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

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Does it imitoot life exarktly?

What's with the crazy spelling? This conversation melting your brain?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://www.2001principle.net/2005.htm

GIBHOR the Anthropic Principle is a useless and faulty tautology that derives no consistent conclusion or prediction; it's made up and is said to be true only by virtue of people saying it is true, not by demonstrable evidence either scientifically or philosophically even. Even Lee Smolin, the man you cherry picked at a believer in order to reinforce a nonpoint picks at the Anthropic Principle with great disdain and offers instead the fecund universe which is actually just cosmic natural selection, no God intended.

GIBHOR, it's Godless. Get over it.

[Humes fork]

Watch this sort 10 minutes speech to get the answer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[elipse]

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.

Okay. Why can't that thing be the universe?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by elipse

Okay. Why can't that thing be the universe?

Because SPECIAL PLEADING, that's why.

I know, it makes no sense but it's what it boils down to.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Something must have existed forever.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite.

These two statements contradict each other. If it's impossible for anything to have an infinite "past duration", then it's impossible for something to have existed forever.

You must pick one or the other of these things to be true, GIBHOR. Or abandon them both. Or say that either might be true. Or say that you don't know which is true. The only option you can't pick is of them both being true, because they are mutually exclusive.

[JoeBentley]

1. Nothing could exist forever, that's just silly.
2. So something had to have created the universe.
3. So this thing called God created the universe.
4. Oh and God obviously existed forever, that's just obvious.
5. All this makes perfect sense.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

can you imagine a society, where it is highly welcome and held as the highest good that parents do torture, rape, and kill and to eat own new born babies, and old people ?

I wonder what the words slavery and pogrom mean? I wonder why religious wars are fought?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we actually know this.

there are actually staggering 402 fine tune constants known that must be just right :

http://www.reasons.org/files/compend...dium_part2.pdf

No, most of those are post hoc reasoning, did you read Stenger?

Some are just dumb, showing they don't know what the words mean.

Quote:

"29. surface gravity (escape velocity)
if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane.
if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water.
31. inclination of orbit
if too great: temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme

This is the stupidity that caught my eye, the inclination around a sphere radiating in a mostly sphereical fashin?
Seriously, this is really dumb

Quote:

32. orbital eccentricity
if too great: seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

Seasons not related to eccentricity.

Quote:

35. rotation period
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
41. asteroidal and cometary collision rate
if greater: too many species would become extinct.
if less: crust would be too depleted of materials essential for life.
42. mass of body colliding with primordial Earth
if smaller: Earth’s atmosphere would be too thick; moon would be too small.
if greater: Earth’s orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed."

OH MY LACKING GOD they are all too stupid to read all 402

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we do not know of any society that has ever adapted such a kind of standard. And i cannot actually imagine, that there could have ever existed one.

Really, so slavery is what? A cultural norm of oppression.

religious warfare is what?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

no. but because the alternative would be infinite regress, which is impossible.

Alright. then I say the universe is the first time.
That's easy.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Humes fork

Watch this sort 10 minutes speech to get the answer:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Good speech by Sean Carroll!

[devnull]

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Please demonstrate that from absolutely nothing, nothing arises. If you can.

Just to interject a couple of points:

* We don't even known that "absolutely nothing" is possible, or ever has been.

* There is no reason to believe that at any point (ie, "before" our universe) there has been "absolutely nothing". In fact, the question may not even make sense.

* The universe may appear fine tuned for us, but we don't even know if the physical constants of reality *can* change (say, for example, in between "serial" universes, or for each universe in a "bubble" model), or if they can, by how much.... or even if some kind of life would be possible with different constants. The hole/puddle analogy holds.


Injecting a god into this is unnecessary, and wishful thinking. If Gibhor can't see that, that isnt my problem, it is his. Without evidence the whole idea can be dismissed out of hand. Once again, I find it laughable that someone will take the time to belittle science by typing on their computer which is connected to a world-wide network, and I have little time for ridiculous arguments about sooper-dooper imaginary friends etc. The universe is what it is, and the only real way we have to learn anything real about it at all is the scientific method, which has been confirmed time and time again.

[Paulhoff]

Fine tuned, hahahahahaha.

When 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is empty space and will kill you.

Paul

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

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

Why have a creator god at all then? Why not just say the multiverse is uncaused with no beginning and no end... and no god. It just is.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Fine tuned, hahahahahaha.

When 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is empty space and will kill you.

Paul

lol, yeh, I meant more the "fine tuning of physical constants" argument (nuclear forces etc) rather than what you're talking about, but point taken

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Fine tuned, hahahahahaha.

When 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is empty space and will kill you.

Paul

But we're here and we're special right?!

-.- the fine tuning argument is defunct, religious people are just tired of losing ground.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

can you imagine a society, where it is highly welcome and held as the highest good that parents do torture, rape, and kill and to eat own new born babies, and old people ?

GIBHOR, you're aware you've just presented a 'strawman' logical fallacy, aren't you?
Who said anything about 'highly welcome' or 'highest good'?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we do not know of any society that has ever adapted such a kind of standard. And i cannot actually imagine, that there could have ever existed one.

AS I said above, your argument is a 'strawman'. I'd hoped for something a bit more interesting from you.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

...
there are actually staggering 402 fine tune constants known that must be just right...

It must be the early morning, but this reminded me of the terrible controversy in the opera world when tuning orchestras to A=442 rather than A=440 became the norm.

