[Merged] Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? - Page 10

MRC_Hans · 9th May 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

please explain why you discard creationist sources.

I am highly suspicious of Creationist sources, because I have very often found them to be imprecise or outright dishonest.

Hans

godless dave · 9th May 2012, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Ive said already at this topic, i believe God is UNCAUSED, ETERNAL, WITHOUT BEGINNING, AND WITHOUT A END. Something must have existed forever. For a simple reason. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

Please present the evidence that God is uncaused.

MRC_Hans · 9th May 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

The God i believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. He just is.

The universe I believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. It just is.

That was easy.

Hans

joobz · 9th May 2012, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Why should it not? We know of numerous codes that have a non-intelligent origin. (e.g. tree rings).

There is no law saying that a code information must have an intelligent origin. (I know Creationists like to claim just that, but they are provably wrong).

Hans

Don't forget that where water settles is also coded information. It identifies local elevational minimum.

Lithrael · 9th May 2012, 07:26 AM

Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of *everything* to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here.

I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark?

MRC_Hans · 9th May 2012, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Carbon chemistry

Quote:

Quote:
Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

Two points:

1) This figure is an estimate based on unknown premises: Nobody knows exactly how much the various parameters can vary. We also don't know how many universes exist/have existed.

2) Assuming it is correct: We are a carbon-based life form. In which of all those universes would a carbon-based life-form contemplate and discuss this?
- Right. Exactly the one that has the conditions for carbon-based life forms.

Hans

catsmate1 · 9th May 2012, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Detailed refutations of this rubbish by Tremblay, Gijsbers, Iron Chariots, Sarkar and others.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I bet he's fun at parties.

But does be bend spoons?

MRC_Hans · 9th May 2012, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

There is a common knowledge to all humans, which do not have to learn, that kill, steal, cheat, betray, torture etc. of others is a bad thing to do. Where does this knowledge come from ?

Please provide evidence that this is not a learned behaviour.
However, even if some of it is, it is a natural product of evolution. For a flock animal, destructive behaviour towards the flock is detrimental to survival.

Hans

joobz · 9th May 2012, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of *everything* to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here.

I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark?

As I understand it, mostly. Yet, it should be added that we do not even know if there is "something" in which the universe sits in as we have no current way to probe "beyond" such a thing. So we are left with the big honking gigantic super unknown. This is where GIBHOR think's God is.
This is also where Lovecraft said the Elder god's live. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which one is right.

In this way, the most honest theistic position is a deist one. to go beyond that to a god that interacts with the world starts to create a testable hypothesis for god, which has never fared well for any religion.

Foster Zygote · 9th May 2012, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Lithrael

Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of *everything* to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here.

I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark?

Right. Einstein showed that space and time are essentially the same thing. Why we experience them the way we do is a mystery, but time is a direction just like up and down are. As Robert Heinlein once put it (he may have been borrowing from someone else), we can think of ourselves as "long, pink worms" in the time dimension. But we perceive of ourselves as three dimensional slices moving through the fourth dimension of time. It's just much easier to get our limited brains around the idea of two dimensional beings perceiving themselves as moving through a third temporal dimension. But there's nothing to suggest that there is any such thing as 'before' the universe. Even if the universe originated do to an even that happened at a discrete moment within another universe, say a collision of branes or the formation of a black hole, the temporal dimension of that other universe doesn't really apply to this one. So GIBHOR's concept of an eternity of nothing preceding the existence of our universe is based on a common, but none the less erroneous, misconception that time must be eternal and that it exists independently of the universe.

Hokulele · 9th May 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

No. You are wrong.

No, you are wrong. A quantum vacuum really is nothing. What many people do not realize is that the word "quantum" does not refer to a thing, but to the scale at which something is observed. "Quanta" refers to a measurement, and was originally thought up to refer to the fact that energy isn't a continuum, but appears to exist in discrete, well, packets, for the lack of a better term.

Quote:

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . .

All they have done here is to redefine the word "nothing" to mean "something". By this argument, there is no such thing as absolute nothing. It is a physical impossibility. Therefore, we don't have to worry about anything coming from nothing, because there can never be a state of absolute nothing. So kudos to them, they have just made a creator god completely unneccessary by defining away the only condition that would require one.

