|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
10th May 2012, 03:23 AM | #481 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
10th May 2012, 03:27 AM | #482 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
10th May 2012, 03:41 AM | #483 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
1) First of all, that was not what I said. I said that we don't know how much they can vary. Obviously, the possible variarion range greatly impact the probability of a given configuration.
2) A quick browse of the list shows that a sizeable number of them are not valid (e.g. the inclination of earths orbit has no impact on seasons). 3) The whole list is an argument for a universe identical to this one, which is, of course, unlikely. However, we know how, here on Earth, life can exist in a vide range of conditions. - and of course, like all post hoc probability calculation, it is entirely moot. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
10th May 2012, 03:49 AM | #484 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
Quote:
- AND, it doesn't matter one iota, since, no matter how improbable, this is the universe that exists, and here we are. ... Why is this so difficult to understand? Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
10th May 2012, 04:16 AM | #485 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
10th May 2012, 04:19 AM | #486 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
|
I don't believe it's the best explanation. It's the only explanation. No other even tries to explain; they merely assert.
|
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron |
|
10th May 2012, 04:23 AM | #487 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
|
|
10th May 2012, 04:35 AM | #488 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Just because you assign there are two categories, doesn't mean the categories are equally probable.
For instance, the sun will either rise in the morning or it won't. Using your logic, you would have to assign a 50/50 probability that it would rise in the morning. This is simply false as we have a back catalog of evidence to support that. Now, we look at the universe. We have a back catalog of evidence for naturalistic origins for a number of spontaneous generating events (e.g., planets, evolution, virtual particles, self assembly...) As such, it is simply not logical to assign equal probability between creation vs. spontaneous generation. |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
10th May 2012, 04:35 AM | #489 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
10th May 2012, 04:37 AM | #490 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
10th May 2012, 04:38 AM | #491 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
10th May 2012, 04:58 AM | #492 |
A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 601
|
I regret that I haven't managed to wade through this entire thread and I realise that someone else may have already said this, but...
In response to "what evidence do we have for a naturalism?"; ALL OF IT! Everything that can reasonably be called evidence, using a useful definition of the word, supports the prevailing scientific model of the universe. That's the point. That's how science works. If evidence is presented that does not support the prevailing model, then there's a chance the model is incorrect, and must be reviewed, modified, or even totally scrapped. Anything that goes in its place, however, must explain not only that new contrary evidence, but all the other stuff we've observed too. If you have some evidence that requires us to re-write the prevailing model to include the presence of your pet deity, then please present it. Otherwise, for now, what we have is the best there is. |
10th May 2012, 05:47 AM | #493 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
|
Why is this obvious?
It's not up to other people to prove that something can come from nothing. You made the assertion that nothing can come from nothing; simply saying "you can't give me an example of it happening" does not prove that it cannot. All you've done is attempt to shift the burden of proof. Ultimately your argument falls apart because it is just special pleading. You begin by asserting that "everything must come from something", and therefore the universe as a whole must have a cause, and this you label "god". However, that argument is flawed because the premise would indicate that god must also have a cause. So you do a little special pleading. "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" - and then you define god as not beginning to exist, and assert that "it is obvious" that the universe did begin to exist. You're in a total contradiction here. You make all sorts of assertions that it is "obvious" that the universe or nature in general must have an origin point, but you make exceptions for your god - for no real reason other than that you want to believe it. It is a nonsensical way to argue. Certainly I can. In fact, I was recently reading a science fiction story based in large part on that very premise. The aliens involved regarded eating their own children as the highest moral good, and were utterly disgusted with the immorality of humans because we did not do so. For those interested, it's a fascinating story precisely because it explores whether such moral positions can be philosophically justified. |
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul |
|
10th May 2012, 06:09 AM | #494 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
*Sighs*
GIBHOR you are the ONLY one claiming that "something can arrive from nothing." Yes the early origins of the universe are still to large degree a mystery. Yes it's possible that what we know of as reality, that is energy and matter, might have arisen from something that doesn't meet the definition of either of those. But to say that the universe might not have had a magical moment where it just appeared is not the same thing as saying it just appeared out of nothing. The "naturalist" are the ones comfortable saying "We don't know the exact details of the origin of the universe yet." You're the one slapping the "God" excuse on things and "God" is the only thing anyone in this thread, mostly you, have claimed could have just existed absent a cause. You are the only one actually using the argument you are railing against. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
10th May 2012, 06:12 AM | #495 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
//double post//
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
10th May 2012, 06:29 AM | #496 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
|
That is utter, utter nonsense. You can only say that it is obvious if and when you know all the laws of nature, a point of knowledge we are far far away from. The 'idea' that absolutely nothing has no potentialities is merely a hypothesis formed by you to cause you no discomfort. So, unless your fictitious chum provides you with a complete set of laws of nature, which you then can show and demonstrate, anything you care to say on this matter is just speculation and wishful thinking. We, and that includes you, whether you like it or not, do simply not know if something can come from absolutely nothing or not. We, and that includes you, put hypothesis in place to cover for the gaps in our knowledge so we can continue with the pieces of the puzzle that we do see. That is all. No matter how you wish to present it. |
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- |
|
10th May 2012, 06:34 AM | #497 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
|
How about you present your super-chum? Good luck on that!
