Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "TED"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@denzil penbirthy Yes, according to you, god can't exist unless there's another god creating him (but then there's supposedly a problem with infinities...?). Haven't we gone there already? Those seem like exactly the same arguments you've already made. The ones where god couldn't serve as an answer to Holts deeper question, the ones where your "problems with" had resolutions, the one where the alternatives you thought didn't exist actually did exist regardless of how well understood they are. Something just popping into existence or just randomly existing is so far the only answer to Holt's deeper question - aren't you supposed to believe something for as long as there was no better alternative?
I actually don't have any sort of faith in any of these possibilities, most likely there are still major discoveries to be made - except in regard to holt's deeper question it's hard to see a way of escaping his conclusion, regardless of how outlandish it is.
A difference between your belief and the other alternatives [other than your belief being assumed first from old myths and justified ad hoc], is that your answer doesn't answer much of anything. It just moves the same problem of complexity and appearance of design and function to the same entity that you called in just to solve those same problems, which leaves you with the exact same problems and a an explanation that was after all superfluous (you can then proceed to cut out the superfluous explanation and going directly to more productive explanations).
Other explanations (including the ones that have some kind of verification) tend to solve some problems, leading to states of less complexity. That is exactly what goes on with the multiverse which proposes that there is a simpler solution in looking at a neat group universes than in looking at just one where there are unexplained loose ends.
And "nothing" to me depends on the context (a black screen, a white screen, empty toothpaste, quantum fields that aren't producing effects, or the complete metaphysical absence of anything and everything). Holts deeper question is about the latter - to which god can't be the answer, to which a thing existing (not popping into existence, just existing with no explanation or cause or pattern to it) seems like the only explanation. In the context of universes arising through quantum fluctuations we're talking about quantum fields, and the black screen is just when my computer isn't turning on for some reason.
But what is more likely? That Jesus walked on water, or that I'll give you $100 if you give me $5? Perhaps you too would have to take into account the context and the expected normalcy for a given situation. (After all, nothingness - quantum or otherwise - is more likely to break the laws of physics as we know them, than the middle east 2000 years ago.)
1
-
1
-
@denzil penbirthy I don't think you would dispute that believing that something is true doesn't make it true. Yet you're presenting an argument that god is the ultimate cause because you believe so (or as you put it "[otherwise] we as Christians wouldn't call him/it God").
The idea that humans can't do something perfect is about as much of a saying as 'perfection doesn't exist'. But if said that god doesn't exist because perfection doesn't exist, would that be an argument that you would accept? Perhaps you'd just say that perfection exists somehow. I can certainly play perfect games of tic tac toe according to its rules (and yes, the tic tac toe games were invented by people).
If the universe is infinite in size and at the same time something happened with every single bit of it, that would be infinite things happening. Considering that all time may very well be equally real and exist as a dimension, same thing can happen there, where all events are all happening each at a different point along that axys, no need to traverse it - it would all exist without the possibility of traversing it. In sum, the impossibility of iterating from 0 to infinity doesn't make infinities impossible, not even in the case of time.
I don't know whether something could pop up without cause, but that consistent with quantum physics and is a proposed explanation for the beginning of the universe (the universe would be entirely constituted of equal and opposite forces that would sum up to 0 energy). Is that the way things happened? nobody knows and this is just one of various ideas (again, it is not like "god did it" is the only thing going around).
Here's another paralel: would you think that the eternal life would make life worthless? I don't think so. I also don't think that all the food I can eat would make food irrelevant. I'd still have to eat. It would be a very good thing to not have anyone going hungry. Maybe not all value is due to scarcity.
1
-
@denzil penbirthy Not necessarily. The natural numbers (1,2,3, onwards) are infinite in number but they do not repeat even once (each is unique, despite us having a limited number of characters to represent them). And indeed these ideas go against the common sense rules that we often take as unchallengeable, but so does relativity or quantum physics. And here we're looking for something that produce events that break the laws of physics as we currently know them, because our currently laws are broken by events that, as far as it is known, happened: the initial moments of the big bang.
A random event can happen if there is nothing there if something something simply appears there. I don't see a conundrum there.
I know what you mean and it's normal to be in in awe of things, but it's more important to understand that spiders are important to an ecosystem than to be in awe of butterflies. This is a poor example, but you surely understand what I mean. Careful thought helps us avoid those pitfalls. (I'd say the world is gradually improving, though that's not the sort of thing you'll hear in the news, it's just that smaller oversights can lead to more potent instruments being misused, and you'll definitely hear about that in the news over and over again!)