Foster Zygote · 9th May 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by joobz

As I understand it, mostly. Yet, it should be added that we do not even know if there is "something" in which the universe sits in as we have no current way to probe "beyond" such a thing. So we are left with the big honking gigantic super unknown. This is where GIBHOR think's God is.
This is also where Lovecraft said the Elder god's live. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which one is right.

In this way, the most honest theistic position is a deist one. to go beyond that to a god that interacts with the world starts to create a testable hypothesis for god, which has never fared well for any religion.

Exactly. We can speculate about possible explanations for what we observe regarding the ultimate nature of our universe based on what we can observe within it, but presently the only honest answer is a profession of ignorance. GIBHOR seems to believe that admitting ignorance in the face of insufficient evidence is unacceptable, and that therefor any assertion, however baseless, is superior simply because it fills the gap of ignorance with something. Imagine if Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton had thought this way.

marplots · 9th May 2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

Quote:

The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’,

This is worth looking at. Can I assume then that supernaturalists agree there are at least some subsets of the world that do not contain the supernatural so that while not "exhausted by nature," we can at least determine the natural laws for, say, constructing a computer?

If that's the case, then we only want to see just how big the subset can be -- how far can we extend the borders? My contention is we don't know how far yet, but at least as far as we've come to this point.

On that, you bring up what seems to be a notable example of where naturalism fails us:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

I did not say DNA IS a code. I said it CONTAINS codified information, similar to a computer code, or a book. How could it have a " natural " aka non intelligent origin ?

And that's a good challenge. I'll start by claiming that nature is intelligent, at least in the way we recognize intelligent. Nature always knows which way is up. Nature always knows to make a flipped penny obey statistical laws. Nature is so smart that we haven't yet been able to fool it.

What nature doesn't have, and what a God requires, is not intelligence, but another trait of humans. Capriciousness. DNA is a regular phenomenon that follows the laws of chemistry. It isn't simply a one-off that works differently in different people. It's not capricious or whimsical. It doesn't bear the stamp of God.

Nature is intelligent and follows rules. God is intelligent but isn't constrained by rules. We are told He makes up the rules as He sees fit. The idea of God was more powerful when we didn't recognize the rules behind natural phenomena and becomes less powerful as we learn more of them.

There are other aspects of natural law that make it a contender to replace ideas about God. It is everywhere and at all times. It is eternal. It is just in the sense that the laws are equally applied to all men. It is omniscient in that you can't trick it. It has a plan neither we, nor the rest of the universe, can escape. What we can do is understand this plan and operate under its auspices. The more we do so, the more we thrive. The more we struggle against it, the more we fail.

I present you with a new God -- Momma Nature. Obey her, for you do not have the power to not obey her.

Oh, one other attribute. She doesn't care if you worship her or not. Unlike God 1.0, She's above all that -- sorry, but She doesn't care about you. She's got a whole universe to run.

Lowpro · 9th May 2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

its said that odds above one to 10^50 will never happen.....would you bet us$ 100,00 on a lottery with that kind of chance to win ?

I'd stake your life on someone winning...

Paulhoff · 9th May 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

The God i believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. He just is.

How convenient for you, so saying that, your idea of a god answers nothing seeing that it can be anything you want it to be, it is useless.

Paul

Lowpro · 9th May 2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

How convenient for you, so saying that, your idea of a god answers nothing seeing that it can be anything you want it to be, it is useless.

Paul

Even better, that's not the God of the Bible either. What's GIBHOR gonna do if he really meets YHWH, because his name is Jealous ya know...

Quote:

]What nature doesn't have, and what a God requires, is not intelligence, but another trait of humans. Capriciousness. DNA is a regular phenomenon that follows the laws of chemistry. It isn't simply a one-off that works differently in different people. It's not capricious or whimsical. It doesn't bear the stamp of God.

Coulda just said entropy :P

rocketdodger · 9th May 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

well, i have a very defined way to understand who God is:

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

Ok, but all of those attributes are logically inconsistent with each other.

So if you ask "why is naturalism a better view" it is simply because naturalism, by definition, contains no logical inconsistencies.

If you don't agree that logic should be put on such a pedestal that is fine, I don't think people should be forced to think such a thing.

