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

Hydra009

#1050
Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2017, 12:53:25 PMGenerating order from chaos is surprisingly easy.  Even though the behavior of particles can only be predicted statistically, because there are so unspeakably many particles they can average out into the smooth, predictable universe we observe.
Exactly.  There's a multitude of simple interactions giving rise to the relatively orderly, seemingly designed universe we all know.  Theists imagine that there's the hand of God in all of this - presumably, godly decree is what keeps atoms from flying apart and makes life possible at all.

They start with the given of the universe and the given of God's existence and therefore conclude that God exists - the universe's grand architect - and a suspiciously anthropocentric architect at that.  Because how could a galaxy make itself or life make itself?  That's crazy, right?  About as crazy as rain falling without anyone to tell it when and where to rain.  Trying to drill past these assumptions and explain that not everything that exists was consciously built (that a cave does not imply a cave architect) is a daunting and frustrating exercise, but not because the subject matter is difficult.  It's just something that's difficult to grasp from preconceived ideas.

Theists hear the music of the spheres and imagine a symphony and at its head a divine conductor.  And no matter how much static you reveal, they never change their minds.

Baruch

Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 05, 2017, 07:36:22 AM
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You words on indifference resonate with me.

Thank you again

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

At least you, if no one else, understands what I am saying.  The cognitive dissonance between us is small.  So help me, how can I moderate between passion and indifference.  With less passion, there will be less love/hate.  But unlike some philosophers, being passionless isn't my goal.
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.

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 05, 2017, 10:09:33 AM
Of course I can.  But do you really see the cruelty and wanton pain and killing of the creatures of nature as god's way of population control?  Really?????

Dick Cheney may be this era's messiah ;-(
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.

Baruch

Quote from: trdsf on May 05, 2017, 12:53:25 PM
All we can really derive from observing that the universe follows predictable (within parameters) behavior is that the universe follows predictable (within parameters) behavior.  The existence of universal laws of science is not evidence of a lawmaker.

What it is, is evidence that the universe is explicable, and a universe that is predictable requires a means of quantifying its behavior, and that means mathematics.  Wondering why mathematics 'happens' to be useful to explain the universe is a bit like wondering why a square in Euclidean space has four equal sides and four right angles -- for one thing, if it wasn't useful for explaining the behavior of the universe, we wouldn't use it.  We would use something else that produced reliable, repeatable, independently verifiable results.

A universe that was chaotic on the large scale and still permitted the existence of complex beings capable of observing it would be better evidence for an external guiding hand, but even then it wouldn't be great evidence.  The universe at the particle level runs on chaos, but it runs on chaos that we can understand and predict statistically.

Generating order from chaos is surprisingly easy.  Even though the behavior of particles can only be predicted statistically, because there are so unspeakably many particles they can average out into the smooth, predictable universe we observe.  On a smaller scale, the overall orderly behavior of a Lorenz system is another example -- internally chaotic but the whole is quite organized:



Now, a truly chaotic universe -- not even predictable statistically -- does not permit the long-term stability necessary for life to arise.  Furthermore, in being truly chaotic, it also means that discerning any pattern -- specifically including the actions of an outside guiding force -- is not possible.

In short, while an orderly universe may permit a creator, it neither implies nor requires one, and cannot be taken as evidence that there might be one.

Brilliant.  Let me add ... this is a factor in number theory.  Not all transcendental numbers are computable, and no transcendental number is truly random.  If you want to mathematically describe life, you have to visit those non-purely-random non-computable transcendental numbers.  And that is why true AI will never work, AI by definition is computable.
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



Quote from: Baruch on May 05, 2017, 07:26:50 PM
At least you, if no one else, understands what I am saying.  The cognitive dissonance between us is small.  So help me, how can I moderate between passion and indifference.  With less passion, there will be less love/hate.  But unlike some philosophers, being passionless isn't my goal.

Well, I find passion to be closely tied to significance, and that if one is actually bereft of passion/ emotion then they can easily settle into an indifferent attitude about possibly everything. Though we assign significance to things based on the emotions tied to them, I don't think that assigning significance to any particular thing necessarily negates the possibility of indifference about that same thing.

I think indifference can often be tied to doubt.

I understand about no attachment and no love or hate, but that is to remove bias I think (at least the love hate part). I don't think we should hate people because of the negativity that stems from it in thought and action. I don't think we  should love particular people because of favoritism. I think we are to love the potential each of us has, and recall how we ourselves fall below that potential somehow.

I'm sorry. I'm very tired. I doubt I helped or whatever, but it's still worth talking about for one or both of us.
Tomorrow

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


trdsf

Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 06, 2017, 12:35:58 AM
I think indifference can often be tied to doubt.
Oh, I couldn't disagree more.  Certainty leads to indifference, since certainty means you don't need to think about it anymore.

Doubt leads to discovery, since it's the asking of questions that drives thought and research.  Doubt means you go out and verify rather than sit back and assume.