Jim Holt's argument doesn't rule out god's existence, it just rules it out as a ultimate cause. I'm not aware of any argument that rules out all gods or generic gods with slightly fuzy definitions, but I constantly see people who believe in such things to have any sensible reason. Some even admit as much, which is a position I can't really contest, but which seems to me very odd. But while for Holt's question it's not easy to find an answer other than randomness, answers on the level of god are more numerous, from randomnesses to multiverses to infinities. To my knowledge there isn't evidence that corroborates any of it, but that also doesn't seem to be a major concern for people believing in god.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@faithrada I've already explained why jason isn't on to anything but simply making claims that have no basis. People claiming to "know" that a god exists consistently are shown to not have any such knowledge (instead they are making unsubstantiated claims and engaging in plain sophistry). And rather than lack of proof, there is also evidence of lack when books of myths about gods purported communications are found to be false, or creation is found to be an undirected process.
"Jesus KNEW who He was... while YOU do not YET KNOW who YOU are"
I know know much better who I am than jesus or any other cult leader ever could dream of in ancient times.
So far the only claim I actually have reason to consider is that there is no such thing as god.
"Everything.. at its core essence IS Consciousness ITSELF."
Again, that claim is both baseless and in contradiction with the fact that consciousness is always found in working brains rather than by itself.
"#There are 3 ways to comprehend "God". "
"#1 is * Via the mind by Belief / Disbelief .. where there is no actual proof either way.
" - you mean where all the evidence so far shows that god is as unlikely to exist as santa claus....
"#2 is * knowing (small k ), by way of the subjective mind, where there is actual (subjective) proof"
You mean fantasy, indeed fantazy does not require proof, but it is fantasy, not fact and that is not knowledge.
" #3 * via Transcendent KNOWLEDGE, where the subjective, experiential mind is bypassed altogether"
You mean by pretending that you have knowledge acquired through a means that has yet to demonstrate any accuracy - and that judging by similar claims is completely inaccurate to the point of being a writefully called a farce.
and again you come to make the same baseless and counterfactual claims that are already being called out:
"the non-local/non-physical mind" "the Unified Field of Consciousness."
1
-
1
-
I get what you're saying and I get that your ideas are baseless and false, as already demonstrated. Again you come with the same argument that was already explained that it is fundamentally flawed, pretending that if your fantasies are better than reality then they must be reality. Your argument is completely delusional.
And now you're on to lying about me and about my ideas and nonsensically projecting characteristics of your ideas (fantasy realms, baseless speculation assumed and even the idea that god exists). Then you have the displicence of pretending that your still completely unjustified fantasies constitute "ultimate grounds". And while you pretend that your fantasies justify anything, all my grounds for value and moral have been and continue to be real things that actually exist.
Again, I do not subscribe to nihilism, and it is dishonest to pretend that I do since I've already explained that I do have ideas, goals and morals which are based on things that incidentally do exist (and which are not the end of the universe and for which the end of the universe isn't even a factor) and I've also explained that our actions are not inconsequential (as our actions do have an impact in the world and on our lives and I wouldn't want to be kicked on the nuts today regardless of whether tomorrow everything ceases to exist, and I'd still want to have an excellent day regardless of tomorrow everything ceasing to exist). And the world isn't even going to disappear any time soon, much less the universe.
Again, I haven't based anything on any "ultimate grounds", find no need for such thing and that still does not make me a nihilist as already explained.....
Again, I don't live my life as if any god exists, I live it with the understanding that no such thing exists and based on lines of thought already explained. I've also explained that the invention of gods is what gives them attributes and ideals that are quite human.
I have never claimed that life just happens, I certainly haven't claimed that it must be important. Again you're projecting (and yes, your beliefs that you are projecting are indeed a fairy tale for grown-ups borrowed from children's books).
Again, my values and ideas are not based on any grand scheme of things, as I've explained my compass is guided by making life more into a happy day and less into a kick in the nuts. That points me in what are often very clear directions which, again, are based on real things and not on the baseless fantasies that have you spinning towards a fairytale land that doesn't exist.
Again, meaning exists because people have the ability to want things, to feel things, to experience things. Says people, the same ones who find purpose in helping each other get less kicks in the nuts and have more happy days.. Again, that was already justified. If it is not clear yet, this would be classified as emergent and relative (a rock wouldn't find meaning in anything, people who have the relevant abilities do). I've never claimed there was a sandwich, I specifically said that people's purpose comes from their abilities, not from any beginning and not for the end. You're the only one claiming there is a sandwich, and so far you've shown no justification for that or for any other of your fairytale claims.