But in that case, I would ask how you think the world should work. If you want people to lead happier lives, and suffer less, then you need science and logical thought -- otherwise we would be like the peasants in the Dark Ages ( and if you think those people were better off than we are, then we have nothing to talk about ). But how are people to embrace logic when they are asked to ignore logic as soon as they bring God into the picture? It just doesn't make sense.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by realpaladin

You need to absolutely provide proof that in Nature nothing ever could arise from nothing..

its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

You've been asked to present evidence for your uncaused being. When will you be doing that?

at this thread, never. Its not the subject of this topic.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Yes, you've asserted it. When will you be presenting evidence for it? You've already been proven wrong on your last statement, even though you've ignored it. When will you be addressing that?

how about you present something, that can arise from absolutely nothing ? good luck on that.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

In which college text on statistics is this said?

may you have a look at borels law.

aggle-rithm · 9th May 2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

The same reason I believe water is the best explanation for being wet.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

As has been pointed out to you several times arleady, that last statement is wrong.

why is it wrong ?

Quote:

It has been experimentally found that you can get something from nothing.

really ? amazing !! thats worse than magic.......

Quote:

Hence the very assumption on which you base your god is not correct.

no, its not.

Quote:

Furthermore, even if something has existed forever, why would it be intelligent?

http://www.carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence

Quote:

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God.

Quote:

Lastly, naturalistic explanations have given us the technological and medical base without which current society would literally not exist.

So ?

Quote:

While the scientific methods might not have given us every answer yet, there is no reason to assume that any answer is totally beyond reach.

why do you believe that ?

Quote:

Maybe WE won't get to know them, but our descendants might. What answers has religion given us? What predictive value has god?

science cannot explain us why we are here, the value and meanding of life, for example......

RoboTimbo · 9th May 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

at this thread, never. Its not the subject of this topic.

Yes, it is the subject of this thread. You brought your god(s) into it so it is the subject of this thread. You do realize that you have an untenable position so wish to avoid any talk of evidence for your assertions.

When will you be providing evidence for your assertion of an uncaused being?

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth

Plus, you really have to watch out that you do not unwittingly cannibalize your own arguments, e.g. that all of a sudden it is apparantly possible for stuff to come from nothing. I mean, creation ex nihilo, huh??

what alternative do you propose ?

Hokulele · 9th May 2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything.

And, given the quotes you cited previously, absolute nothing cannot exist, so there is no problem to be solved, and a creator god is completely unneccessary. Your authorities have managed to define god out of existence. Yay!

JoeBentley · 9th May 2012, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what alternative do you propose ?

False dichotomy.

godless dave · 9th May 2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision

That doesn't follow at all. Decisions can't make matter and energy change and arrange themselves into something new either.

RoboTimbo · 9th May 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

how about you present something, that can arise from absolutely nothing ? good luck on that.

Describe the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing.

joobz · 9th May 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything.

Well, then. God still doesn't explain it.

As I stated. If we accept the idea that something can't come from nothing, and we accept that there was nothing before the universe, then the universe couldn't have been created.

Even if you say "god did it", that means god would have created something from nothing, which you just said couldn't happen.

Now, perhaps you wish to imbue god with magical powers that can create something from nothing. But if that were to happen, then your initial premise is false in that Something CAN come from nothing.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Please present the evidence that God is uncaused.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html

Quote:

there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. There must have been a first, uncaused cause which started the chain of events that resulted in the present state of the universe. Since we observe that things in the physical universe don't pop into existence of their own accord, it makes more sense to posit that the first cause is an entity like God who is not bound by the physical universe and its laws.

GIBHOR · 9th May 2012, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

The universe I believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. It just is.

That was easy.

Hans

any scientific evidence to back up your claim?

godless dave · 9th May 2012, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html

You've just provided an argument that the universe is uncaused.

Lowpro · 9th May 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

You've just provided an argument that the universe is uncaused.

Not only that, but it's demonstrably true too. What's even worse is that to posit God as a better explanation doesn't work as God doesn't have these attributes we give Him or at least what GIBHOR gives him. God is never not bound to the physical universe and its laws. That's never been a claim of God in the Bible. To argue that He is means you aren't talking about YHWH, you're talking about another God.

And STILL God is a useless part of the argument. He's unrequired. Again GIBHOR:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

its said that odds above one to 10^50 will never happen.....would you bet us$ 100,00 on a lottery with that kind of chance to win ?

Someone's going to win that lottery, I'd stake your life on it.

godless dave · 9th May 2012, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

any scientific evidence to back up your claim?