Case in point: the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was set up to confirm the then-current theory of the luminiferous æther -- and it's worth noting that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism were considered strong evidence for the æther theory since they were wave equations and the whole point of æther theory was to permit wave propagation in space.  But certainty is not proof.  You have to do the experiment, even to verify the apparently obvious.  And to everyone's surprise -- including the experimenters -- they can't detect the æther and suddenly vast swathes of 19th century physics were threatened with ruin, until Lorentz, Planck and ultimately Einstein provided a whole new way of explaining the universe.

The complacent view, the view of "certainty", would have shrugged and accepted Maxwell as the last word and not moved on.

Give me the doubters every single time.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

popsthebuilder

Quote from: trdsf on May 06, 2017, 11:46:13 AM
Oh, I couldn't disagree more.  Certainty leads to indifference, since certainty means you don't need to think about it anymore.

Doubt leads to discovery, since it's the asking of questions that drives thought and research.  Doubt means you go out and verify rather than sit back and assume.

Case in point: the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was set up to confirm the then-current theory of the luminiferous æther -- and it's worth noting that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism were considered strong evidence for the æther theory since they were wave equations and the whole point of æther theory was to permit wave propagation in space.  But certainty is not proof.  You have to do the experiment, even to verify the apparently obvious.  And to everyone's surprise -- including the experimenters -- they can't detect the æther and suddenly vast swathes of 19th century physics were threatened with ruin, until Lorentz, Planck and ultimately Einstein provided a whole new way of explaining the universe.

The complacent view, the view of "certainty", would have shrugged and accepted Maxwell as the last word and not moved on.

Give me the doubters every single time.
I think your confusing my words.

When I said "doubt", it pertained to doubt towards ones own placement/ significance/ potential/ worth, and did not pertain to a surety of, or blind belief in vain imaginings or idle fancies.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk


trdsf

Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 06, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
I think your confusing my words.

When I said "doubt", it pertained to doubt towards ones own placement/ significance/ potential/ worth, and did not pertain to a surety of, or blind belief in vain imaginings or idle fancies.
Ah, that wasn't clear.

I'll still take the doubters.  :)
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Hakurei Reimu

#1058
Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM

Yes I am and your next statement proves it.

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.

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.
I refer you to that very post later on where I state explicitly, in a whole quotation on the matter, this very thing. I even explicitly said that if the existence of a God is called for, then we can brush off that explanation for consideration. Thank you for jumping the gun and proving the point that you are just here to be a troll.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
However my belief in favor of theism doesn't rest on gaps in our knowledge.
Yes, it does. It is at least rest in gaps in your knowledge. You make lots of claims that these indisputable facts, but you fail to support them. So show us. Show us like Micheal Ikeda and William Jefferys did in their paper that

P(G|U) > P(N|U)

Where G = "God exists", N = "the universe has naturalistic origin and workings" and U = "the universe exists." Show us that

P(G|L) > P(N|L)

where L = "life exists." Show us that

P(G|I) > P(N|I)

where I = "intelligent life exists." Show us that

P(G|M) > P(N|M)

where M = "the universe has intelligable laws." Show us that

P(G|F) > P(N|F)

where F = "the universe is fine tuned for life." Show us that

P(G|V) > P(N|V)

where V = "we can create virtual universes."

I ask you to prove these because I get really tired of theists of any stripe saying anything "supports theism" without any cogent argument whatsoever. Prove any of these and you will be head and shoulders above your more educated theistic brethren.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
Like I said, even you admit that every step in the naturalist chain is merely "unlikely" and not impossible, and thus naturalism is in fact capable of such a thing.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
Again, you betray your misunderstanding of Occam's razor. A rigged coin is a known phenomenon, and well-characterized by various magicians manual and available by way of magician supply stores. It is not something we have to assume without evidence to make your model work. We know that they exist as a possible explanation for observing the phenomenon. God, however, is something you have to assume as part of the theistic hypothesis in order to make it work. If we knew that God exists the same way we know tricked coins exist, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Agreeing to disagree on Occam's razor is like a child agreeing to disagree with a mathematician on the modularity theorem. (You're the child, by the way.)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
Trivially true, meaninglessly true.
As Ikeda and Jefferys have shown (and you have done nothing to refute), neither of these characterizations are true. The observation that life exists completely reverses your naive "calculus" of the propabilities. Selection effects are powerful influences on statistical analysis, and you ignore them at your peril.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.

I agree with you completely up to (5), but here you go off the rails. Again, there are powerful selection effects at work, as detailed by Ikeda-Jefferys. If anything, you should be surprised by (5) because of the fact that the dead are unable to observe anything. Furthermore, you should not be surprised by (6) â€"even if you areâ€" because you would be unable to observe yourself in any other condition.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
Any surprise I would experience observing I was not dead at this point would be fleeting, as I would soon realize that (according to Decartes) my continued thoughts should be proof enough of my continued life. If I felt an intense pain in my chest, then I would simply figure that my death was not instant, and I would slowly die over the next few minutes. The firing squad has not missed. But suppose that's not the case. Then I would ask to take a look at the guns. Assuming they would let me, I could observe that the scopes are missighted by manufacturers' defect. There was no intention that this happened because it's against the manufacterer's interests and intentions to make missighted guns, and certainly none of the soldiers intended to miss me, but nonetheless this systematic defect in the guns has caused a miss on all fronts. But let's suppose that no mechanical fault has been found. Then you are forced to the conclusion that they have missed altogehter even though there is nothing wrong with their guns and apparently their own vision. You then might suspect that they have been trained wrong. Not that I would tell them. I'm not this fellow:



But let's say that after all of that they are trained properly and by all rights should have hit you. Do we then conclude design? No. See, we know that the firing squad misses altogether is "extremely improbable" and not "impossible" because even expert marksman do occaisionally miss. Now, if there are trillions upon trillions of executions occuring every day, then by chance alone we expect a few of those squads to miss altogether by happenstance. Just because you happen to win that lottery doesn't give you leave to declare that somehow your survival was by design.

But further, let's suppose that "death by firing squad" is a form of punishment never tried before and will never be tried again, and they did happen to miss in that one and only attempt to execute you. Do you conclude design then? No, because again you could have simply won a lottery with unknown odds. Flukes and freaks of nature do sometimes occur.

So how does this connect to the fine tuning of the universe? As the previous two paragraphs show, I think, is that a mere fluke doesn't prove design. They also show that ours is a lottery that we have no idea what the odds are in the first place to say that our existence is "improbable" â€" I keep seeing that word from the theists, but I have never seen a calculation of the probability that also doesn't in some way assume that conclusion.

Furthermore, the firing squad analogy has triggered another one of my unique thoughts. See, the fact that you are in a firing squad is proof enough that someone wants you dead. Similarly, a prospective god making laws of the universe that require such fine-tuning to enable life makes me lean more towards a god that doesn't want life to occur in his universe rather than one that does. Otherwise, he would have chosen laws that would make some form of life easier to form. As such, it makes sense why we're such a rarified contaminant on the universe â€" we're a manufacturer's defect, and whatever intention he has for the universe, life ain't it.

As such, I suspect that the argument of design from improbability is simply a red herring. Improbabilty is irrelevant to design, as you can design to obtain an item that is in fact quite common (perhaps because it makes it easier to access â€" like planting a copse of trees closeby for its wood), and there are plenty of unique (therefore improbable) objects that were also clearly never designed. No such argument would work because it misses the point.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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,

Again, the Ikeda-Jefferys theorem reverses this observation. Math beats rhertoric every single time.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
Am I exasperating you?
I see that you take emphasizing swears as exasperation. Nobody should be exasperated by an unsinkable rubber duck. All you have shown is that you are a smarmy troll.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
The Big Bang theory has no serious challenge. It is well-confirmed with plenty of the required evidence. The idea that the universe began with a physical singularity is challenged because physical singularities are difficult to deal with â€" there's really no other reason to think why it would be challenged. There's still plenty of interesting physics even if we button up the beginning of the universe, and singularity or no, there are plenty of theories of universal origins that don't involve deities of any stripe or color.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
It's the James Webb space telescope. At least learn the name if you want to get points with me.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on May 04, 2017, 12:48:07 AM
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.
If Europa and Enceledus don't pan out, (1) is unlikely given the lack of FTL travel. (2) will always be a matter of theory, given the lack of time machines. (3) seems the hardest to confirm at all. It would require some sort of interaction between universes to prove once and for all, even if theory would strongly suggest it.

Forgive me if I dubious of your claim that you would give up your theist position, as it seems your hypothesis is quite safe from confirmation.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

If any theory qualifies ... I think I will go with "The Great Pumpkin" ;-)

And yes, theology is never falsifiable.  But then parts of cosmology and astrophysics aren't either, but that doesn't stop the materialists from saying ... in our case, "falsifiability" doesn't apply ;-))  Academics have always been FOS, in theology departments and all others as well.  Plato started a great big scam.
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.

Unbeliever

Quote from: popsthebuilder on May 04, 2017, 12:08:12 AM
Happenstance....can we have some sort of link for evidence of such please?

Maybe you'd agree with Jubal Harshaw?


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

Baruch

But why did you pick a fictional quote from a fictional character in a fictional book ... should I quote the Epistle of James?
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.

Unbeliever

Epistle...is that a letter sent by e-mail?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

SGOS

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 08, 2017, 07:31:42 PM
Epistle...is that a letter sent by e-mail?
I don't know, but it sounds dirty.

Unbeliever

Hell, everything sounds dirty to me, since that last "election."
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman