Forum Index            

Cookies Consent Information
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.
Share
Try These Selectors:
Best college values

Good jobs in gig economy

Right religion for you

Presidential candidates

Best US city for you

Know your philosophy

Landmark decisions
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe

Posted by TheThorn 
Anyway, I'm going to bed soon so I'm going to address this "it's improbable" shtick Dick like to throw out there with out qualification before I turn in.

The theoretical Multiverse is there to provide an alternative explanation to a purposeful universe in light of the observation that every physical law of the universe needs to be precisely as it is in order to lead to life, if any property of the universe was even a little different, life could not exist.

Unless you're that fanatical that you're going to put all your eggs in that theoretical basket, you're going to have to join us back in this universe, the one we actually exist in.

The fact is that we exist.

The fact is that consciousness exists.

The fact is that intelligence exists.

None of these are controversial claims, in fact they are the only things we each individually know for a fact - the only true knowledge we possess.

We know, and it's the only thing we know, that there is purpose, and meaning, and intelligence in the universe. Us. We know that physical laws like evolution exist precisely to govern its development. Even the ability for molecules to become bacteria requires an insanely precise set of rules. We are a part of the universe and the only part of it we can really be sure exists. And here we are, thinking about it.

Does that mean it's supposed to be that way? No. There are other options. It could be through happenstance. It's could be a one in a billion long shot.

It's not impossible.

It's not impossible that you could throw a handful of jelly beans on the floor and that they will land spelling your name out. It's perfectly possible, although absurdly improbable.

Dick says the same thing often about the notion that there is a purpose: it's possible, but improbable. Yet he never, not once, backs this up with any reasoning whatsoever. He states it as though it's self evident, just like Richard Dawkins does, but it does require explanation.

But he never explains. He just drops it there - the very definition of an argument from personal incredulity. "It's incredibly improbable" he says, and then considers his job done. It's not.

I've pointed out the reasons I find happenstance improbable a number of time.

We exist.

He has never once sought to qualify what he is basing his incredulity on.

Perhaps he'd like to start now?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:24PM by TheThorn.
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 01:09AM
Thorn, Re: "What is the reason to believe that there isn't?"

Well, there's absence of evidence but you don't like that one so how about the fact that I can make the rational claim that it is possible that no gods or purposes exist but you can't rationally make the claim that gods or purposes possibly exist without ruling out self-contradiction. Just think about that. You can never know if your made up purposething is a square circle or not so therefore you cannot rationally say you know it is possible. Think, man! I have more reasons, too, if you want to hear them but I predict you won't like them either.
Quote
Sam
Thorn, Re: "What is the reason to believe that there isn't?"

Well, there's absence of evidence but you don't like that one so how about the fact that I can make the rational claim that it is possible that no gods or purposes exist but you can't rationally make the claim that gods or purposes possibly exist without ruling out self-contradiction. Just think about that. You can never know if your made up purposething is a square circle or not so therefore you cannot rationally say you know it is possible. Think, man! I have more reasons, too, if you want to hear them but I predict you won't like them either.

I'm still really not getting your square circle shtick Sam, you need to dig down into it a bit more to make it clearer.

And again, for the umpteenth time, I have no "purposething".

I simply don't believe in the happenstance theory. What the alternative is, I don't know.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm off to bed. Night.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 01:16AM by TheThorn.
A coherent concept will always be coherent Sam, unless one adds to it eg in the future you can't rule out God as a square circle nonsense...

#tension
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 02:10AM
I can't simplify it any more for you simpletons. Just think. None of us believe in AbrahamicGod, right? We all believe it doesn't exist, right? We all know it doesn't exist, right? Why? Primarily because it is self-contradictory, right? We know enough about it to know this. Since it's self-contradictory, it is logically impossible to exist. Right?? The exact same thing applies to the purpose or God or godthing or whateverthefuckelse you want to pull out of thin air and say it possibly exists. The difference is that since you made up your godthing with no attributes or qualities or characteristics AT ALL, no one can everever know if this thing you invented is self-contradicting and, therefore, it is irrational for you to claim it is possible. You can't know that.