Any scientific evidence to back up your claim that God is eternal and uncaused?

Mashuna · 9th May 2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html

That's neither evidence nor logic.

Wowbagger · 9th May 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

science cannot explain us why we are here, the value and meanding of life, for example......

Abiogenesis and evolution can tell us WHY we are here.

Various aspects of science, such as Game Theory, survival strategies (an aspect of evolution), economics, the history of human rights development, and the burgeoning Science of Morality can help us understand the VALUE of human life.
(And, in much greater detail than anything that comes out of religions! Especially in a world changing against the grain of religious assumptions.)

As for the MEANING of life: That is for you to decide! You have the priviledge and the "luck" to be able to decide, for yourself, what you want the meaning of your life to be! We all have that priviledge, in fact! NO ONE should be forced to have their "meaning" decided for them!

Lord Emsworth · 9th May 2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what alternative do you propose ?

Alternative?? Alternative to what?

Agatha · 9th May 2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html

Quote:

there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. There must have been a first, uncaused cause which started the chain of events that resulted in the present state of the universe. Since we observe that things in the physical universe don't pop into existence of their own accord, it makes more sense to posit that the first cause is an entity like God who is not bound by the physical universe and its laws.

Why must there be a first uncaused event? Just because you say so?
And things in the physical universe do pop into existence of their own accord, as you've been informed upthread by Lukrak_Sisser. That you have dismissed real science as "worse than magic" speaks volumes as to your motives here. You are closing your mind to science where it conflicts with your beliefs, which is the antithesis of scepticism.

JoeBentley · 9th May 2012, 01:46 PM

Yet again asking questions that people can't answer doesn't always make you the wise old man on the mountain. Sometimes it means your question is meaningless.

9th May 2012, 07:19 AM	#361
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by GIBHOR please explain why you discard creationist sources. I am highly suspicious of Creationist sources, because I have very often found them to be imprecise or outright dishonest. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th May 2012, 07:21 AM	#362
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,122	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Ive said already at this topic, i believe God is UNCAUSED, ETERNAL, WITHOUT BEGINNING, AND WITHOUT A END. Something must have existed forever. For a simple reason. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Please present the evidence that God is uncaused.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

9th May 2012, 07:22 AM	#363
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by GIBHOR The God i believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. He just is. The universe I believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. It just is. That was easy. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th May 2012, 07:22 AM	#364
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Why should it not? We know of numerous codes that have a non-intelligent origin. (e.g. tree rings). There is no law saying that a code information must have an intelligent origin. (I know Creationists like to claim just that, but they are provably wrong). Hans Don't forget that where water settles is also coded information. It identifies local elevational minimum.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

9th May 2012, 07:26 AM	#365
Lithrael Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 773	Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of everything to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here. I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark?
Lithrael Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 773

9th May 2012, 07:30 AM	#366
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by GIBHOR http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html Carbon chemistry Quote: Quote: Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0. Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1 Two points: 1) This figure is an estimate based on unknown premises: Nobody knows exactly how much the various parameters can vary. We also don't know how many universes exist/have existed. 2) Assuming it is correct: We are a carbon-based life form. In which of all those universes would a carbon-based life-form contemplate and discuss this? - Right. Exactly the one that has the conditions for carbon-based life forms. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th May 2012, 07:34 AM	#367
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,095	Originally Posted by GIBHOR <snippage of irrelevant quotes mined by Strobel and other IDiots> Detailed refutations of this rubbish by Tremblay, Gijsbers, Iron Chariots, Sarkar and others. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim I bet he's fun at parties. But does be bend spoons?

9th May 2012, 07:36 AM	#368
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,600	Originally Posted by GIBHOR There is a common knowledge to all humans, which do not have to learn, that kill, steal, cheat, betray, torture etc. of others is a bad thing to do. Where does this knowledge come from ? Please provide evidence that this is not a learned behaviour. However, even if some of it is, it is a natural product of evolution. For a flock animal, destructive behaviour towards the flock is detrimental to survival. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

9th May 2012, 07:52 AM	#369
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by Lithrael Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of everything to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here. I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark? As I understand it, mostly. Yet, it should be added that we do not even know if there is "something" in which the universe sits in as we have no current way to probe "beyond" such a thing. So we are left with the big honking gigantic super unknown. This is where GIBHOR think's God is. This is also where Lovecraft said the Elder god's live. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which one is right. In this way, the most honest theistic position is a deist one. to go beyond that to a god that interacts with the world starts to create a testable hypothesis for god, which has never fared well for any religion.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

