Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "TED"
channel.
-
31
-
23
-
15
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
Drop0112 Exactly: this is all hypothetical (should I go on to reinterpret the bible pretending it refers to a multiverse instead of god?).
The principle would be something like this:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
Which is basically the same principle the you proposed in order to explain god's existence:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Or the more baseless way you put it now:
"in an infinite and fullness world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [our universe], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world. And such model of the world is complete and is a logical consequence of the infinity and fullness of the world at a counterweight to an incomplete and illogical model of the world with god."
And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. (Why? are you saying that god in your conjecture required a mega generator to generate god? Like some sort of god being necessary to explain another god?)
The reason why this hypothesis is more probable is just that it cuts superfluous unconfirmed elements.
And as stated this is hypothetical. Being it unconfirmed, I obviously do not accept it as fact.
the fact that we do have an explanation that is substantiated by the various lines of evidence does make it a compelling case that evolution does explain, well, evolution. I'm still waiting to see any of that divine intervention though.
"objectively calculated probability of the evolution of the first cell to a man without the intervention of the mind"
And there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers.
but it's all so easy when not knowing means god did it. It's like when I can't find my car keys... gomes did it, I'm damn sure of it.
"And the Bible actually speaks of the evolutionary creation by God of living beings, but it was a creation, not a bare evolution."
Except it doesn't. It often specifically says "each after it's kind", not each slightly different until they become distinct.
"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
The idea that it talks about evolution comes from your head, not from the text (it just says "bring forth", it doesn't specify how - you then use your modern knowledge to fill the gap).
It also doesn't talk about creating from biomaterial, as what it actually speaks of are the "creatures" (of various kinds).
"God saw "that it was good" only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take."
I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it.
But lets pretend the bible talks about evolution rather than acknowledge that it is a work of complete ignorance about how things actually happened:
"plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds"
A lot of emphasis on the kinds is the least of it's problems. It's that trees were missing an essential thing which god only did the next "day(?!)": "God made two great lights".
I guess god forgot that the lights were already there for at least a day or two ...or a couple billion years.
For anyone reading what is actually written in the bible, that myth is a page right out of harry potter, where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days.
You can try and stretch it, but unless you are basically rewriting it (as you do with your extremely exotic interpretations), this myth has little to no parallel with reality.
7
-
Oh you mean the same definitions that are completely unevidenced and as already explained preclude the need for any creator and even contain contradictions with your initial claims (an't go around saying that the odds are extremely low, and then claim that they are maximal without any evidence)...
As already explained your idea no different from claiming the existence of a full multiverse with all possible laws of physics ensures that a universe like ours must exist... where is the evidence for a multiverse? In the same place where the evidence for the "world" where you claim god is.
As already shown your your completely exotic interpretations of claims in the bible do not have any support on the actual texts of the bible - rather they purely reflect your own ideas.
Again,
"Our universe is calibrated (...) in a such way as to maximally ensure its evolutionary development" - Ah... I'd have to agree with you if the universe was just teeming with life, complex life nonetheless, but according to you: "The probability of the emergence of intelligent life in our universe due to evolution is unknown, but it is known that in our galaxy it is very small." Oh...
So is there any evidence of intentional calibration? None.
And as already explained in response to your first argument, "After assuming the unconstrained randomness across the spectrum of those alternate possibilities (and thus the equal probability of any given one being picked at random), somehow our universe must not have been picked at random [according to you and without any evidence] (I guess the equal probabilities dissolved away for some reason)."
"even this calibration is not enough for evolution to proceed without the creative power of the Holy Spirit."
The unsubstantiated claim that you make, blatantly unsubstantiation seen that you accept that evolution is a mechanism that works. You even quoted the bible as saying that the eye was one such case, which is counterfactual as there are examples of the various stages of the evolution of the eye (I even posted a link to exmplify that: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a75cc9ba27ac3e85ff523c397a49a4c-c).
"to declare that God is not necessary", what I have done is use your own line of reasoning:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Which renders god unnecessary:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
...Again "And that mode of argument is either unsound or god is superfluous (in addition to being completely unevidenced). Plus if your reasoning is valid your argument on probabilities is invalid."