Again, you claimed that I couldn't account for a beginning, and I showed I can account for it at the very least as well as you: since all you had was baseless speculation. You pretend that baseless speculation is truth whereas I do not. And I don't assume that others don't know "just because I don't know". Here is the actual explanation already given to you several comments ago:
"No one that claims to know has actually demonstrated it to be so (moreover such claims are often dogmatic and even demonstrably false). So far the claim that is backed by all available information, is precisely the claim that no one knows. But be sure to let us know when relevant and verifiability accurate information arises?"
(And jesus was a guy who lived thousands of years ago. To pretend that he knew me is blatantly delusional.)
Again, that when people die they stop functioning and that after death people will dispose of you, a fact that can be easily attested to be true by just about anyone. Conversely your claims do not correspond to what actually happens. My authority on this matter as in all others is reality, which confirms my claims and leaves yours in the realm of fantasy. Next time, try looking at what actually happens rather than lying dishonest religious propaganda such as the shameless piece you've posted in your previous comment.
Again, as already seen you not only speculate, but you speculate about speculations of speculation, which culminates in the complete vacuity and demonstrable falsity of your affirmations, and affirmations of other christians and of whoever wrote and invented those fantasies that you so nonsensically believe.
Again, I've already explained that I do have grounds for "oughts" and for "betterness", that they are based on making my life better - again less kicks in the nuts is an undeniable improvement (and here we have "betterness"), and I should not to kick other people in the nuts or else I'll be improving my chances of getting kicked in the nuts which is something I don't want (and here we have "ought").
And no, my morality is not based on a dichotomy of pleasure and pain, rather my argument gets simpler each time you don't understand it. We're now in a stage where it is all about kicks in the nuts - and no, my morality isn't all about that either. As my argument becomes simpler your denial of its truth becomes blatantly absurd.
Again, I've made no dogmatic claims, and I've systematically explained why my claims are justified based on all information I know of and that if new information arises I'll reevaluate my conclusions... I've also explained several times now that making unjustified claims about something I don't find plausible will not convince me. But here you continue claiming "I point to Another" while still pointing a fantasy inside your head that I still have no reason to find the least but plausible.
Again, my approach was as unbiased as possible (unlike yours which is dogmatically aimed at pretending that a fantasy is somehow real), and in no case is an "intellectual stance" in contradiction with being correct - it is precisely a stance that ensures that one's positions are as correct as possible. And never have I justified any of my claims with any universal knowledge, my claims stand with the knowledge I have and I'm yet to hear from people like you who do claim to have access to universal knowledge anything that should make anyone buy into your cult. And "intellectuals" in general don't obsess over "little green men", nor pray to them, many simply understand that with a high number of planets it is probable, if not certain, that there are other species on other planets. That is not some god replacement at all it is at most the existence of people like us, and then it's you projecting your own silly beliefs to other people as if you understood that your outlandish ideas would make anyone look silly and use that to misrepresent other people's ideas to try to bring them down to your level.
And, apart from "the universe" in some cases, '"The UNIVERSE!" "MOTHER NATURE!, "ALIENS." "LIFE FOUND A WAY!"' don't purport to be an attempt at answering a ultimate question about the origin of everything.
Again, yes christian propagandistic lies - a lie is a lie no matter if the liar is hubbard or the dalai lama or paul nor does it matter who calls it out.
And again you quote the bible, your claims don't cease to be unjustified just because they are written down. Quoting the same demagogue pretending that up is down and down is up doesn't make it so. And up is still up and stupidity still stupidity.
Again, it was a man who wrote those pieces of propaganda (a dishonest one at that), not a god. And what I felt like (and effectively was) is being lied about and slandered (it specifically and grossly misrepresented atheists). If anyone has a debased mind, it is whoever wrote such fraud and whoever was so debased from reality as to think it true.
And again, no trace can be seen in the universe of any god nor any sort of judgment against anyone... What the universe consistently shows evidence of is that complex phenomenon are the emergent result of simpler interactions, which consistently sets a pattern of complexity not requiring a priory complexity nor a priory design. Meanwhile, the idea of god still leads nowhere but to special pleadings.
Again, it is a stupid idea that anyone would relish about their legacy in their grave - at the very least it is stupid in that it does not correspond to reality. Again, look at the facts, rather than at fantasies and texts of propaganda that men wrote.
Again, my legacy will leave future generations better off like previous generations have left me better off, and this thinking has yielded us all a net gain all while I work on what I'd like to do anyway. And again, already explained that there is meaning and why we ought to help...
Whatever happens to the universe is irrelevant to the fact that I've already had a good life and by then countless generations probably will have too. And I don't know how long humans will be around, but surely if we get anywhere close to the end of the universe we'll try to do something about it. Regardless, our smiles will be where they always were, in the actual moments they were in our faces.
And if this wasn't already clear: your fantasies and false ideas do not provide you with adequate answers, they instead impair your ability to get actual answers. People who like you thought that god had provided them with answers have gotten their children needlessly killed. Like you they thought they had adequate answers but they had instead been duped and were completely alienated from reality.
1
-
Wow you're now promoting propaganda saying I deserve to die?! If that wasn't deranged enough, you continue boasting the same argument that was already demonstrated to be inconsequential: if without god there is no meaning (something which would disprove meaning but would not prove god - so that is indeed a critical flaw in your argument and it is neither circular nor is this objection dismissable by claiming that my beliefs "are calcified"). "Would disprove meaning" if it was true, which it isn't, as already demonstrated - a kick in the nuts is undesirable regardless of whether my life is infinite, as is a smile on my kids face something I want to see until I die regardless of the fate of the universe an unimaginably long time from now. So yeah this argument still matters, lest you not go out and hurt yourself and other people based on your delusional ideas.
Meaning depends on actual brains capable of understanding things, something that didn't exist in the beginning of the universe and something that might not exist in the end but does exist now. Yes meaning in the middle exists, while meaning in the beginning and the end are so far without any justification.
And again, I find no reason for anyone to believe that there is anything "god given" be it in dna or in any universal laws and you still insist in asserting it without any justification.... And everyone that reads these comments can see it for themselves,, no need for any other judge, and you've had every opportunity to copy/paste the relevant bit if any of us missed anything about comments.
Then you go on claiming that I can't account for a beginning, whereas I can certainly do speculation that is at least as good as "god did it", from "magic" all the way to "multiverse" and all kinds of things in between.
What you mean perhaps is that I don't know what actually happened. From what I've seen here neither do you.
At least I understand what happens when you die: you stop functioning and people will dispose of you, a fact that can be easily attested to be true by just about anyone. I don't behave good year round because I want gifts from santa nor because of your brand of "illogical, inconsistent, and irrational" fantasies. And no, I don't have god in the back of my mind any more than you have venus, and regard them both as fantasy. and it's not that I imitate the christian god or the roman gods it's just that they were invented by people who invariably have a limited imagination ( that's why our renditions of aliens almost invariably are remarkably similar to humans: eyes, mouth, arms legs, or in star track, just plain humans with some sort of facial deformity). I don't act morally to correspond to some fantasy, I act morally because everyone acting so makes my life better (actually it makes all of our lives better). And that's not a platitude that can be discarded, people not stabbing each other does make my day better as I get to spend it doing things that I like rather than bleeding and in pain.
"you probably now less than 1% of known facts in the Universe", yeah, and yet all that I know still does not support the idea that any god exists and sometimes even contradicts such ideas. You've presented no new information to change that. If you had, then I'd change my mind, because my positions aren't dogmatic at all (nor stem from baseless assumptions). Until such information arises, if it actually exists, I'll continue with my unbiased approach of not giving any more credence to the idea of god than to any other conceivable idea that contradicts it - such as roman mythology, buddhist mythology, flying spaghetti monster mythology, ... If I was to assume any of that is actually true, then I'd have an anti-intellectual position.
Obviously I'm not afraid of things I don't think exist, like gods or boogiemen or vampires. And like most atheists I live a rather normal and moral life, which leads to the matter of your use of christian propagandistic lies, which is what you presented under the title of "romans", which depicts atheists in a way that is completely false as attested by my conduct and by the conduct of most atheists, something that is widely recognized even by christians themselves.
Shame on you for propagating vile lies and slander about me and countless other people.
I'm not a nihilist as it should be already clear, as also should already be clear that wellbeing does matter to people regardless of the fact that people die. It is "a stupid idea" to think that anyone would relish about their legacy in their grave, but it is a banal fact that someone who is making life better for generations to come can relish in that while still being alive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1