Perhaps if you boys were to DEFINE this purposeGod of yours we could figure out if it self-contradicts or not. What? You can't know any of its attributes even if it does exist?? Then sorry but you can nevereverever rationally claim it is possible that it exists. I can't believe you MightHeads can't wrap it around this. Your whole schtick is to say anyone who believes anything is irrational and since you don't believe anything apparently you can consider yourself rational, lol. Well, newsflash, If what we believe/know to be true is faithbased then so is everything about your "approach" (since you are allergic to belief). To make up an entity that has no source, no cause or effect, no characteristics is about as irrational as it gets but what I don't get is Why? Why even contemplate a being who is for all intents and purposes exactly like a nonbeing. Weird.
Sam wrote:

I can't simplify it any more for you simpletons. Just think.

None of us believe in AbrahamicGod, right? ---correct! thumbs up

We all believe it doesn't exist, right? ---correct! thumbs up

We all know it doesn't exist, right?---Wrong! thumbs down

Why? Primarily because it is self-contradictory---Wrong! thumbs down

Ya got two out of for right! Not bad! smileys with beer
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 03:24AM
You don't know the Abrahamic God does not exist?? Do you know Thor does not exist?
Depending on what you mean by 'know', that is, without getting into it's meaning in the strict epistemological sense, I'd be willing to say that I know Thor doesn't exist in the common way "know" is used, that is, based on my understanding of the nature of Thor, whose nature is pretty uncomplicated, I know (confidently believe) that Thor doesn't exist. The nature of the Abrahamic God, however, is far, far more complex, unless of course you're talking about the character described by fundamentalists and biblical literalists. I readily acknowledge that I do not have a deep enough understanding of the nature of the Abrahamic God to say I 'know' such doesn't exist in the same sense that I say I know Thor doesn't exist. At the same time, the evidence for the Abrahamic God's existence is insufficient to generate a belief that he does exist.
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 06:30AM
He? Lol, really? You don't have the same confidence that Abe's God doesn't exist that you have that Thor doesn't exist? So again we see how there is a special case exception when it comes to people's favorite gods. Wow, well, no use trying to figure out godthings since you are still stuck on TheOneTrueGodThing, lol...From everything we know about Abe's God it is certainly self-contradictory and therefore impossible to exist. You should start there and work up to other made up godthings that you know nothing about.
Why? Primarily because it is self-contradictory, right?

No. Not at all. Many Christians have created a consistent world view; we just reject it because it seems so wrong.

Right?? The exact same thing applies to the purpose or God or godthing or whateverthefuckelse you want to pull out of thin air and say it possibly exists

Good God no. That's jacked. Nobody seriously argues Theology or teleology isn't meaningful...

characteristics AT ALL, no one can everever know if this thing you invented is self-contradicting

This is so jacked. A concept is either meaningful or nonsense. Logically possible or impossible. If something is meaningful now it will always be meaningful.

Perhaps if you boys were to DEFINE this purposeGod of yours we could figure out if it self-contradicts or not.

Perhaps if you payed attention. When you claim x is improbable you imply x is meaningful and logically possible.

Then sorry but you can nevereverever rationally claim it is possible that it exists.

Jacked. You're not making sense... See?

ut as irrational as it gets but what I don't get is Why? Why even contemplate a being who is for all intents and purposes exactly like a nonbeing. Weird.

We can't tutor you here Sam if you know nothing of ontology, metaphysics, hell philosophy in general you should study some more...
.From everything we know about Abe's God it is certainly self-contradictory and therefore impossible to exist.

Go. Seriously do it... I would be impressed if you could...
Quote
Sam
None of us believe in AbrahamicGod, right? We all believe it doesn't exist, right?

Sure.

Quote

We all know it doesn't exist, right? Why? Primarily because it is self-contradictory, right? We know enough about it to know this. Since it's self-contradictory, it is logically impossible to exist. Right??

