Youtube comments of Technolus (@technolus5742).
-
109
-
51
-
42
-
31
-
31
-
26
-
23
-
21
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
7
-
7
-
@penyarol83 Well, it's not just south koreans, north americans also have stressed, unhappy lives. We'll see plenty of that until we get something like a universal basic income that acts as a safety net so that we don't have to worry about being homeless if we fail in some endeavour, so that we don't have to worry if people close to us fail, so that we can take chances, so that we can be with our loved ones if we value that more than having a bigger house or more entertainment. Besides, food should be getting cheaper cause we can now produce more per worker, housing should be cheaper too for as long as you don't need a house right in the city center, same with clothes, same with just about everything. So... Why are we being forced into consumerism and competition? We should be working less and still producing more than we did before.
I don't think people have a plan for where we want to be in 1000 or a million years, we're just going through the motions and pretending that capitalism is an actual plan (rather than a archaic system that we're all afraid to even think of replacing, it's like the ideas of rational planning died just because one idea failed - how about setting up small scale experiments to see if we can find a better system? how about pre-testing in MMOG games, then conducting more rigorous tests in small populations and going from there? Surely there are more ideas than just neo-liberalism and communism, and surely there are more ideas than just our very non-representative democracies, how about introducing some sortition so that we can personally voice our real concerns?).
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@drop0112 //Why (...) there cannot exist a rational being capable of creating? In our universe, man is also not needed, but, nevertheless, it exists.//
1st: man effectively exists (man is necessary because you'll have to include us in whatever explanation you end up giving).
2nd: I'm not saying that a "rational being capable of creating" can't exist (in fact many do), 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.
//our universe was once a point with infinite density of matter (...) it will expand forever (...), it will never return to the point. How could this opportunity be realized?//
Actually the part about infinite density is not known, it's extrapolated from equations that should not be expected to be accurate at those scales.
I don't know, it might be impossible that our universe return to its initial state. If the laws of physics don't allow it, then I guess it won't happen. The existence of a multiverse doesn't need to make anything and everything possible.
//"As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing."
You do not know this.//
It's part of my conjecture, in a multiverse where all possible universes come into existence in no way is a god needed for our exact universe to exist.
//And again, returning to the topic of proof of evolution, I insist that there are no mistakes in my arguments and requirements.//
And I insist that there might (and probably are at least some minor errors in our understanding of the specificities of the systems involved in evolution) and that even meteorologists knowing the relevant formulas can't predict the weather accurately a long time in advance: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...)
I insist that as explained there are definitely mistakes in your argument and related requirements.
But if you insist that there are no mistakes in your argument and requirements I expect you can use the known formulas of classical mechanics to determine precisely where an paper airplane will land after being thrown off of the roof of my house. Bear in mind that if you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your calculations (be it because you don't now where my house is or the exact moment I'm going to throw the airplane or that small differences in the airplane can make a huge difference or because there are too many variables, ...), I will have demonstrated that classical mechanics doesn't work without gnomes.
//Because evolution is not the movement of air currents, as is the case with weather prediction, but a completely understandable and discrete process of transforming a DNA code from one species to another.//
Oh really? I guess you can show me exactly how that happens. Cause as far as I'm concerned a rare random mutation bearing organism being wiped out by some minor cataclysm could change the course of evolution towards different paths that would still be beneficial and still lead to speciation and so on.
But here you are again wanting me to calculate probabilities of events that did happen...
Again I tell you that: I can generate a sequence of random number with very low odds and nevertheless the numbers that I end up with are the4 numbers I end up with, regardless of how improbable those specific numbers are.
Here are my numbers (clearly manipulated by gnomes because they are so very unlikely about 10^110): 8483623561296075283911533653 3210311177391768317833474343 1660490381375815957916001865 6761662042493690751308125550
Again I tell you that:'Except those probabilities represent the state of your knowledge, as the event 100% did happen. Ignorance is the basis for your assertion that "god did it".'
As for the evidence that evolution did happen, again you have all the various remains showing organisms that were subject to the mechanisms by which evolution unfolds and graudally changing based on those processes, and whose genetic codes match ours in preciselly the ways that would be expected if we had evolved form the same ancestor.
Meanwhhile your claim that "goddidit" still has no evidence whatsoever and runs counter to claims athat are actually substantiated by the facts.
Oh and we're all equally well adapted (which is why we're all still alive), and we're descentends from common ancestry which means we're here for the same time. Evolution does not select for complication nor for adaptation, it selects for survival, that is the vector (and it lead to both the simpler and the more complex to the broad and to the specialized - indeed there is no cosmical vector towards intelligent life unlike you want to believe).
