ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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.
Reply
Old 20th October 2017, 01:17 PM   #361
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,371
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
If they were not, we would not exist. That much you and I (and others) agree on.

It is not just that the universal constant are in the right range, it is the degree of precision that is remarkable. Your viewpoint on this seems to be that because the birth of the universe from the Big Bang was a one time event and no-one was there to predict the probability of the choice of constant, it is then a moot question. That is not so.

Consider a scientist who has been raised somewhat in isolation so that he has never experienced coin tosses in practice or theory. He is shown a table with a ruler and a coin. Under the middle of the ruler is an eraser. He is told that someone hit one end of the ruler to flip the coin on the other end into the air to land on the table.

He observes the coin standing on its edge. He is then asked to use his knowledge of the laws of physics to work out what the probability is that such an event would happen.

His conclusion is that it is a highly unlikely event. His reasoning is that there are so many variables that have to be "just right".

So here we have one event only to analyze.
Quote:
The odds of it happening are not 1:1.
The man thinks that the event was "engineered" so that it happened. He has no proof, because they never let him try again.
The odds of this universe existing may be small, even astronomically so (although we don't know, because we don't know what the possible alternatives are), but the odds of us discussing this in an universe where we can exist is 1/1.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 01:56 PM   #362
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
The odds of this universe existing may be small, even astronomically so (although we don't know, because we don't know what the possible alternatives are), but the odds of us discussing this in an universe where we can exist is 1/1.

Hans
The probability of forming a 5-card royal flush out of 7 cards is 649,731 to 1
The odds of having 4 aces is about 4,000 to 1.

The odds of two players facing off with those two hands is astronomical. And yet
the odds of it happening in the following hand is 1:1 https://youtu.be/YChh5zgVVzQ
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 10:53 PM   #363
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.

One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.

I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.

Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 10:57 PM   #364
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,105
You realize this is the intelligent design thread, right?
I Am The Scum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 11:25 PM   #365
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,643
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
After doing a lot more reading on the subject, [...].
When did you do all that more reading?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2017, 11:41 PM   #366
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.
*raises his eyebrows* As opposed to the rather clear and simple conclusion that the various arguments that you presented were quite invalid for the purposes that you were trying to use them and in many cases entirely invalid? The main part of the discussions dealt with your presented arguments, with little to no attempt to actually argue against the beliefs that you were trying to support and push with them, after all, from what I saw.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.
On the contrary, where valid logic goes is pretty clear and has been elaborated to you in response to your various attempted arguments. It's not really a matter of picking and choosing if there's actually concern about the truth of the matter and all claims and arguments are required to undergo serious scrutiny, rather than just being seized upon because they seem to support one's desired conclusion.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.
*shrug* Feel free to believe things and feel free to argue that others should believe things, just try to make sure that you're not invoking fallacies to back up your beliefs or with your arguments. It's a pretty simple good practice principle, is it not?

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.
I'd suggest taking a couple steps back and taking some time to cool off. The going nuclear defense, especially when invoked in such a defensive manner, really should be setting off a huge red flag for everyone, including you (on top of the many other red flags that you've been triggering with your choices in arguments).
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 20th October 2017 at 11:45 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:20 AM   #367
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,344
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
.......I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice........
Yep. Indeed. Which is why New Zealand is going to hell in a handcart, and you can predict the future of China from your impression of the single Chinese person you've ever met.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:38 AM   #368
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Yep. Indeed. Which is why New Zealand is going to hell in a handcart, and you can predict the future of China from your impression of the single Chinese person you've ever met.
We all know how very reliable personal experience has proved to be as a source of facts. That's why blood letting and purging are proven and accepted medical treatments, we all do rain dances during droughts, and everyone knows that the best way to stop a volcano rumbling is to sacrifice a virgin to the god who lives inside it.