"you need to calculate the probability"
And there we are back yo your first argument (the one that was a matrioska of fallacies).
Here is the highlight:
You used probabilities that represent purelly the degree of completion of our knowledge (for an event that 100% did happen: our existence).
Then you used said lack of knowledge to assert "god did it" (or to use your wording: "that God is necessary" - why? because: ignorance of how it happened)
Furthermore, as already explained if your claims about infinity are true, these events are certain to happen. (You might as well start adding 10^-500 over infinity to account for it happening somewhere in an infinite universe or an infinite "world").
And now the "probability of an evolutionary transition from a monkey to a human"
Where we again know that it did happen (100%). Where we know it was the outcome of evolution. Where we know it resulted from a high number of variations (more over: variations on top of the fittest genomes).
Even if you want to claim that our species is just one conceivable outcome our of many and therefore unlikely, then:
"I guess I'll go and generate a random number with 500 digits and contemplate the well reasoned idea that I must have deliberately picked it. ...But I'm quite sure I didn't... Darnit!!! It must of been gnomes."
Still no divine intervention to be seen, just fallacies to justify a preconceived idea.
Could a god just make adam and eve? (Not really if you think god made a man and then made a woman or made them in separate acts of creation from the rest of living things. But you such counterfactual ideas. so...)
I don't know how that would work. I guess the answer to that would have to be the same as the answer to "could fairies have hidden my car keys?": Only, if they actually existed and by some mechanism were able to do such a thing. But in actuality it all all points to me having simply misplaced my keys.
"If there is a God, then his interference with evolutionary processes is just as obvious as the fact that a complex program was written by an intelligent person, rather than an ape, who understands nothing, but can only knock on the keys."
Except the only valid explanation so far (the one with actual evidence, rather than a fantastic "what if") explains that what these events are the result undirected process.
Your analogy with the computer program is as inept as the claim that this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg/1024px-Balancing_Rock_Madan_Mahal.jpg
must be made like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/31/c8/bc31c8df9bf3f4f0a4e1579609278f3e.jpg
Not to mention that your claim inevitably presupposes that something was not programmed. You claim that there is a neural network that was not not programmed like the ones programmers create, you might as well claim that that neural network was in turn created by another neural network (because neural networks require a designer), while In indulge less in fantasizing and say that it might as well be the processes we observe that were not programmed.
(And before you go on to claim that I don't understand your argument and that a neural network must exist, that is exactly my counterargument: that our universe is necessary if it is in an "infinite, full world" that encompasses all the possible sets of laws of physics).
The bible is definitely primitive (not as primitive as cavemen-like, but primitive in that it is ancient - it's a matter of historical record). What you're telling me is to read it not with my brains turned on, but with my imagination in full throttle to read things that aren't there at all. And no, to not invent outlandishly eccentric meanings for a text is not the result of a position of opposition to anything, it is a position of not pretending that something is true when it is blatantly false. But unless you pretend that the stories of greek gods are true accounts of actual events and actual gods, surely it's because you are now you are in a position of opposition to Mount Olympus. It certainly isn't because such stories are fantasy. Not at all.
For all your talk of necessity of god's existence, it boiled down to fallacies, a "what if" and an incredibly elastic reading of the bible.
That makes you a modernist theist (in this context modernism is: "a movement toward modifying traditional beliefs in accordance with modern ideas").
But unfortunately it does not lend any validity to your ideas.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"Our universe is calibrated (...) in a such way as to maximally ensure its evolutionary development" - Ah... I'd have to agree with you if the universe was just teeming with life, complex life nonetheless, but according to you: "The probability of the emergence of intelligent life in our universe due to evolution is unknown, but it is known that in our galaxy it is very small." Oh...
But is our universe calibrated for life? Not if it is "full" (because then "It has been said that if the world is infinite, one and complete, then the existence of one God humans in it is inevitable").
"in the presence of a cell capable of self-replication, mutations and natural selection will lead its descendants to complications" [for the attentive reader 'compilations' = 'increase in complexity' - but correct me if I got it wrong @drop0112]
I totally agree. that's the gist of it: biological evolution, the way living things gained complexity.