9th May 2012, 08:07 AM	#370
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,382	Originally Posted by Lithrael Foster Zygote, what you're describing with that model is basically time as a property of the universe rather than something the universe exists in? So that, (even more drastically oversimplifed) if there was some kind of outside of everything to observe from, you could say, here's the universe, it goes from here to here top to bottom, and here to here past to future, about yey big. And that thing you are looking at may well have 'always' been here. I know trying to oversimplify stuff that far can end up confusing the actual issues but am I in the right ballpark? Right. Einstein showed that space and time are essentially the same thing. Why we experience them the way we do is a mystery, but time is a direction just like up and down are. As Robert Heinlein once put it (he may have been borrowing from someone else), we can think of ourselves as "long, pink worms" in the time dimension. But we perceive of ourselves as three dimensional slices moving through the fourth dimension of time. It's just much easier to get our limited brains around the idea of two dimensional beings perceiving themselves as moving through a third temporal dimension. But there's nothing to suggest that there is any such thing as 'before' the universe. Even if the universe originated do to an even that happened at a discrete moment within another universe, say a collision of branes or the formation of a black hole, the temporal dimension of that other universe doesn't really apply to this one. So GIBHOR's concept of an eternity of nothing preceding the existence of our universe is based on a common, but none the less erroneous, misconception that time must be eternal and that it exists independently of the universe.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

9th May 2012, 08:16 AM	#371
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	Originally Posted by GIBHOR No. You are wrong. No, you are wrong. A quantum vacuum really is nothing. What many people do not realize is that the word "quantum" does not refer to a thing, but to the scale at which something is observed. "Quanta" refers to a measurement, and was originally thought up to refer to the fact that energy isn't a continuum, but appears to exist in discrete, well, packets, for the lack of a better term. Quote: John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . All they have done here is to redefine the word "nothing" to mean "something". By this argument, *there is no such thing as absolute nothing*. It is a physical impossibility. Therefore, we don't have to worry about anything coming from nothing, because there can never be a state of absolute nothing. So kudos to them, they have just made a creator god completely unneccessary by defining away the only condition that would require one.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

9th May 2012, 08:20 AM	#372
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,382	Originally Posted by joobz As I understand it, mostly. Yet, it should be added that we do not even know if there is "something" in which the universe sits in as we have no current way to probe "beyond" such a thing. So we are left with the big honking gigantic super unknown. This is where GIBHOR think's God is. This is also where Lovecraft said the Elder god's live. The problem is, we have no way of knowing which one is right. In this way, the most honest theistic position is a deist one. to go beyond that to a god that interacts with the world starts to create a testable hypothesis for god, which has never fared well for any religion. Exactly. We can speculate about possible explanations for what we observe regarding the ultimate nature of our universe based on what we can observe within it, but presently the only honest answer is a profession of ignorance. GIBHOR seems to believe that admitting ignorance in the face of insufficient evidence is unacceptable, and that therefor any assertion, however baseless, is superior simply because it fills the gap of ignorance with something. Imagine if Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton had thought this way.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

