IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Closed Thread
Old 10th May 2012, 10:56 PM   #561
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Isn't about half of the above specifically mandated in parts of the Old Testament?

Dave
if so, why do the jews not practice it ?
What an interesting reaction.
Why not drop that ridiculous 'strawman' argument and actually talk about why you think morality is evidence of a creator god?


Quote:
Squeegee Beckenheim
... Life existed on this planet long before the atmosphere contained oxygen. Contrary to what GIBHOR's source states, oxygen is not necessary for life.
I've yet to see a creationist cope with that fact. It will be interesting to see how GIBHOR reacts, if at all, to it.
__________________
How many zeros? Jabba
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:30 AM   #562
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Originally Posted by TjW View Post
Time is a characteristic of the universe. So it didn't exist before the universe did.
Erm... that is not necessarily true. We don't know what existed before the universe came into being, so maybe that had time as a property as well.

Or flolloping mattresses...
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:31 AM   #563
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
calling it circumstantial doesn't make it so.

all events following the big bang are naturalistic. No supernatural argument has been needed. it takes a rather severe case of special pleading to claim that supernatural arguments are needed to intiate the universe, even if there is such a thing as initiating the universe.
Who said anything about supernatural?

I said constructed.

I repeat what I said in my first reply, in each case A or B the result may be a naturalistic universe.

Unfortunately as we don't know the basis of the existence of this naturalistic universe, we are not in a position to conclude whether it was constructed or not, or it arose spontaneously or not. We cannot observe it from the outside as a cohesive whole. Our models only describe it on the inside (the phenomena we can detect).

Last edited by punshhh; 11th May 2012 at 12:45 AM.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:34 AM   #564
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Yeh, I truly do not believe he doesn't understand this.

Im now calling poe.
Just look at the history of posts. He is into acting balmy and suave. And I think he really believes that stems from his faith/belief in that he is at peace with himself.

He will not ever entertain the thought that he is self-deluded into the same state of 'happiness/bliss/one-ness' of every single cult-member on the planet.

No matter, harmless person, provides comic relief.
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:35 AM   #565
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Then why add the supernatural? Why not stick with what has been shown to work pretty darn well?
Humanzee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:41 AM   #566
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Yeh, I truly do not believe he doesn't understand this.

Im now calling poe.
If you mean poe's law no.

I'm pointing out that all this naturalistic evidence we have that the universe arose through naturalistic processes does not address the philosophical questions about the origin of the world we find ourselves in at all.

It is an unfounded assumption that because its all naturalistic, therefore its not constructed, or therefore it arose spontaneously.

Last edited by punshhh; 11th May 2012 at 12:50 AM.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:43 AM   #567
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by realpaladin View Post
Just look at the history of posts. He is into acting balmy and suave. And I think he really believes that stems from his faith/belief in that he is at peace with himself.

He will not ever entertain the thought that he is self-deluded into the same state of 'happiness/bliss/one-ness' of every single cult-member on the planet.

No matter, harmless person, provides comic relief.
Are you a woo whisperer?
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:48 AM   #568
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
On the question of whether my garbage cans are being torn into at night by raccoons or dragons, we have to acknowledge that we have plenty of evidence for raccoons and their proclivity for scavenging, but absolutely none for dragons. The same is true regarding the question of natural vs. supernatural causes. You can believe that the odds are 50/50 all you want, but that wouldn't stop you from failing any entry level course on probability and statistics.
You realise do you not that "supernatural" is straw?
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:50 AM   #569
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It is an unfounded assumption that because its all naturalistic, therefore its not constructed.
No it's not. It's not an assumption at all. It's a conclusion drawn from a combination of evidence and logic.

Those and an understanding of basic probability.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 02:24 AM   #570
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
if so, why do the jews not practice it ?
Because, like the vast majority of people who profess to believe in a religion, they start from a naturalistic morality derived from the Golden Rule, then re-interpret their scripture so as to bolster the morality they have already chosen independently of any religious belief.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 02:26 AM   #571
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
And any evidence against naturalism?
The crux of my point is that to discuss any unknown gods in relation to the origin of our universe is pure speculation. Also it is just as much a speculation to discuss a natural spontaneous origin.

If one speculates on two kinds of origin, you are effectively dividing the infinite possible alternatives into two groups or sets. Same with three alternatives etc.

The probability is a function of the number of alternatives under speculation.

My point is that no one origin or group of origins is more or less likely than any other. We cannot conclude an exclusively natural origin due to the evidence we have from science, because any other origin would result in the same apparently natural reality known to science.

To speculate on the unknown origin of existence is to consider what occurs beyond our current understanding of existence. Which in turn results in the naturalistic universe known to science. In each case the empirical evidence is identical.