//You can certainly think about chance, but only when this chance is justified//
Randomness is a known unknown, that is not even accounting for the unknown unknowns. As said, your dichotomy is fallacious.
And randomenss is justifiable. Given enough random shaped rocks there is bound to be a copy of mount rushmore.
//your brain is completely unable to identify the signs of mind intervention in the process of evolution//
So far it's not just my brain, it's any brain that is not engaging in fallacies upon fallacies....
And if you stil think that probabilities of things that actually happened are relevant: 9095573917792868599961591698876741094641 1989681016634266420311498663336127558987 2229600004489996052059794708686988248945
The odds of these numbers are now at about 10^220, It's gnomes I say. Wait, no I don't actually say that... It's a fallacy I say!
//Let's take a closer look at what scientific data is your confidence based on//
It certainly is infinitelly higher than that of claims were based on nothing but fallacies and counterfactual myths.
//I have a 100% certainty that God exists//
But hey I've actually been explaining to you that your confidence is purelly phychological.
// you have neither a scientific nor a logical argument against my arguments of faith//
I merelly have the one thing required: your fallacies and your lack of logic basis and evidence.
In the end you have faith which as justification amounts to 0. In sum a purely psychological, unwarranted confidence.
3
-
@drop0112
//What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of an omnipotent smart being able to create?//
What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of a full multiverse where all possibilities come true?
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.
As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing.
//a multiverse with a Googleplex universes can exist, but a higher world with a smart creator and extreme math cannot.//
Have I said that? What I actually said: "and the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing."
//You do not know how this event happened//
I do know that it happened. You claim I don't know the mechanism, but I do know some such as evolution and gravitation. But perhaps you haven't gotten the point: your argument is fundamentally fallacious.
your argument consists of a series of fallacies:
- lack of contrary evidence (appeal to ignorance):
"show the illogicality of this postulate" <-- show the illogicality of me being bald right now? I guess I must be bald then...
- [can't explain it? therefore] goddidit (equivalent to "gnomesdidit" or "magicdidit"):
"suggest the best model of the world" <--- tell me nintendo's proprietary algorithm? you can't? It's magic I tell you.
- low probabilities can't happen (when all probabilities are low) (unnamed fallacy, but illogical none the less)
"If the probability of an event is 10 to 500 degrees, it will mean that your theory should be thrown into a landfill" <-- Only 1/6th probability of your dice landing on a 3? It should have landed elsewhere, your dice is biased (or gnomes purposefully guided it to a 3).
- Ludic fallacy
According to wikipedia about the ludic fallacy:
"It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information";
"Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact;"
//And I suggest you calculate this probability based on knowledge, but not on ignorance.//
And I suggest meteorologists accurately forecast the weather for next summer. After all you do know the formulas... Oh wait: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...)
Oh and there is a new one now:
- loads of people believe it - appeal to the people fallacy
//Only children believe in gnomes, but half of the globe believe in one Creator.//
I hope you're not pointing out that your type of arguments can be used to make such absurd claims that only children qwould believe such a thing.
And I also hope that you're not saying that if we indoctrinate a large number of people with a false belief that same belief suddenly is true.
Neither objection helps your case, a case that is on it's own right purely a fallacy.
//And hardly all of them are more stupid than you.//
I guess people throughout history who believed that bloodletting was actually curing disease were stupid, that must of been it...
The thing that actually is relevant: none of them that I have heard from actually had the only thing required: a sound justification for their belief.
//only creation can be an alternative to the theory of evolution//
Pretty sure that is a false dichotomy. Right off the bat I can think of at least one other: randomness. Regardless: unknown unknowns, another reason why even if evolution was wrong, that would still not translate into creationism being right.
But... so far evolution is holding up just fine, and there actually is evidence for it.
"In order to make 100% reliable conclusions about evolution, it is not at all necessary to know everything about genetics."
100% reliable conclusions - like humans evolved from other species? I wouldn't say that is 100% reliable, but definitely can be said with a very high degree of confidence.
On the other hand the sort of conclusions you want actually require you to know everything, not just about genetics, but also about initial conditions on which evolution was acting upon. The largely random seeds and high sensitivity of these sorts of processes makes it so that not knowing the precise conditions leads to multiple potential scenarios.
//Your knowledge of reality is so small that you cannot draw conclusions about the existence of the Creator, the multiverse, evolution without the participation of the mind and authenticity of the Bible.//
As already stated:
I base my claims on the information I do have, rather than fallacies and a fixation for some obligatory truth of a cultural myth. Biblical claims are consistently invalidated by real world data.