"complications up to a certain level (let's call this level the boundary of complexity)"
I see no evidence of that. The complexity seems to have been limited due to things like lack of energy (which is why use of oxygen allowed for more complexity than anaerobic, as it was more efficient). Plus complexity comes with error checking mechanisms that improve the ability to maintain the code. Not to mention that some species that have huge genetic codes (which needless to say work just fine), such as a "rare Japanese flower named Paris japonica (...) [has a genetic code] 50 times the size of a human['s]" .
but you might be referring to other kinds of complexity barriers: having 50 arms might be too much, but we are well adapted with our 2 arms and our exceptionally big brains haven't got us killed just yet.
Oh well...
"The Bible teaches us that when creating all life on earth, God relied precisely on the evolutionary processes"
No, the bible does not tell any such thing, it pretty much says the contrary: that each kind gives rise to the same kind and that god created various kinds, including a man without a woman and then a woman (which is plainly wrong as you seem to understand - in fact you seem to understand that the bible is wrong and you then proceed to completely change what it says to fit your own views).
"Examples of boundaries of complexity are auditory and visual systems: “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye,"
Oh the eye! The same eye that was already explained to have perfectly viable paths for it's gradual evolution - examples of every stage still identifiable in nature in various species. This is a famous example: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4a75cc9ba27ac3e85ff523c397a49a4c-c
"he created "big fishes" and reptiles not from scratch, but from that biomaterial that "waters bring" "
And he created a woman out of a man's biomaterial (and not the biomaterial in his testes) - which effectively didn't happen.
But there's more: Big fishes you say?! You might want to add the birds (and in the next day take care of the land dwellers)...
But wait a second you say: birds came after the land animals...
(No, you don't say that, you're set on forcefully reinterpreting this myth so that it fits with what we now know to be true...)
Is there any confirmation that a god did any of that?
Nope... just a made up story that needs to be heavily reinterpreted with modern knowledge in order for someone to pretend that it is not purely mythological.
So far we have a god that is hypothetical completely unnecessary.
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
fynes leigh Wait wait, I know a joke. Why didn't you cross the road? Because you couldn't decide on what standard of proof, and to whom, in order to determine whether there were any cars on the road. (I'm sure you also go into an existential crisis when someone asks you if you have a pen. Maybe you're just dreaming that you have a pen.)
And surely a dreamer can prove the exact same things anyone not dreaming can: it can immediately perceive a cup of water, it can use cartesian style logic to determine that something exists and they can go into an existential crisis about whether there are cars on the road.
You know Asdfg (full name: Aasdfghjkl), it is the being that knows the ultimate theory of everything, can't lift more than a pound at a time, can communicate it and wears pajamas.
No, don't think of some other definition of Asdfg. I mean the real one, the one I just mentioned.
It definitionally knows some incredible stuff. Actually, I just made it up. It doesn't actually matter what my definition says it does, because it is imaginary.
I might even claim that Asdfg is self-evident, but then all you have is an assertion without any evidence or proof whatsoever. It could easily get me killed to try to cross a road on that level of unevidence.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@drop0112 Merit?! Your claims don't have merit as I explained and demonstrated they are illogical. But you dogmatically insist on arguments already demonstrated to be fallacies of elementary fallibility, and on baseless conjectures and on gods that are unnecessary even within your baseless conjectures.
And while I understand the limits of both our knowledge, your knowledge is further limited by your double and triple willful ignorance that leads you to ascribe to me an ignorance that you yourself are ignorant of and further deluded about. Merit? You mean admonition. How much reprimand your insistence on failed arguments should get you.
And yet again I respond to each of your claims on their lack of merit:
//I pointed that mathematics describing a multiverse is a higher order of mathematics than mathematics describing our universe.
I remind you that: "no one created the fundamental laws of the world multiverse, which determine the existence of God the multiverse."
This was the answer you gave me. What is still unclear about your own argument?
Next time before you criticise my conjecture consider that you're also attacking your own conjecture.
Also consider that if you don't successfully attack my conjecture god will still remain a superfluous element in your argument.