Last edited by punshhh; 11th May 2012 at 02:29 AM.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 03:08 AM   #572
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Who said anything about supernatural?

I said constructed.

I repeat what I said in my first reply, in each case A or B the result may be a naturalistic universe.

Unfortunately as we don't know the basis of the existence of this naturalistic universe, we are not in a position to conclude whether it was constructed or not, or it arose spontaneously or not. We cannot observe it from the outside as a cohesive whole. Our models only describe it on the inside (the phenomena we can detect).
False assumption.
there may be no "outside"
further,replace "supernatural" with "constructed" and my argument still stands.
__________________
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
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 03:17 AM   #573
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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
They are not constants of the universe. Of course they could be different and I will bet you that the universe contains planets and planet systems representing any concivable combination of the planetary parameters. Are you going to suggest that the fact that we live on one of the inhabitable planets is a sign of God?

The basic constants of the universe, OTOH, like the charge of an electron, the mass of a proton, the speed of light, the gravity constant, etc. Those are the ones that might render the whole universe uninhabitable, but we don't know if they can attain other values or not.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 03:19 AM   #574
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
The crux of my point is that to discuss any unknown gods in relation to the origin of our universe is pure speculation.
Which has been explained to to the point of absurdity is an absolutely meaningless statement.

"We don't know the unknowns" does NOT mean that everything unknown has an equal probability of being the correct answer.

You have spent the whole of this and a half dozen other threads trying to justify why you think there is some magical point in our knowledge where simply making stuff up is acceptable. You are wrong. It never is.

Quote:
My point is that no one origin or group of origins is more or less likely than any other.
Absolute horse hockey. You utterly fail at the most basic understandings of probability and use the word "speculation" the way Fundies use the word "theory" that is wrongly.
__________________
"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.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 11th May 2012 at 03:22 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 03:59 AM   #575
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
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
ANswered above, but, let's LOOK at those factors:

Quote:
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


SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
False.

First of all, the 'surface' gravity of Jupiter is only about 2.5g. As far as gravity is concerned, a human could survive there, albeit with considerable hardness (there are other reasons why it would be a bad idea, however).

Secondly, life originated in water. For marine beings, gravity is of little importance.

Quote:
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.
To the best of our knowledge, true, however, we know of life forms that live within a staggering range of water concentration, from marine life forms, to desert rats that never drink a drop of water.

Also, water is a very common substance in the universe.

Quote:
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.
False.

1) Last first: We have no idea about the composition of the atmosphere of any planets except those in our own solar system. All observations indicate that there are billions of planets in the universe.

2) The composition of Earth's atmosphere is NOT a condition for life, it is a RESULT of life. If there was no life on Earth, there would be no free oxygen.

Quote:
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
False. The first life forms on Earth did not depend on oxygen, and there are still life forms that don't.

Quote:
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
The life forms we know base their existence on the available elements. We cannot say conclusively that life forms could not exist that did not depend on them.

Quote:
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.
There is a wide range of stars that could have life-supporting planets, and those are by far the most numerous type in the universe. They are a property of the universe.

Quote:
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.
Assuming planets are distributed randomly, with the range you mention, life bearing planets should be more likely than not to exist around solar type stars. It appears to be a property of the universe.

Quote:
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
Radioactivity is a property of the universe.

Quote:
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.
There are plenty of potential places in the outer parts of the galaxy (and there are billions of galaxies on the universe).

Quote:
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.
False. First of all, life could survive without an ozone layer, although with far more hardships. In such a situation, life would probably adapt to the radiation.

Quote:
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.
Volcanic activity is widespread, even on planets in out solar system. It is a property of planets.

Quote:
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.
A magnet field appears to be a normal property of an earthlike planet.

Quote:
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.
Wrong. Without seasons, life would be harder on Earth, but we find life-forms surviving in nearly all climates.


Quote:
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.
There may be millions of similar systems in the universe, but the importance of the moon is easily overestimated. Other planets of this solar system have tilting axes (some far more than Earth), without a moon event, and the meteor bombardment happened before life really started on Earth. However, due to plate tectonics and erosion, the craters are long gone on Earth.

I think this nicely sums up the credibility of your source, and thereby also answers the question you have asked me earlier: Why do I discard Creationst sources? - Simply because they are worthless.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 11th May 2012 at 04:03 AM.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 04:12 AM   #576
Stomatopoda
Muse
 
Stomatopoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 920
re: "fine tuned" universe and improbability

What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans exist?
What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans do not exist?
Stomatopoda is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 04:31 AM   #577
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
I disagree.

Obviously the probabilities *are* weighted, as there is no evidence for anything supernatural. So while the probabilities are unknown, you could make the case that they are heavily weighted towards "naturalistic".