No. We know that the Bible contradicts itself in places, but it could be that some of the Bible is right and some is wrong, and Yahweh is real.

The reason we don't believe in it is because there is no evidence for it.

Quote

The exact same thing applies to the purpose or God or godthing or whateverthefuckelse you want to pull out of thin air and say it possibly exists. The difference is that since you made up your godthing with no attributes or qualities or characteristics AT ALL, no one can everever know if this thing you invented is self-contradicting and, therefore, it is irrational for you to claim it is possible. You can't know that.

Perhaps if you boys were to DEFINE this purposeGod of yours we could figure out if it self-contradicts or not. What? You can't know any of its attributes even if it does exist?? Then sorry but you can nevereverever rationally claim it is possible that it exists.

If it exists, it is not self-contradicting.

I don't understand why you are having a problem with this.

Does this work:

It is possible that there are species of creature on earth that have not yet been discovered by man.

However those creatures could be square circles or married bachelors.

Therefore it is not possible that there are species of creature on earth that have not yet been discovered by man.

Does it make any sense?

No, it is complete nonsense. Can we move on now please?

Quote

I can't believe you MightHeads can't wrap it around this. Your whole schtick is to say anyone who believes anything is irrational and since you don't believe anything apparently you can consider yourself rational, lol. Well, newsflash, If what we believe/know to be true is faithbased then so is everything about your "approach" (since you are allergic to belief). To make up an entity that has no source, no cause or effect, no characteristics is about as irrational as it gets but what I don't get is Why? Why even contemplate a being who is for all intents and purposes exactly like a nonbeing. Weird.

Imagine someone puts a large closed box down and says to three people "there is either something in here, or there isn't. What do you believe?".

One person says "there is no evidence that there is anything in the box, therefore there is nothing in the box", the second says "I believe there is something in that box, and it's a birthday cake with pink frosting", the third says "there is no way to know if there is anything in the box or not, so there is no point trying to answer the question".

Which one is being rational?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:43PM by TheThorn.
Quote
Sam Wrote:
From everything we know about Abe's God it is certainly self-contradictory and therefore impossible to exist. You should start there and work up to other made up godthings that you know nothing about.

Ya think so? You really know that everything about "Abe's God" is contradictory? Remember what I said,"The nature of the Abrahamic God, however, is far, far more complex, unless of course you're talking about the character described by fundamentalists and biblical literalists. I readily acknowledge that I do not have a deep enough understanding of the nature of the Abrahamic God to say I 'know' such doesn't exist in the same sense that I say I know Thor doesn't exist. At the same time, the evidence [that I'm aware of] for the Abrahamic God's existence is insufficient to generate a belief that he does exist."

Do you know much about the Abrahamic God? Do you really have a thorough understanding or even a fairly good idea of the various Jewish scholars understanding of 'God' down through the ages and today? Take Martin Buber, for instance, what would you say were the contradictions in his understanding of the Abrahamic God?

If you're talking about the image of the Abrahamic God as described in the bible stories from your Sunday school classes, then of course my belief in that character is the equal to my belief in Thor or any of the other mythical characters called God or gods that I know of, that is, I believe they do not exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 03:10PM by islander.
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 04:14PM
Isle, When I say Abe's God, of course I'm talking about the character from the babble. So, that's great, we are on the same page about that silly nonexistent god, right? Any other sort of god is what we are calling a godthing which you are having trouble describing except to say it's veryveryveryveryvery complex. How do you know this? How do you know it is not self-contradicting? You don't and can't. Therefore it is irrational to say it's possible. You are irrational. Your beliefs are completely faithbased.

Tuk, There is nothing consistent with a xians "worldview" if it includes worshiping an impossible being or even a highly improbable one. It's crazy. Philosophy is meaningless to me. It's an endless circle jerk with no happy ending. A complete and utter waste of time. Don't get me wrong. I love wasting time here sometimes but it doesn't make it meaningful. It's just to battle boredom. Made up godthings are meaningless as well. They explain nothing and only add an unnecessary aspect to any theory about the nature of reality. Why do you think it's so important to figure out hypothetical beings, worlds, universes? How does that give your life meaning or give meaning to life in general? I don't see it. Yeah, back in the days of ignorance maybe but now?

"When you claim x is improbable you imply x is meaningful and logically possible."

If I was claiming x is merely improbable then, yes, that might be the case but that's not all I'm claiming. I'm claiming no rational person can believe x is logically possible if they can't rule out self-contradiction. Everyone but the most delusional have ruled out the BabbleGod because it is obviously self-contradictory. People who believe in self-contradicting entities are in complete denial about their cognitive dissonance. Or maybe they have no cognition to speak of, idk. Oh, wait, you don't believe the BabbleGod is self-contradicting?? You've never heard the paradox of the stone? Here ya go: " If a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task which this being is unable to perform; hence, this being cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if this being cannot create a task that it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do." This is self-contradiction. How can you believe this thing possibly exists?
If I was claiming x is merely improbable then, yes, that might be the case but that's not all I'm claiming. I'm claiming no rational person can believe x is logically possible if they can't rule out self-contradiction

This doesn't make sense. You can't say something is possibly incoherent. The example you gave was how can you know that sometime in the future your God is not a square circle? That question is nonsense. It has no meaning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2015 04:33PM by tuk22.
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 04:56PM
Your godthings have no meaning. Why don't you just buck up and admit your agnosticism must extend to possibilities as well as to probabilities? You cannot know if your hypothetical god is logically possible if you can't rule out that it is self-contradictory. It must be defined! You invented it, you define it and then we will be able to determine if it's self-contradictory like the babblegod is. Don't worry, since you made it up you get to tell us what it's characteristics are and you can set it up so that it isn't self-contradictory (can't you?). THEN once we've established it's logically possible to exist we can argue about whether or not it's existence is probable or not, lol...
Quote
Sam
Your godthings have no meaning. Why don't you just buck up and admit your agnosticism must extend to possibilities as well as to probabilities? You cannot know if your hypothetical god is logically possible if you can't rule out that it is self-contradictory. It must be defined! You invented it, you define it and then we will be able to determine if it's self-contradictory like the babblegod is. Don't worry, since you made it up you get to tell us what it's characteristics are and you can set it up so that it isn't self-contradictory (can't you?). THEN once we've established it's logically possible to exist we can argue about whether or not it's existence is probable or not, lol...

I'm sorry Sam, I still can't make head nor tail of your logic.

If something does exist, it is not going to be self-contradictory.
Your not making any sense Sam... (See a pattern here?)

There was a Christian I was debating awhile back that was trying to tell me God can do something that was logically impossible. He told me that if God couldn't do something logically impossible it would be a weakness and God wouldn't be all powerful.
Sam
Re: Towards a constructive and meaningful conversation on the fundamental nature of the universe
February 27, 2015 05:28PM
*you're

You guys are claiming it's rational to believe gods possibly exist and I'm just saying that you are irrational if you believe that because there is no way to know if your godthing is a married bachelor. Just say you can't know if they are possibly existent or not. You insist we strong atheists are irrational if we say we believe gods don't exist because we can't know such a thing or the probabilities that such a thing exists. It's the same thing. Prove this godthing is not the self-contradictory god of the babble that no sane person believes is possible to exist!
Quote
Sam
*you're

You guys are claiming it's rational to believe gods possibly exist and I'm just saying that you are irrational if you believe that because there is no way to know if your godthing is a married bachelor. Just say you can't know if they are possibly existent or not. You insist we strong atheists are irrational if we say we believe gods don't exist because we can't know such a thing or the probabilities that such a thing exists. It's the same thing. Prove this godthing is not the self-contradictory god of the babble that no sane person believes is possible to exist!

Simple: it is impossible for an actual thing to be self-contradictory. Therefore if there was a purpose to the universe, it would not be self-contradictory.

How's that?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum

Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!