9th May 2012, 09:54 AM	#373
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,358	Originally Posted by GIBHOR http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ Quote: The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed ‘naturalists’ from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’, This is worth looking at. Can I assume then that supernaturalists agree there are at least some subsets of the world that do not contain the supernatural so that while not "exhausted by nature," we can at least determine the natural laws for, say, constructing a computer? If that's the case, then we only want to see just how big the subset can be -- how far can we extend the borders? My contention is we don't know how far yet, but at least as far as we've come to this point. On that, you bring up what seems to be a notable example of where naturalism fails us: Originally Posted by GIBHOR I did not say DNA IS a code. I said it CONTAINS codified information, similar to a computer code, or a book. How could it have a " natural " aka non intelligent origin ? And that's a good challenge. I'll start by claiming that nature is intelligent, at least in the way we recognize intelligent. Nature always knows which way is up. Nature always knows to make a flipped penny obey statistical laws. Nature is so smart that we haven't yet been able to fool it. What nature doesn't have, and what a God requires, is not intelligence, but another trait of humans. Capriciousness. DNA is a regular phenomenon that follows the laws of chemistry. It isn't simply a one-off that works differently in different people. It's not capricious or whimsical. It doesn't bear the stamp of God. Nature is intelligent and follows rules. God is intelligent but isn't constrained by rules. We are told He makes up the rules as He sees fit. The idea of God was more powerful when we didn't recognize the rules behind natural phenomena and becomes less powerful as we learn more of them. There are other aspects of natural law that make it a contender to replace ideas about God. It is everywhere and at all times. It is eternal. It is just in the sense that the laws are equally applied to all men. It is omniscient in that you can't trick it. It has a plan neither we, nor the rest of the universe, can escape. What we can do is understand this plan and operate under its auspices. The more we do so, the more we thrive. The more we struggle against it, the more we fail. I present you with a new God -- Momma Nature. Obey her, for you do not have the power to not obey her. Oh, one other attribute. She doesn't care if you worship her or not. Unlike God 1.0, She's above all that -- sorry, but She doesn't care about you. She's got a whole universe to run.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,358	Last edited by marplots; 9th May 2012 at 09:57 AM.

9th May 2012, 09:57 AM	#374
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,517	Originally Posted by GIBHOR its said that odds above one to 10^50 will never happen.....would you bet us$ 100,00 on a lottery with that kind of chance to win ? I'd stake your life on someone winning...
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

9th May 2012, 09:59 AM	#375
Paulhoff You can't expect perfection. Join Date: May 2005 Location: South Florida Posts: 12,570	Originally Posted by GIBHOR The God i believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. He just is. How convenient for you, so saying that, your idea of a god answers nothing seeing that it can be anything you want it to be, it is useless. Paul
	__________________ For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST" Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing

9th May 2012, 10:00 AM	#376
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,517	Originally Posted by Paulhoff How convenient for you, so saying that, your idea of a god answers nothing seeing that it can be anything you want it to be, it is useless. Paul Even better, that's not the God of the Bible either. What's GIBHOR gonna do if he really meets YHWH, because his name is Jealous ya know... Quote: ]What nature doesn't have, and what a God requires, is not intelligence, but another trait of humans. Capriciousness. DNA is a regular phenomenon that follows the laws of chemistry. It isn't simply a one-off that works differently in different people. It's not capricious or whimsical. It doesn't bear the stamp of God. Coulda just said entropy :P
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 9th May 2012 at 10:02 AM.

9th May 2012, 10:39 AM	#377
rocketdodger Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hyperion Posts: 6,668	Originally Posted by GIBHOR well, i have a very defined way to understand who God is: God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal. Ok, but all of those attributes are logically inconsistent with each other. So if you ask "why is naturalism a better view" it is simply because naturalism, by definition, contains no logical inconsistencies. If you don't agree that logic should be put on such a pedestal that is fine, I don't think people should be forced to think such a thing. But in that case, I would ask how you think the world should work. If you want people to lead happier lives, and suffer less, then you need science and logical thought -- otherwise we would be like the peasants in the Dark Ages ( and if you think those people were better off than we are, then we have nothing to talk about ). But how are people to embrace logic when they are asked to ignore logic as soon as they bring God into the picture? It just doesn't make sense.

9th May 2012, 10:52 AM	#378
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by realpaladin You need to absolutely provide proof that in Nature nothing ever could arise from nothing.. its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 10:54 AM	#379
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo You've been asked to present evidence for your uncaused being. When will you be doing that? at this thread, never. Its not the subject of this topic.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 10:55 AM	#380
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Yes, you've asserted it. When will you be presenting evidence for it? You've already been proven wrong on your last statement, even though you've ignored it. When will you be addressing that? how about you present something, that can arise from absolutely nothing ? good luck on that.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 10:56 AM	#381
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo In which college text on statistics is this said? may you have a look at borels law.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 10:57 AM	#382
aggle-rithm Ardent Formulist Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 14,149	Originally Posted by GIBHOR Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ? The same reason I believe water is the best explanation for being wet.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