ETA: Actually, I would probably make the case that the supernatural doesn't exist by definition, as once something "supernatural" was identified and it's effects known, it is no longer "supernatural" - but I disgress.....
Fair enough, I am addressing just the punshhh logic of 'its unknown' 'it is like this'.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 04:35 AM   #578
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
You ever get the impression that when Woo Slingers use the term "unknown" they seem to think it means "The land where everything I want to believe in but don't have evidence of lives?"
__________________
"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.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 04:47 AM   #579
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
If one speculates on two kinds of origin, you are effectively dividing the infinite possible alternatives into two groups or sets. Same with three alternatives etc.

The probability is a function of the number of alternatives under speculation.

My point is that no one origin or group of origins is more or less likely than any other.
I have just rolled a die. I'm telling you that I've rolled a 6. There are two possibilities - I'm telling the truth, or I'm lying.

You have two unknown possibilities to choose from. What is the probability that I've rolled a 6?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 05:02 AM   #580
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
mentions of the fine tuned universe remind me of the Douglas Adams analogy of a puddle in a hole in the ground thinking the hole must have been intelligently designed to fit it perfectly. The universe isn't fine tuned to us. We are fine tune to the universe.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 05:08 AM   #581
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Pishposh. Our hands obviously evolved to fit into gloves. You're gonna tell me that it's pure coincidence that my gloves have 4 fingers and a thumb and my hands have 4 fingers and a thumb? What are the odds of that?
__________________
"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.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 05:56 AM   #582
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Ok, I'll just say equal probability from now on. Anyway its late here I'm going to sleep on it.
The sun came up this morning so you owe me $5000. But hey, tomorrow it's equal probability that it won't come up so you might get it back.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 06:30 AM   #583
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Stomatopoda View Post
re: "fine tuned" universe and improbability

What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans exist?
What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans do not exist?
According to some here, either humans will observe a universe with them in it, or not.
So, fifty fifty.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 06:38 AM   #584
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
The crux of my point is that to discuss any unknown gods in relation to the origin of our universe is pure speculation. Also it is just as much a speculation to discuss a natural spontaneous origin.

If one speculates on two kinds of origin, you are effectively dividing the infinite possible alternatives into two groups or sets. Same with three alternatives etc.

The probability is a function of the number of alternatives under speculation.

My point is that no one origin or group of origins is more or less likely than any other. We cannot conclude an exclusively natural origin due to the evidence we have from science, because any other origin would result in the same apparently natural reality known to science.

To speculate on the unknown origin of existence is to consider what occurs beyond our current understanding of existence. Which in turn results in the naturalistic universe known to science. In each case the empirical evidence is identical.
So the odds that you're an axe murderer is 50/50?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 06:43 AM   #585
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
You ever get the impression that when Woo Slingers use the term "unknown" they seem to think it means "The land where everything I want to believe in but don't have evidence of lives?"
First they tell you it's unknown then they expound on its' properties.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 06:57 AM   #586
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
So the odds that you're an axe murderer is 50/50?
Well, no. He could be an axe murderer, a mother raper, a father-stabber, a kiddie-fiddler, a bank robber, a terrorist, a poisoner, a strangler, a dog (you can't tell, on the internet)... or not.

So the odds that he's an axe murderer are only one in ten.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 07:04 AM   #587
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
First they tell you it's unknown then they expound on its' properties.
Yeah Woo Slingers always seem to have a whole ton of details about their precious "Unknowns."
__________________
"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.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 07:08 AM   #588
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
We only have two alternatives, its 50/50 unless there is evidence of a bias in one direction.

Even if we had two alternatives, that would be wrong.

But in this case we have an infinite number of alternatives. Since we don't know how the universe came to exist, we have an infinite number of possible explanations, and no way to assign probabilities to any of them.
__________________
"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
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 07:19 AM   #589
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I did not say DNA IS a code. I said it CONTAINS codified information, similar to a computer code, or a book. How could it have a " natural " aka non intelligent origin ?
There are completely brainless creatures on Earth that assemble DNA (and every other chemical they need) from raw, non living, materials by completely natural chemical mechanisms. On planet Earth this happens octillions, maybe nonillions, of times per day. We don't know how it happened the first time but we know for a fact it can happen naturally, because it does, constantly.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 07:59 AM   #590
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
...snip...

2) Assuming it is correct: We are a carbon-based life form. In which of all those universes would a carbon-based life-form contemplate and discuss this?
- Right. Exactly the one that has the conditions for carbon-based life forms.

Hans
Which of course leads to the fact that 99.99999999999999999999(add lots and lots more 9s)% of the universe is hostile to humans. Which is what you would expect if life was a "chance" occurrence in the universe. If the universe had been designed by God the question is why did he make so much of it hostile to the humans he made it for? (Yeah I know the answer "He works in mysterious ways!" or a "It is not for us to know the mind of God!" )
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 08:24 AM   #591
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
If you mean poe's law no.