You can claim that I can't be sure, but I can be a heck of a lot more sure than you since facts actually support my claims and contradict yours.
But I'm sure the compelling and understandable (did I mention counterfactual?) narration of harry potter is a testament to the existence of magic beyond the world of muggles.
And again: But I get why you're downplaying knowledge, after all: don't know, therefore god.
Regardless downplaying our knowledge does not provide any validation for your claims that continue to lack evidence and logic.
//The information about the world, which is recorded in the Bible, is fully consistent with modern scientific data.//
Trees and earth before sun and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You must be joking.
//And so that your soul does not perish//
That is the stuff of fantasy. You'd do better to simply think and act in reasonable ways, at least you'll get closer to whatever goals you are pursuing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
BTIsaac Let's shed some light on why a typical job is what makes a robot out of you:
-Commute time:
Previous: 2 hours.
Current : NA.
-Flexibility to work OR not to work depending on what I feel like doing:
Previous: very limited.
Current : extremely flexible.
-Work hours per day:
Previous: 8 & 1/2 hours (there was a mandatory lunch break in the middle).
Current : 4-5 hours (includes breakfast while working, no need for a break unless I feel like doing one). Yes, my workday is now half of what it used to be, and I still earn more than I previously did.
-Breaks:
Previous: Mandatory
.
Current : most of my work is done in the 2-3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours in the evening. Most of my day is a break.
-Days off:
Previous: 2 days; mandatory; fixed.
Current : 1-2 days; on whatever day I feel like doing something else; optional/varies with the number of hours worked on a given week.
-Life and playtime:
Previous: vacations + weekends + a couple free hours per day.
Current: most of my day, nearly every day.
-Work conditions:
Previous: workers boycotted my efforts, many coworkers were not interested in working at all, actual work was often secondary to silly and blind implementation of methodologies (like 5S and SCRUM).
Current : I only work with people I think are serious and whose goals I can get behind so that we are all working towards the same goals. And I follow the methodologies in the way I think they should be applied based on my expertise, which yields better results with much less hassle.
-Environment:
Previous: Factory, conditioned air that made a noticeable difference in my airways - and I have always been a perfectly healthy person without respiratory afflictions.
Current : my cozy setups are comfortable, ergonomic, varied and essentially I can work however I feel most comfortable and wherever I feel like being for as long as I can get some kind of internet connection (wifi or mobile).
So what the heck are you going on about? I most certainly spend less time inside a room than the average office worker. (Not to mention that I can breathe air that doesn't require constant treatment and monitoring so that we don't all die around here.)
And what about cons? Certainly it can't be all roses.
The lack of a senior mentor was an issue for a time, but I've found other ways to expand my knowledge which ended up being comparable to the benefits of having a mentor.
That was the only complaint I had so far and it wasn't anything that couldn't be fixed. Some people speak of loneliness and other issues, but I have never really felt like that was a problem for me (I live in a nice place where neighbors are friendly and besides I now have my partner/wife who is also very nice and also works remotely although in a completely different area).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The metaverse is not facebook's. Facebook is just one of many players in the area. And apparently facebook succeeded in convincing many people that they are the metaverse, which is the worst thing that could happen, as people trying vr will end up in meta's platform instead of trying better ones and hopefully slightly less crappy companies.
FB's horizon worlds is crap. VRChat is incomparably better. Never played Second Life, but in vr there's far richer experiences than that can be had through a computer screen. It's immersive enough that you do feel like you walked into a place. A nature reserve, a cinema, a disco, some game. People in front of you, talking to you face to face, even touching you. That's the experience you get. I have never played second life, but... vr is not something where you play dolls, it's something where you play in fullest first person experience.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
They actually are solving a problem: screens having to be everywhere. We have a screen on a tv, a screen on the phone, another on the pc/laptop, tablet, watch, ... These can all be replaced by a single screen that is everywhere you need it to be, and has capabilities that go beyond other screens. This technology has the ability and potential to actually make interactions easier and more personal than while you're focused on your phone. This is just fearmongering, it's happened before, will happen again, and people will still use technology more and more without most of the fears coming to pass. It's the same exact thing as we already have but on a new platform that's all. Edit: bwt claims about shrinking attention spans are hyped by the media, but researchers don't actually agree on it, saying that it's largely task dependent.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No dude, rapid change in climate is directly tied to human activity. You should have read the article you posted:
"The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say."
"As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”
These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space."
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
-
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
-
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
-
1