PartSkeptic is so predictable that I know exactly what his response will be to this, so here's mine to that: Yes, a few traditional medical treatments turned out to be effective (willow bark etc). Do you know how we determined which they were? Go on, have a guess. I'll give you a clue: we used something whose initials are SM.

The process by which our ancestors convinced themselves that doing a rain dance made it rain, incidentally, is the same one PartSkeptic used to convince himself that his Tarot readings are accurate.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 21st October 2017 at 02:02 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:40 AM   #369
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,838
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
After doing a lot more reading on the subject, it seems we have a stand-off.

One chooses the arguments they prefer according to their belief systems, and there is no scientific or logical proof as to which one is correct.

I am left having to say that my personal experiences are what influence my choice - namely that God exists and that he too is part of an illusion in the mind of a Universal Intelligence.

Since we are dealing with minds that cannot distinguish between "reality" and lucid dreaming or advanced simulations you guys have no way of proving my experiences to be false - or even that the chances are slim.
You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:57 AM   #370
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,989
I've never really understood the fine-tuning argument as a proof for ID anyway.

Life is perfectly suited for the universe it is in and its genetics confirm perfectly with everything else around it and what we can find in history.
How does this prove design?

Now if our genetics were (totally) incompatible with the rest of life, or our solar system/planet were radically impossible with regards to the rest of the universe, or there would BE no rest of the universe, that would to me indicate design.

But we find none of that. Everything about life just can be explained with natural mechanisms. That's not design, that is just time.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:47 AM   #371
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....
That's news to me. What evidence or argument are you referring to?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:29 AM   #372
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....

Okay. Got my interest. How?


And is that different from being in the dream of a Cosmic Intelligence?
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:32 AM   #373
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
You realize this is the intelligent design thread, right?

Design a computer on paper, or design a universe in a mind.

What's the difference? The bits are all made to interact and fit a purpose. The purpose is not perfection, but entertainment.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:47 AM   #374
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
(snip)Feel free to believe things and feel free to argue that others should believe things, just try to make sure that you're not invoking fallacies to back up your beliefs or with your arguments. It's a pretty simple good practice principle, is it not?
(snip)

Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:49 AM   #375
PartSkeptic
Master Poster
 
PartSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
When did you do all that more reading?

In the hours before posting. Mostly the Stanford Philosophy site.
__________________
**Agnostic theist. God/Satan/Angels/Demons may not exist - but I choose to think the probability is that they do. By personal experience.**
PartSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:54 AM   #376
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?
Constantly.

For example, from the very same post:

Quote:
Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.
Anyone want to play “Name That Logical Fallacy”?
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.

Last edited by Fast Eddie B; 21st October 2017 at 04:55 AM.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:55 AM   #377
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I've never really understood the fine-tuning argument as a proof for ID anyway.
By arguing fine-tuning, the religious do not notice how they constrain their God. The more those dials are set, just-so, the less free their God was in setting them.

Those fine-tuned constants determined God.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:55 AM   #378
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,250
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
Great, show me such a statue... Oh wait, you can't.

And you've got it backwards again... You are confusing our argument that the probability of something having happened after the fact is always 1, with an unwillingness to think about the origin of the thing.

With regard to the universe, the correct answer is 'we don't know.'
Your attempts to make your personal superstition the go to hypothesis for why the universe exists is not supported by anything but wishful thinking.
We've tried to explain that to you in one of your other threads, but you always denied or ignored anyone's suggestion that you need to be able to show why your hypothesis is valid before you can expect people to accept it. Your personal (in)credulity isn't an argument.

Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 21st October 2017 at 04:57 AM.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 05:02 AM   #379
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,839
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And you've got it backwards again... You are confusing our argument that the probability of something having happened after the fact is always 1, with an unwillingness to think about the origin of the thing.
Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life. I just find it impossible to be astonished by the fact that a universe that has me in it has universal constants with values in the right range to have me in it.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 05:32 AM   #380
Fast Eddie B
Illuminator
 
Fast Eddie B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Posts: 4,608
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life.
You are not alone.

How many here were raised with science fiction in their formative years? I certainly was. There’s often been a theme of wonder as to the mysteries of origins. “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov and “Contact” by Carl Sagan spring to mind, and there are no doubt myriad others.

Even Dawkins touches upon the sense of wonder in science in “Unweaving The Rainbow”. “Just-so” stories have always seemed to me superficial and “easy”, compared to the systematic digging down for pearls of knowledge that is the Scientific Method.
__________________
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” - President Donald J. Trump, January 20, 2017.
"And it's, frankly, disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write. And people should look into it." - President Donald J. Trump, October 11, 2017.
Fast Eddie B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 05:42 AM   #381
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,670
And nothing buries wonder faster than people who demand their special gods blanket and smother every human avenue of flourishing.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 05:50 AM   #382
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
 
Bikewer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, Mo.
Posts: 12,053
It occurred to me some time ago that the arguments about the “fine tuning” of the universe are moot if, as numbers of physicists and cosmologist have posited, there is more than one universe.
That there may be an infinity of universes; the “cosmic foam” idea where each “bubble” in the foam is a separate universe.
Of course, we have no evidence at present of the existence of any other universes, but likewise there is no particular contraindication that would prohibit same.

If that’s the case....Then likely every combination of universal “constants” might exist in one or the other, and lucky for us that this one fell out as it did.
Bikewer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 06:35 AM   #383
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,961
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Speaking for myself, I'm absolutely fascinated by the origin of the universe and life. I just find it impossible to be astonished by the fact that a universe that has me in it has universal constants with values in the right range to have me in it.
That’s because, unlike PS and some others, you are capable of accepting the idea that humans were not a desired outcome of the universe. For the proponents of ID and the fine tuning argument, it is vital that humans have some special place in the universe. For the rest of us, we recognize that our special place is here, earth, and now. Which means this life is what matters and must be made to work. It’s all we get and we have to make it work for us and those who come after. As opposed to people like PS who think without a threat from god we have no morality. And who imagine that some imaginary entity is going to sort it all out.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 09:34 AM   #384
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
I think that's an unfair characterization.

If we were to come across a marble statue as you described, we would assume it is a human artifact, because we know what happens if you leave blocks of marble exposed to elements. We know that it doesn't come out looking like Michelangelo's David. We can do this experiment.

We don't know what happens if we pour some carbon into an Earth-sized vat, and stir for four billion years. We can't repeat that experiment.

What we can say, on the other hand, is that we have seen cases where living organisms mutate and that once in a while those mutations result in something better suited (i.e. more stable) to the environment. We know that we can see small changes over the course of a few years, and we can extrapolate that to the possibility of extreme changes over the course of millions or billions of years. This makes unguided evolution a plausible explanation for our existence. We don't require a Designer.

Now, here is where I will part company with many of my fellow skeptics. I will say that I cannot prove, in any meaningful way, that life can originate or reach our level of complexity without some sort of supernatural intervention. I don't believe that such intervention is real, and I would be willing to say there is great reason to believe that there is no supernatural intervention. However, that falls short of "proof". So, I would say to you that your confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd. I cannot prove you wrong. My only objection is when the argument from design is presented as some sort of scientific theory. It isn't.

With respect to the "fine tuning" variation, I go back to the absurdity of assigning "probability" to the laws of nature. We know that some aspect of the universe's behavior is described by the equation E=mc2. The "fine tuners" want to speculate what would happened if c had a slightly different value. I would contend that it makes no more sense to talk about that than it would to talk about whether the universe ought to behave as E=mc2.1.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st October 2017 at 09:36 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 10:03 AM   #385
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You need to keep up with the science. We now know we can't be in a simulation....
How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 10:18 AM   #386
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?

The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.

Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.

If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
If you want to say that the mind can conceive anything, I agree. But that doesn't make what we conceive to be real.

If you want to invent in your mind sand castles or imaginary friends go right ahead. The lunacy starts the moment you insist your mind creations are real without the basic standards we use to prove every single other existential claim. When you and others like you teach that your imaginary friend is the creator of the universe and we should base our lives on it I say go screw yourself.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 10:58 AM   #387
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,838
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
That's news to me. What evidence or argument are you referring to?
See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/conte.../e1701758.full
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 10:59 AM   #388
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 78,838
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.
Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:11 AM   #389
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?
I guess not exactly, but the problem of disproving it seems the same to me.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:09 PM   #390
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Invoking fallacies? Where have I done that?
Seriously?

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
The ultimate defense to intelligent design is a deliberate attitude to be total unimpressed by anything. A So-What denial.
Since you asked, here's an obviously fallacious statement! That didn't take long at all. Not that it would be hard to select nearly any post of yours in this thread and list a fallacy or few that you're invoking... and, in fact, such has happened in a number of the responses to those posts.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Dumb sub-atomic particles form human intelligence - so what. We are here are we not? Speculating on the probability of HOW it might have happened is a waste of time.
Clearly, you're ignoring the points actually made, yet again, in favor of a nonsensical caricature. Likely so that you can avoid even properly acknowledging the actual points made, yet again, let alone confronting them and what actual implications they do have (which are likely a bit different than the ones that you're giving reason to think that you are terrified that they have).

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
If one was to come across a statue, carved in marble by sand and wind, similar to the works of one of the great artists this attitude would kick in - unremarkable and unimpressive. It would not be seen as proof of anything.
On the contrary, it would certainly be seen as remarkable and impressive. If it actually did look just like the (repeatedly observed to be made artificially and not ever observed to be naturally occurring) works of a great artist, the most reasonable starting assumption would generally be that an artist made it, though, rather than the sand and wind, yes.

Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post
Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
You seem to wish this was the case, because that way you could categorically dismiss the position of those who disagree with you without even giving their position a fair hearing. This really does look like nothing more than you projecting yourself on others, though, given how nonsensical the caricatures that you've been putting forth to deny have been.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:32 PM   #391
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B View Post
You are not alone.

How many here were raised with science fiction in their formative years? I certainly was. There’s often been a theme of wonder as to the mysteries of origins. “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov and “Contact” by Carl Sagan spring to mind, and there are no doubt myriad others.

Even Dawkins touches upon the sense of wonder in science in “Unweaving The Rainbow”. “Just-so” stories have always seemed to me superficial and “easy”, compared to the systematic digging down for pearls of knowledge that is the Scientific Method.
Far from alone.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Now, here is where I will part company with many of my fellow skeptics. I will say that I cannot prove, in any meaningful way, that life can originate or reach our level of complexity without some sort of supernatural intervention. I don't believe that such intervention is real, and I would be willing to say there is great reason to believe that there is no supernatural intervention. However, that falls short of "proof". So, I would say to you that your confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd. I cannot prove you wrong. My only objection is when the argument from design is presented as some sort of scientific theory. It isn't.
I'm largely in agreement with you, much as I would extend that final bit further. As an argument, it's not logically or factually compelling at all, when it's inspected seriously and impartially. There is, however, potential emotional appeal to it, especially with regards to confirming beliefs that they hold separately, which makes a number of people wish it were true and valid and lets it through their filters without any real scrutiny. This doesn't actually change that the confidence in the existence of a cosmic designer is misplaced, but not absurd, though.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:45 PM   #392
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by PartSkeptic View Post

Minds closed to possibilities. No concessions - just scorn and ridicule.
This is funny. My mind is open to possibilities. I'm open to string theory, quantum mechanics, even the possibility of computers becoming self aware. What i ridicule and scorn are the deliberately unfalsifiable possibilities whether they be Sasquatch or Yahweh or Allah or that Elvis isn't still alive. And what is deserving of even more deserving of scorn and ridicule is following Saquatch's etc or other imaginary being's rules.

From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.

I'm sure PS is a very nice person but that doesn't make his beliefs valid.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:56 PM   #393
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
How do we know that? I've never seen a way to disprove hard solipsism. I think it bull crap, but I don't know how to disprove it any more than there is a god.
Luckily, we don't need to be able to disprove it to be able to show that it's useless and that there are useful alternatives. As long as it's remembered that we're working with an assumption based on necessary practicality at base, there's no real problems that arise from such, too.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hmm. I admit that I'm not a quantum physicist, so I'm not entirely sure what all of that says. By the look of it from what I think that I did understand, though, you might maybe be able offer a tentative refutation of the possibility that we're in simulation run with the more standard methods that our computers use, though not necessarily quantum computers. Still, it looks like you are forgetting important points about simulation hypotheses, like that the findings themselves could simply be generated and that there isn't a single, specific method claimed for how the simulation was being made.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hard solipsism wouldn't be a simulation would it?
What "I" experience in such a case may as well be a simulation, even if it's not technologically based.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 01:12 PM   #394
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.
I'm going to have to disagree with the logic here. Claims being unfalsifiable is not the same thing as them being nonsensical. For 1, it's not hard at all to point out that the most relevant part of the outside of time claim is that the god is outside of our time and that scientific theories like brane theory also postulate "things" that are outside of and effectively produced our time. For 2 and 3, since when did anything's existence depend on our ability to examine it or that we had already observed it? Such would be a concept far more fit for some variety of idealism than it is for materialism, before getting to the part where materialism isn't necessarily true, regardless. Materialism is more useful than idealism, as a general matter, but that's not the same as it being necessarily true.

If you had specified that you are talking about what we have reason to believe, you'd be on more defensible ground for 2 and 3, but what you said is pretty much indefensible, as it is.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 21st October 2017 at 01:22 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:15 PM   #395
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,938
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post

Respectfully Sniped

From my discussions with God believers they almost all posit a timeless immaterial mind that created everything. Everything about this idea is unfalsifiable.

1. Existence is necessarily temporal. Anything outside of time is nonsensical.
2. Existence is necessarily material. None of us can examine anything that isn't material.
3. None of us have ever encountered a mind without a brain and body to go with it.

I'm sure PS is a very nice person but that doesn't make his beliefs valid.

I find myself in agreement with this but would clarify - I would hope not muddy the waters.

When a God Believer refers to a timeless immaterial mind as a creator we cannot falsify their claim. If they then shift the burden of proof to us, to prove the non-existence of said entity and claim victory if we cannot, then it is nonsensical.

I agree with point 2 with the proviso that energy is non material and exists however mass and energy are interchangeable.

Regarding point 3 I also concur, as we have not encountered a mind without a brain as yet. I can imagine the possibility of an intelligence with something other than a brain as we would recognise, but cannot grasp the concept of some such entity being non material.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:18 PM   #396
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
I'm going to have to disagree with the logic here. Claims being unfalsifiable is not the same thing as them being nonsensical. For 1, it's not hard at all to point out that the most relevant part of the outside of time claim is that the god is outside of our time and that scientific theories like brane theory also postulate "things" that are outside of and effectively produced our time. For 2 and 3, since when did anything's existence depend on our ability to examine it or that we had already observed it? Such would be a concept far more fit for some variety of idealism than it is for materialism, before getting to the part where materialism isn't necessarily true, regardless. Materialism is more useful than idealism, as a general matter, but that's not the same as it being necessarily true.

If you had specified that you are talking about what we have reason to believe, you'd be on more defensible ground for 2 and 3, but what you said is pretty much indefensible, as it is.
I get what you're saying. It's one thing to posit something that is unfalsifiable at the moment such as brane theory or string theory. But the idea is to come up with a way to make those theories falsifiable. Science posits all kinds of ideas that are unfalsifiable at the moment they are thought of. And those are theories. Scientists don't insist that the theories are fact.

Religion insists that it is factual and is 'deliberately' unfalsifiable. Ever read about the golden plates that Joseph Smith said that he translated from a nonexistent language into English? How no one but him could look upon the plates without being destroyed? Smith made them deliberately unfalsifiable. Or the witnesses he brought to see the treasure in the box that wasn't there? And when the witnesses said the box was empty. He accused them of lacking faith and had them pray on their knees for 3 hours. Then miraculously they signed confirming affidavits made up by Smith.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:27 PM   #397
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post

I agree with point 2 with the proviso that energy is non material and exists however mass and energy are interchangeable.
We can see, feel as well as detect energy with instruments. We can even capture it, divert it and contain it.

If that isn't material, what is?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 02:48 PM   #398
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,938
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
We can see, feel as well as detect energy with instruments. We can even capture it, divert it and contain it.

If that isn't material, what is?

Yes it is a tricky thing to define I suppose. I have always though about material as an interchangeable term for mass, but I suppose it can be defined in other ways.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 03:16 PM   #399
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,520
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes it is a tricky thing to define I suppose. I have always though about material as an interchangeable term for mass, but I suppose it can be defined in other ways.
You're not wrong. People have been trying to get around using the word material and materialism partially because of that confusion. Physical and physicalism or Naturalism are being suggested these days instead.

What I really mean is natural vs supernatural. I find anything that is totally undetectable or demonstrable as either theoretical or bollocks.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 03:55 PM   #400
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,737
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I get what you're saying.
Honestly, given what follows this, I'm not so sure of that. I was simply giving a direct assessment of the statements that you posted and not particularly trying to make any particular implications past that with what I said. *shrug*

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It's one thing to posit something that is unfalsifiable at the moment such as brane theory or string theory. But the idea is to come up with a way to make those theories falsifiable.
It is certainly very preferable to figure out experiments that feasibly could falsify whichever theory is in question, yes, and falsifiability is certainly a key, core concept of science. In some cases, however, like the Many Worlds Interpretation, falsifiability is unlikely to be directly achievable, given the likely hard limitations on our ability to gather relevant evidence and data. As an indirect way of dealing with it, it could easily fall to the wayside as more useful models may be found, of course.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Science posits all kinds of ideas that are unfalsifiable at the moment they are thought of. And those are theories. Scientists don't insist that the theories are fact.
Most scientists don't. Some do. Scientists are quite human, though, so that's hardly a surprise.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Religion insists that it is factual
Generally, yes, religions do make numerous quite unsubstantiated claims of fact.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
and is 'deliberately' unfalsifiable.
This is true in a distinctly more limited fashion. Most religions tend to make numerous falsifiable claims, though, in addition to unfalsifiable ones. Do fresh water and salt water actually not mix in the sea, for example? Generally, those are cared about far less than a number of the more core unfalsifiable beliefs, though.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Ever read about the golden plates that Joseph Smith said that he translated from a nonexistent language into English? How no one but him could look upon the plates without being destroyed? Smith made them deliberately unfalsifiable. Or the witnesses he brought to see the treasure in the box that wasn't there? And when the witnesses said the box was empty. He accused them of lacking faith and had them pray on their knees for 3 hours. Then miraculously they signed confirming affidavits made up by Smith.
Yeah... the Mormon origin tale is particularly obnoxious and tends to be ridiculed by most other current religions, too, even if they do similar things more subtly. It really shouldn't be treated as a "normal" example of deliberate unfalsifiability in religions, either way, given how blatant it is. Most religions tend to at least try to put a facade that doesn't scream "conman" out to the heavens, after all. For many religions, the important unfalsifiables are at least plausibly the result of simple rationalizations of easily made errors in logic and observation.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 21st October 2017 at 04:15 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

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 06:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.