9th May 2012, 11:02 AM	#383
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser As has been pointed out to you several times arleady, that last statement is wrong. why is it wrong ? Quote: It has been experimentally found that you can get something from nothing. really ? amazing !! thats worse than magic....... Quote: Hence the very assumption on which you base your god is not correct. no, its not. Quote: Furthermore, even if something has existed forever, why would it be intelligent? http://www.carm.org/failure-atheism-account-existence Quote: Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being who we call God. Quote: Lastly, naturalistic explanations have given us the technological and medical base without which current society would literally not exist. So ? Quote: While the scientific methods might not have given us every answer yet, there is no reason to assume that any answer is totally beyond reach. why do you believe that ? Quote: Maybe WE won't get to know them, but our descendants might. What answers has religion given us? What predictive value has god? science cannot explain us why we are here, the value and meanding of life, for example......
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 11:04 AM	#384
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,829	Originally Posted by GIBHOR at this thread, never. Its not the subject of this topic. Yes, it is the subject of this thread. You brought your god(s) into it so it is the subject of this thread. You do realize that you have an untenable position so wish to avoid any talk of evidence for your assertions. When will you be providing evidence for your assertion of an uncaused being?

9th May 2012, 11:05 AM	#385
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by Lord Emsworth Plus, you really have to watch out that you do not unwittingly cannibalize your own arguments, e.g. that all of a sudden it is apparantly possible for stuff to come from nothing. I mean, creation ex nihilo, huh?? what alternative do you propose ?
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 11:14 AM	#386
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,265	Originally Posted by GIBHOR its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything. And, given the quotes you cited previously, absolute nothing cannot exist, so there is no problem to be solved, and a creator god is completely unneccessary. Your authorities have managed to define god out of existence. Yay!
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

9th May 2012, 11:29 AM	#387
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,762	Originally Posted by GIBHOR what alternative do you propose ? False dichotomy.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

9th May 2012, 11:34 AM	#388
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,122	Quote: Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision That doesn't follow at all. Decisions can't make matter and energy change and arrange themselves into something new either.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

9th May 2012, 11:37 AM	#389
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,829	Originally Posted by GIBHOR how about you present something, that can arise from absolutely nothing ? good luck on that. Describe the difference between nothing and absolutely nothing.

9th May 2012, 11:55 AM	#390
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493	Originally Posted by GIBHOR its obvious that absolutely nothing has no potentialities, since it is the absence of anything. And therefore, it cannot give rise to anything. Well, then. God still doesn't explain it. As I stated. If we accept the idea that something can't come from nothing, and we accept that there was nothing before the universe, then the universe couldn't have been created. Even if you say "god did it", that means god would have created something from nothing, which you just said couldn't happen. Now, perhaps you wish to imbue god with magical powers that can create something from nothing. But if that were to happen, then your initial premise is false in that Something CAN come from nothing.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

9th May 2012, 01:17 PM	#391
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by godless dave Please present the evidence that God is uncaused. http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html Quote: there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. There must have been a first, uncaused cause which started the chain of events that resulted in the present state of the universe. Since we observe that things in the physical universe don't pop into existence of their own accord, it makes more sense to posit that the first cause is an entity like God who is not bound by the physical universe and its laws.
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 01:18 PM	#392
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans The universe I believe in is uncaused, has no beginning , and no end. It just is. That was easy. Hans any scientific evidence to back up your claim?
GIBHOR Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,978

9th May 2012, 01:20 PM	#393
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,122	Originally Posted by GIBHOR http://www.rationalchristianity.net/created_god.html You've just provided an argument that the universe is uncaused.
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

9th May 2012, 01:23 PM	#394
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,517	Originally Posted by godless dave You've just provided an argument that the universe is uncaused. Not only that, but it's demonstrably true too. What's even worse is that to posit God as a better explanation doesn't work as God doesn't have these attributes we give Him or at least what GIBHOR gives him. God is never not bound to the physical universe and its laws. That's never been a claim of God in the Bible. To argue that He is means you aren't talking about YHWH, you're talking about another God. And STILL God is a useless part of the argument. He's unrequired. Again GIBHOR: Originally Posted by GIBHOR its said that odds above one to 10^50 will never happen.....would you bet us$ 100,00 on a lottery with that kind of chance to win ? Someone's going to win that lottery, I'd stake your life on it.
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers Last edited by Lowpro; 9th May 2012 at 01:26 PM.

9th May 2012, 01:23 PM	#395
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,122	Originally Posted by GIBHOR any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Any scientific evidence to back up your claim that God is eternal and uncaused?
	__________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm