown if the simpler solution is capable of achieving the result. Suppose someone flips a coin a hundred times heads. The simpler solution is the flipper just got lucky. The more complex solution is the coin or flipper rigged it somehow. You say Occam's razor would cut off the more complex solution because the alternative solution is simpler and though unthinkably remote its possible.

QuoteAgain, read the damn quote as written:

False. The fact that we are alive is all we need to verify that life exists. This is all the epistomological proof that we need to say that there is necessarily life.

"Verify that life exists." This is an epistomological term, having to do with what we can sensibly conclude given the evidence. See above: the only kind of universe where I may observe myself to be alive is a universe where life exists.

Trivially true, meaninglessly true. It could only be the result of a Creator if we found our self miraculously in a universe or place where other wise we couldn't exist? I don't want to say the argument has been 'debunked' but it has been questioned. Its not surprising in a trivial sense we find ourselves alive in a universe that supports our existence, it doesn't remove the fact we should still be surprised we find ourselves alive. As the story goes...


3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.

For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that


4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.

For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie16): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that


5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,

nonetheless it is equally true that


6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.

Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that


7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,


QuoteBasic fucking observation; basic fucking conclusion.

Am I exasperating you?

QuoteBut consider: the real debate is not going to be here on this forum. It's going to be out there, in the real scientific literature. That's where things are going to be decided, one way or another. It's also not going to be decided by the likes of the scientifically untrained, or even the trained on the outside of the relevant fields. It's going to be decided by the experts on the bleeding edge of knowledge. That's who are going to be deciding things. And when that final (yet tentative) answer comes down, it doesn't matter really what you think, or even what I think. It will be the best answer we as a species can come up with (pending new data).

I think science (perhaps necessarily) is biased toward naturalistic explanations. Its one of the reasons big bang cosmology continues to be challenged because it implies the end of the road for physics as known. Regardless though, science to gain useful knowledge is a search for the truth. I look forward to the Hubble replacement telescope that promises to be 5 times stronger.

As I mentioned there are events and facts that would alter my thinking.

1. If we find any kind of live anywhere especially life composed of different chemistry.
2. If we really learn how life began.
3. If we discover this is one of a multitude of universes with differing properties.







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

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

popsthebuilder

Quote from: Hydra009 on May 04, 2017, 12:43:44 AM
Wasn't there a post earlier explaining how nature being "orderly" doesn't necessarily mean intentionally designed?

A bunch of rain falling from the sky forms a picturesque lake.  You might be tempted to call that lake a creation of God almighty, but there's no reason to suppose that's actually the case.  Lakes are just what happens when there's a lot of water on uneven terrain.
I take it you believe everything is a part of some grand divine plan? (sans evidence, ironically enough)

Sure, I could show you a bunch of stuff that seem like chance occurrences.  In fact, examples of happenstance would undoubtedly outnumber any sort of intentional occurrences.

Here's a couple pretty intense examples.  Most of them aren't nearly that photogenic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYGJYnJTi0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Xd7nHBfDA
Orderly? No; wholly constricted by previously established forces or laws formed from something.

Show me chaos or chance even.

If it doesn't lean more towards intelligent design than ....uhm.....happenstance then show  how with what can be easily observed, not conjecture.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


Hydra009

#1034
Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 04, 2017, 01:08:17 AMOrderly? No; wholly constricted by previously established forces or laws formed from something.
That's the eternal debate.  Some sort of determinism (theologic or not) VS a messy, chaotic indeterminate conception of the universe.

QuoteShow me chaos or chance even.
Both of those are abstract concepts, so photographs are pretty hard to come by.  Did you expect otherwise?

QuoteIf it doesn't lean more towards intelligent design
Don't you mean cdesign proponentsist? :razz:

I'll never get why you guys still try to maintain the facade when it's obviously not fooling anyone.  Just say God when you mean God.  Thump that Bible if that's what you're about.  Don't hide it in the lectern and put a science book up top.

Quotethan ....uhm.....happenstance then show  how with what can be easily observed, not conjecture.
Which of us is doing the showing?  Also, which of us is actually displaying a skeptical bent and which is playing the skeptic in between church services?