I'm pointing out that all this naturalistic evidence we have that the universe arose through naturalistic processes does not address the philosophical questions about the origin of the world we find ourselves in at all.

It is an unfounded assumption that because its all naturalistic, therefore its not constructed, or therefore it arose spontaneously.
Constructed can be natural or accidental as well.

Constructed does not mean un-natural.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 08:27 AM   #592
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
The crux of my point is that to discuss any unknown gods in relation to the origin of our universe is pure speculation. Also it is just as much a speculation to discuss a natural spontaneous origin.

If one speculates on two kinds of origin, you are effectively dividing the infinite possible alternatives into two groups or sets. Same with three alternatives etc.

The probability is a function of the number of alternatives under speculation.

My point is that no one origin or group of origins is more or less likely than any other. We cannot conclude an exclusively natural origin due to the evidence we have from science, because any other origin would result in the same apparently natural reality known to science.

To speculate on the unknown origin of existence is to consider what occurs beyond our current understanding of existence. Which in turn results in the naturalistic universe known to science. In each case the empirical evidence is identical.
Many naturualists don't care. It behaves by natural laws. Period.

Ontology is moot.
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 09:15 AM   #593
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
It is an unfounded assumption that because its all naturalistic, therefore its not constructed, or therefore it arose spontaneously.

Wait, what? How on earth do you get a division between natural and constructed. There are any number of things that were constructed via natural processes. In this very thread, I posted a link to the Wiki article on the Bimini Road.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 10:02 AM   #594
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Wait, what? How on earth do you get a division between natural and constructed. There are any number of things that were constructed via natural processes. In this very thread, I posted a link to the Wiki article on the Bimini Road.
I think what punshhh is saying is that someone/something could have created our universe (with all its inherent properties/laws) and that would appear just the same to us as a universe that is be explained by "naturalism".

If that is what he (sorry punshhh if you are a she) is saying then of course the weakness in his approach is that there is a fundamental difference between the two that we could in principle detect or understand i.e. the interface between our universe and those that created it. It's the universe equivalent of "dualism" - and it shares the same logical inconsistency that dualism does i.e. if it interacts with the "natural" then it is part of the natural and subject to discovery.
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Last edited by Darat; 11th May 2012 at 10:03 AM. Reason: could is
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:11 PM   #595
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which of course leads to the fact that 99.99999999999999999999(add lots and lots more 9s)% of the universe is hostile to humans. Which is what you would expect if life was a "chance" occurrence in the universe. If the universe had been designed by God the question is why did he make so much of it hostile to the humans he made it for? (Yeah I know the answer "He works in mysterious ways!" or a "It is not for us to know the mind of God!" )
Forget the universe, we can't even survive on the majority of our planet. And those bits we can survive on is mostly down to us swaddling ourselves in fabrics, retreating in to constructed heated shelter to sleep, and applying chemical and physical barriers against the sun's effects on our skin and eyes.

How is even this planet fine-tuned to accommodate us? Seems to me like we're pretty well adapted for surviving somewhere hot (large surface area to volume ratio, little body hair) with maybe the odd tree here and there (like, say, the African savannah), and that most of the fine-tuning is us fine-tuning our environment to suit.

But, if anyone truly believes that the Earth is fine-tuned for our survival and that we were given dominion over the Earth, I invite them to stand naked in Antarctica and report back to me how well that works out for them. Seem like a silly suggestion? Thousands of penguins and seals do exactly that every day. It couldn't be the case that Antarctica is fine-tuned for penguins, could it?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:18 PM   #596
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
Originally Posted by Stomatopoda View Post
re: "fine tuned" universe and improbability

What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans exist?
What are the odds of humans observing a universe in which humans do not exist?
Very good! Nicely sums it up.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:19 PM   #597
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
So yeah it's sooooooo incrediably unlikely that we can survive.

On 1/3rd of one planet.
In one solar system.
In one local cluster.
In one arm.
Of one Galaxy.
__________________
"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.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:20 PM   #598
keale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 813
GIBHOR has turned into a cricket
keale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:21 PM   #599
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,181
Originally Posted by keale View Post
GIBHOR has turned into a cricket
Now explain that with Naturalism.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th May 2012, 12:23 PM   #600
realpaladin
Master Poster
 
realpaladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585
Originally Posted by JoeBentley
So yeah it's sooooooo incrediably unlikely that we can survive.

On 1/3rd of the surface of one planet.
In one solar system.
In one local cluster.
In one arm.
Of one Galaxy.
I added the surface bit. Would any of the fine-tuners even remotely realise how thin the shell is that we live in?
__________________
"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
---
realpaladin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.