The concept of an almighty super-chum has brought on more death, war, famine and misery than any economic or otherwise non-religion related dispute... And that's just because none of the league of super-chums can agree upon which leotards the thing wears or at what age it is ok to misuse a female of the species. I think it would be a neat idea to go and have a round-table with all the other religions first and set things straight there so the killing can end. Then you can combine and have a chat with the naturalists. |
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually" - Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing." - Realpaladin --- |
|
10th May 2012, 06:52 AM | #498 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
10th May 2012, 07:01 AM | #499 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
10th May 2012, 07:02 AM | #500 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
There have been some pretty cruel and scary societies, and charismatic cults can be pretty weird, but the more extreme forms will tend to be unstable, or unsustainable, or uncompetitive, and generally short-lived.
The social dynamics of creatures in the natural world, supported by the mathematics of game theory, leads us to expect that social groups displaying co-operative and altruistic behaviours are likely to be more successful, and so will come to predominate - as is observed. Large societies develop from such smaller groups where these behaviours are likely to predominate, and so are likely to be composed of individuals inclined towards these behaviours. Only when deliberate social manipulation overrides or subverts these behavioural tendencies, or when competitive subgroups develop, will the more unpleasant and extreme societal forms emerge, and as I suggest above, they tend to be self-destructive. Of course, co-operative and altruistic behaviours can be expressed in ways we might find repugnant; the determinants are group survival and success, not any particular moral framework. Behaviour towards those outside the group and towards other groups is a different matter, but inter-group competition is a selective pressure on the groups, and so will tend to select for groups with such advantageous intra-group behaviours. Possibly |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
10th May 2012, 07:03 AM | #501 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
One of the most common Woo Slinger logical fallacies, presented two possibilities as inherently equally probable.
It's even sadder one one presented option isn't even really a possibility. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
10th May 2012, 07:11 AM | #502 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
10th May 2012, 07:12 AM | #503 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
10th May 2012, 07:26 AM | #504 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
We also don't know how many of them are interdependent.
Basically, all we have is the tautologous weak anthropic argument - what we can observe is what we might expect to observe for an observable universe where we are the type of life-form observing. If the universe is eternal or infinite in extent, we don't know how uniform its properties are over time or space respectively; if it is spatially or temporally finite, we don't know many other spatially or temporally finite 'bubble' universes exist(ed). |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
10th May 2012, 07:59 AM | #505 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
This kind of incoherent, self-contradictory nonsense used to annoy the hell out of me when I was at (Catholic) school, and always seemed to me to reduce to 'the universe is God', or just GMIMW, so we can't understand or mustn't try to understand.
The 'entity' described (leaving aside being outside space & time, immutable and immaterial and so unable to physically act) being perfect and omniscient would have no needs, desires, requirements, or reason to act, even to think (what would there be to think about?). No reason to create or arrange anything - and it would already know all the possible outcomes of any action. The idea that it did act, even an act of imagination, seemed to indicate imperfection. The only way I could see around this would be to define anything it created as part of the entity and a necessary part of its perfection - but, of course, the creation itself is imperfect... So it seemed either 'God' is just a vague label for the universe and however it came to be, or GWIMW - it's beyond understanding (but not, apparently, beyond knowledge - how does that work?). When I would ask about this, and how do we know this, the answers were generally patronising and along the lines of "you can't question the eternal verities", "the answer is in your heart", "you'll learn...", "GWIMW", "just have faith", "yes, it's hard to understand, isn't it?", etc. This was even before I came across the Euthyphro Dilemma and its like. You can't argue about an irrational concept like this, particularly one defined to be the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything. You might as well argue about '42', as Douglas Adams pointed out so effectively. |
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
10th May 2012, 11:02 AM | #506 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
10th May 2012, 11:06 AM | #507 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
10th May 2012, 11:07 AM | #508 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
|
10th May 2012, 11:41 AM | #509 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
GIBHOR, you don't believe that your god(s) is the creator of the universe? You've not answered that yet.
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo
|
10th May 2012, 12:46 PM | #510 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
10th May 2012, 02:24 PM | #511 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
10th May 2012, 02:25 PM | #512 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
10th May 2012, 02:28 PM | #513 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
please explain, why you think any of following dimensions, sizes, and distances could not be different :
http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-...earth-apr-2004
Quote:
|
10th May 2012, 02:28 PM | #514 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
10th May 2012, 02:30 PM | #515 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
10th May 2012, 02:31 PM | #516 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
10th May 2012, 02:32 PM | #517 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
10th May 2012, 02:34 PM | #518 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
No, you are not. You have been given links, videos, and articles throughout this thread, yet do not appear to have followed, watched, or read any of them. Are you truly here to determine why we have come to the conclusions we have, or are you just here to repeat others' preaching? |
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
10th May 2012, 02:39 PM | #519 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
10th May 2012, 02:40 PM | #520 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,482
|
By that logic, there must be a negative number such that there cannot be a lower number.
This can be shown to be false, as follows: (n - 1) < n Therefore, for each number, n, there must be a lower number, (n - 1). As such, this logic cannot be correct, and it is not a valid way to reach that conclusion. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|