Is it clear to you by now that this is an end game condition for you, or round and round we go till it never sinks in past your dogma?
//Analogy is a plane and space. Our universe is a plane, and the multiverse is space. This is very simplistic, because our brain is difficult to imagine more than 3 or 4 dimensions. So what does not exist from what I pointed about: the multiverse or mathematics describing the multiverse?
Disembodied mathematics is what doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with simplism, it has to do with models being mental representations.
//I also explained that, firstly, the hypotheses unproved today do not give you the right to reject them as imaginary.
Except I've already explained why I correctly do so: "untestability still does not shield from sheer improbability which can be logically demonstrated to be justified for any unjustified idea. (If I think of five numbers and you baselessly try to guess it'll be utterly unlikely that your guess actually matches any of my numbers. Even if I consider infinite numbers like the natural numbers you'll still have infinitely more sets of numbers to choose from making your baseless guess still utterly unlikely to match any of my infinitely many numbers. Same goes for your baseless assumption that some god exists. And the odds don't meaningfully improve if you dismiss a bunch of numbers or a bunch of ideas.)"
//An example of this is the Poincare hypothesis,
For each Poincare hypothesis there are infinite leprechaun. It's all in the argument that you were criticising without reading.
//unproven problems of the millennium in mathematics, but no one is going to consider them imaginary.
The problems actually exist. People have been at them for some time now. But again this is the result of criticism without reading my argument.
//And secondly, I also explained to you the logical case for the existence of God. Additional dimensions in space add tremendous additional possibilities for the existence of complex structures.
And secondly, I also explained to you the logical case for the multiverse without creator. Additional dimensions in hyperspace add tremendous additional possibilities for the existence of complex structures.
Next time before you criticise my conjecture consider that you're also attacking your own conjecture.
Also consider that if you don't successfully attack my conjecture god will still remain a superfluous element in your argument.
Is it clear to you by now that this is an end game condition for you, or round and round we go till it never sinks in past your dogma?
//So why can't exist a rational being with maximum power in the multiverse space? This is not logical.
Such maximum power is limited by its subset of laws of physics and it would be inconsequential to the existence of our necessary universe.
There would also be plenty very similar beings and they would be unlikely to coincide with any of our made up fables.
This isn't anything like the god you were proposing before and is nevertheless bound by the possibilities of physics, to which no (non-shoe-like) version of god is known to correspond.
//Whatever the reason for the supposed creator's existence I've already proposed the same mechanism for the universe/multiverse, demonstrating that your claims about god's existence are completely superfluous.//
//You did not proposed anything clever,.//
Funny, I've proposed something as clever as yours, just with less clutter.
//The multiverse itself is a wildly irrational thing with huge (almost endless) possibilities. You do not give any explanation for the existence of such a wild structure,//
Funny, cause you said: "no one created the fundamental laws of the world, which determine the existence of God". I just said the same about the existence of the multiverse.
If you want to claim that the multiverse can only be explained by a god, then your supposed god can only be explained by another god.
Again: I've proposed something as clever as yours, just with less clutter.
"in the world of infinite possibilities."
The natural numbers are also a world of infinite possibilities and you won't find imaginary numbers there. Infinite doesn't make anything possible.
Our universe and everything in it is in fact possible - as we are a verified case. God's more over like the one's you whimsically propose aren't needed for the existence of any possible universes in a multiverse, and their existence is neither verified nor known to correspond to any of the sets of laws of physics - which .
////I consistently specified said ideas as "hypothetical" and as "conjecture".//
//That is, you do not know anything,//
Instead I demonstrated that your case was baseless. that there is no reason to find it in any way true.
On top of that I've demonstrated that imaginary things aren't very likely at all.
In sum, I've demonstrated that your claim that there is a god is not only not known to be true but also lacks plausibility.
////That is what I say about you: you insist on your unreasonable and purely superstitious claims, therefore your ignorance "remaineth".//
//I have no superstitious claims and all my arguments are valid. But what I see in you is not only ignorance, but uncommon stubbornness in your ignorance.
Your beliefs that you've been exposing amount to precisely that: superstition. And after your arguments ALL failed, you are now left with a baseless conjecture which which you (and/or I) can explain any scenario that we very well please. So much for a great argument for monotheism. Welcome polytheism where all gods live in the fullness of a baseless conjecture. For an "argument" (cough conjecture cough) about infinities, it is only fitting that there would be infinite holes in it.
4
-
@drop0112 Do not do with my comments the same you do with the bible: do not pretend that my comments say things that I specifically said otherwise. I consistently specified said ideas as "hypothetical" and as "conjecture".
Oh mathematics is god now... (Might as well say that gravity is a god and so is the sun and my shoe, and I might as well say that the only place where those things are gods is inside the superstitious mind.)
But let's go into things that are not the domain of superstition. Math is a description, what you are talking about is objects (in this hypothetical case universes) that have some variation in some characteristic.
So what you were pointing at doesn't even exist.
Furthermore as already explained over and over again - after all that was the point of my conjecture: the mechanism I have proposed for the existence of the universe is the same that you are proposing for the existence of god. Are you now claiming that god needs another god in order to exist?
If you still haven't got the basics:
// in an infinite and full world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [a multiverse], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world.
Are we done here? Do you now understand how attacking this idea is an attack to your own claims? These are basically your own claims, just decluttered.
// //That just shifts the question
//You have lost the argument of the multiplicity of Gods / Now show me (...) this possibility with multiple Gods
You don't even seem to have understood the argument: I am claiming precisely cannot be infinite gods. (Does "atheist" ring a bell?)
I'll note that you actually agree that that multiple gods are impossible, and continue to assert my case: proposing an intelligent designer to account for design just shifts the problem to what designed the designer (and so on) and ends up in claims that neither of us accept.
Oh and claiming that "it is the ultimate possibility" is precisely the resolution I have proposed (being the multiverse "the ultimate possibility").
//Now tell me why God is superfluous in the multiverse model with more dimensions and possibilities than our universe?
I've told you this time and time again:
"We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable."
"I'm saying that my conjecture the universe does not need a creator (making it superfluous) and that cosmical creators aren't known to exist nor even to be possible.
"
"The thing is that the universe actually is known to be a possibility, while god is neither necessary (cause the multiverse would guarantee the existence of this universe), nor is it known to be possible."
//But I give you to understand that the atheistic model of the world has no logical advantages over the monotheistic model of the world.
I've already explained that the advantage is precisely that it cuts necessary elements therefore making the explanation more likely to correspond to reality.
I've also explained (quoting from my response to Gordon) that "If god is something for which you have no evidential or logical case, then it should be dismissed as imaginary (as I've outlined it in the last paragraph of my comment to @Евгений Сусков, and shouldn't come as a surprise at all if you already dismiss things like magical unicorns)."
And most recently " mathematics is god now... Might as well say that gravity is a god and so is the sun and my shoe, and I might as well say that the only place where those things are gods is inside the superstitious mind."
...No matter what concept of god or how you use it it always comes down to a net negative in whatever reasoning you are engaging in (if any at all).
//The model of the complete multiverse without God is flawed, because it lacks the main opportunity - the Creator, who possesses maximum power and therefore this model cannot be complete.
False, Whatever the reason for the supposed creator's existence I've already proposed the same mechanism for the universe/multiverse, demonstrating that your claims about god's existence are completely superfluous.
"Now about probabilities. If there were no logical prerequisite for the existence of God,"
...There is no logical prerequisite for the existence of any god...
Facepalm.
"the existence of God (...) is a logical consequence of the extreme mathematics of the world"
We've been through this, and god can perfectly well be eliminated from your argument. It is nothing but an unnecessary complication motivated by your religious preconceptions...
"If you said that you do not know if there is a God or not, you would not have sinned"
Sin? Again you Come with superstitions...
If you were talking about anything real you might of talked about immorality, but since you won't find much of that in me you might as well attempt to vilify me with your imaginary immorality.
"now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth"
That is what I say about you: you insist on your unreasonable and purely superstitious claims, therefore your ignorance "remaineth".
4
-
4
-
@drop0112 Your claim is fundamentally misguided as I expressly keep reminding you that the multiverse would be the complete whole, of with our universe would be a necessary thing. In the multiverse all possible mathematics would be expressed, one of which would be the mathematics of our universe.
The actual nonsense is when you claim that in a full and complete world there is a being creating things.... My claim suffers from no such nonsense.
"// And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. //
Call it what you want, the essence does not change. Why this collection should exist at all?"
In my conjecture the multiverse was the product of the fullness and completeness of the world.
I guess: Call it what you want, the essence does not change. Why should such god exist at all?
But I guess your hypothetical god requires a mega generator of gods? Is that it? A god is required to explain the existence of god? Oh well.
"That is, a world that has 10 to 500 degrees of universes does not contain superfluous elements, but one world that has fullness is an superfluous element? Your logic is original)"
No, I expresselly said the multiverse is full and that it makes the universe's existence necessary. But I guess you are still not on par with my argument (you should be as it is basically your argument but cutting down on superfluous elements...).
"Then I expect a model of the world from you, at least speculative, the most likely for you."
I've already given the example of the multiverse, which you can't argue against without invalidating your own claims (this model just cuts out the superfluous elements from your model as already explained).
And I don't actually need to favor any model. Especially in the lack of any evidence, which you consistently fail to provide instead opting for fallacies that have already been exposed and for inconsequential eccentric interpretations of an old myth.
"If this turns out to be extremely unlikely, then yes, the Lord did it"
Except those probabilities represents the state of your knowledge, as the event 100% did happen. Ignorance is the basis for your assertion that "god did it".
This was already explained multiple times to be a purely fallacious reasoning, but I guess I'll go and generate a random number with 500 digits and contemplate the extremely low probability of that outcome and come to terms with the extremely well reasoned fact that gnomes picked that number for me...
"There is no mistake."
Oh so you're now suggesting that we know everything about genetics? More over with no mistakes? Perfect knowledge, that is a wild claim. Again: ignorance of any details does not in any way substantiate your claim that god exists (again it might be any misunderstood genetic function or a poorly understood role of viruses or anything that we don't know yet). But again you go with that fundamentally fallacious idea that if I don't know something gnomes did it.
The fact that evolution took place, now that has actual evidence, rather than being a case of "idk, therefore god".
As I said: there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers."
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly"
Again, no mention of any sort of evolution. Instead it is the stuff of harry potter where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days.
And it is not about being a book of science, it is about being a book about true things, which it is not: it's a book of mythological things (where the sun can come after the trees, or the earth for that matter - the stuff of fantasy of people who didn't know better).
"// I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it. //
Of course, he did not see the new world before the big bang, so when he saw it for the first time, he was delighted. What confuses you?"
I'm calling out the inconsistency of your claims: First "God saw 'it was good' only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take", but in the case of light god saw it was good not because of any evolution, but because he was delighted.
Your interpretations are not just eccentric, but also inconsistent.
"a pear gives birth to a pear, and an apple tree an apple tree"
Any ancient ignoramus would know that. And for all the times it references "each after it's kind", not once does it mention "each with slightly differing from their kind"- you know: evolution is what it doesn't mention.
"And how do you like this version ..."
I find it a wonderful work of fantasy that is in contradiction with all that is known about how things happened. How about gnomes were pointing light bulbs at earth? That's another ad hoc option.
"Your knowledge of reality is insignificantly small to draw conclusions"
I base my claims on the information I do have, rather than fallacies and a fixation for some obligatory truth of a cultural myth.
Unlike the bible, whose pinnacle of its scientific potential tend to be antiscientific positions, science actually has scientific potential. Unlike people who take obviously incorrect claims and stomp down their foot saying that they must somehow be correct, there are people who actually take their ideas and check whether they actually have factual support.
But I get why you're downplaying knowledge, after all: don't know, therefore god.
It is impressive that so many people report that harry potter changed their lives ( https://www.google.com/search?q=harry+potter+changed+my+life ) it must have some spiritual value, and it does talk about real landmarks in england and the prime minister of england if I'm not mistaken, and it really is a collection of related books, but it is still a tale of fantasy.
Oh and no, the (christian) bible is not indivisible as the jews are happy with just a section of it (in fact they claim that that's all there is to it) and it was actually put together by compiling various separate texts and choosing to keep some and throw others away. The bible still contains errors, but it is already the product of revision to try and fit it all as nicely as possible.
Thinking back at genesis, surely you must find it odd that all of it is filled with caveats, from firmament being laws to days being billions of years, to the earth being transported to resolve the problem of the sun, etc.
Surely you must be able to see that you need quite a lot of ad hoc changes to make it work.
4
-
Drop0112 Exactly: this is all hypothetical (should I go on to reinterpret the bible pretending it refers to a multiverse instead of god?).
The principle would be something like this:
We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable.
Which is basically the same principle the you proposed in order to explain god's existence:
"God lives in a world with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our world , such as neural networks, become inevitable."
Or the more baseless way you put it now:
"in an infinite and fullness world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [our universe], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world. And such model of the world is complete and is a logical consequence of the infinity and fullness of the world at a counterweight to an incomplete and illogical model of the world with god."
And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. (Why? are you saying that god in your conjecture required a mega generator to generate god? Like some sort of god being necessary to explain another god?)
The reason why this hypothesis is more probable is just that it cuts superfluous unconfirmed elements.
And as stated this is hypothetical. Being it unconfirmed, I obviously do not accept it as fact.
the fact that we do have an explanation that is substantiated by the various lines of evidence does make it a compelling case that evolution does explain, well, evolution. I'm still waiting to see any of that divine intervention though.
"objectively calculated probability of the evolution of the first cell to a man without the intervention of the mind"
And there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers.
but it's all so easy when not knowing means god did it. It's like when I can't find my car keys... gomes did it, I'm damn sure of it.
"And the Bible actually speaks of the evolutionary creation by God of living beings, but it was a creation, not a bare evolution."
Except it doesn't. It often specifically says "each after it's kind", not each slightly different until they become distinct.
"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"
The idea that it talks about evolution comes from your head, not from the text (it just says "bring forth", it doesn't specify how - you then use your modern knowledge to fill the gap).
It also doesn't talk about creating from biomaterial, as what it actually speaks of are the "creatures" (of various kinds).
"God saw "that it was good" only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take."
I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it.
But lets pretend the bible talks about evolution rather than acknowledge that it is a work of complete ignorance about how things actually happened:
"plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds"
A lot of emphasis on the kinds is the least of it's problems. It's that trees were missing an essential thing which god only did the next day: "God made two great lights".
I guess god forgot that the lights were already there for at least a day or two ...or a couple billion years.
For anyone reading what is actually written in the bible, that myth is a page right out of harry potter, where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days.
You can try and stretch it, but unless you are basically rewriting it (as you do with your extremely exotic interpretations), this myth has little to no parallel with reality.
4
-
4
-
I've heard before the idea that the universe is "mathematically impossible to happen by accident", but it was a fallacy that took the probabilities of the universe being the exact way it is based on our ignorance of why it is the exact way it is, and then attempted to make a case that somehow god was needed to fill that gap in knowledge. The exact same fallacious argument can be made about any random event and about every event about which we lack information.
We might as well made the exact same case for balancing rocks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_rock ), and we would arrive at an incorrect answer.
What we do know, is that the bible's accounts don't resemble the way things actually happened/happen.
Amazingly, some people (a notable example being the pope), understand that basic ideas in the bible are factually false, but still pretend that there is validity to it.
Sticking to what can be verified (a good idea for those who are interested in believing what is true and not what is false), these myths go right out the window.
And, actually, the more a person studies the less a person tends to believe in a "creator" (95% of believers general US population vs 42% in US scientists, and the figure goes even lower for top scientists). Impressively even people who study religion tend to believe less after they study it (for instance philosophers of religion after their studies tend to believe less in god). So let's not pretend that studying real things (including books regarding myths) should lead a person to have a belief in some "creator".
I don't know what you mean by "a tangled mess that is harder to understand than is necessary". The basics are quite simple, and the specifics are a tangled mess because that tangled mess is a better description than a basic global picture. To say that the specifics are unnecessary is to dismiss modern machinery, medicine and weather prediction just to mention a tip of the iceberg.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4