[Mashuna]

Let's take a look at two of your recent posts. First, the reason why God must have existed forever, i.e. God is infinite:

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.

And now, your reason why actually infinite entities cannot exist:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Quote:

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite.

Without special pleading, how do you reconcile these two statements?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by pakeha

It must be the early morning, but this reminded me of the terrible controversy in the opera world when tuning orchestras to A=442 rather than A=440 became the norm.

ooooh, finally something of interest in this thread.

What was their reasoning?

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff

Fine tuned, hahahahahaha.

When 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe is empty space and will kill you.

Paul

I think you forgot a few 9's at the end...

Isn't it rather: lim 100% of the universe is empty space and will kill you (and couldn't care less. No, really, there is no way to care less than the care of the universe about you)

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by devnull

Just to interject a couple of points:

Goodie!

Something deep to talk about at last after months of small talk about mythology.

Quote:

* We don't even known that "absolutely nothing" is possible, or ever has been.

Well logically "nothing" is impossible because there is something. So either the something didn't come out of nothing, or logic cannot be applied to this question. Which is pretty much what you say here;

Quote:

* There is no reason to believe that at any point (ie, "before" our universe) there has been "absolutely nothing". In fact, the question may not even make sense.

Although I wouldn't lay the blame on the question, its a good honest question. The problem is either with the logic or existence.

Quote:

* The universe may appear fine tuned for us, but we don't even know if the physical constants of reality *can* change (say, for example, in between "serial" universes, or for each universe in a "bubble" model), or if they can, by how much.... or even if some kind of life would be possible with different constants. The hole/puddle analogy holds.

Quite, we can see the symmetry and consistency in our universe, but we will never know if this is the only configuration there is, or what else there is through looking at the external world.

Quote:

Injecting a god into this is unnecessary, and wishful thinking. If Gibhor can't see that, that isnt my problem, it is his. Without evidence the whole idea can be dismissed out of hand. Once again, I find it laughable that someone will take the time to belittle science by typing on their computer which is connected to a world-wide network, and I have little time for ridiculous arguments about sooper-dooper imaginary friends etc. The universe is what it is, and the only real way we have to learn anything real about it at all is the scientific method, which has been confirmed time and time again.

The problem still remains, we don't know if the universe we know is a natural spontaneous event, or a construction. The fact that it appears to fit the natural scenario may only be circumstantial.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

I think you forgot a few 9's at the end...

Isn't it rather: lim 100% of the universe is empty space and will kill you (and couldn't care less. No, really, there is no way to care less than the care of the universe about you)

And yet here you are!

Is this fate? us becoming drawn together at this point in this thread.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by punshhh

And yet here you are!

Is this fate? us becoming drawn together at this point in this thread.

Is the collision of two specks of dust fate?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by punshhh

The problem still remains, we don't know if the universe we know is a natural spontaneous event, or a construction. The fact that it appears to fit the natural scenario may only be circumstantial.

How much does it bother you that we actually may never know?


ETA: I should also say, once again, that "the fact that it appears to fit the natural scenario may only be circumstantial" lends no weight *whatsoever* to any supernatural hypothesis.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by devnull

How much does it bother you that we actually may never know?

It doesn't, I have reconciled my emotions with my mind, and the world I find myself in. I am at peace.

Quote:

ETA: I should also say, once again, that "the fact that it appears to fit the natural scenario may only be circumstantial" lends no weight *whatsoever* to any supernatural hypothesis.

We're back at 50/50 are we not?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by punshhh

We're back at 50/50 are we not?

No, only in your mind.

You might have a point if we were surrounded by supernatural things, and confirmed supernatural causes/theories etc.

What you are saying is akin to saying that the footprints left in the sand might have been left by a dog, or might have been left by an invisible fire-breathing snogorbit. 50/50.

[realpaladin]

Originally Posted by punshhh

And yet here you are!

Is this fate? us becoming drawn together at this point in this thread.

Nope, it is rather like those buckets of old paintbrushes you keep in the attic. You don't really use them anymore but still need a place to put them. So they kind of accumulate there, because, well, you never really are going to reuse them and keep on buying new ones.

Kind of like that, but then with humans. And a small lump of molten metal with a crust on top of it.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

we actually know this.

there are actually staggering 402 fine tune constants known that must be just right :

Do you have any idea just how many things about God have to be 'just right'? For, example, how come that God has a thing for carbon based life, huh?

And always remember, God is infinite. The mind boggles.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by elipse

Okay. Why can't that thing be the universe?

It seems to me because some people would rather guess what's happening, instead of relying on what we can determine and suggest based on what we can prove or deduce is probable.

Outside of science, it's all nothing but guessing. And some people seem to celebrate this. I wish people did not entwine the significance of their life with their intuitive guesses. But when you celebrate inaccuracy, you create a system that rewards ignorance.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by devnull

No, only in your mind.

You might have a point if we were surrounded by supernatural things, and confirmed supernatural causes/theories etc.

What you are saying is akin to saying that the footprints left in the sand might have been left by a dog, or might have been left by an invisible fire-breathing snogorbit. 50/50.

It's amazing that it's precisely this inability to realize why it's not a matter of 50/50 that is what drives people like Punshhh and others to continue pursuing these arguments and questions. If they could only understand why it's nothing more than a presupposition in an ocean of nigh infinite presupposition with no compass to indicate what is probable or what is not improbable.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

no, its a resolved question.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231



i have explained already, why a conscient being is the only reasonable answer.

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.or...-the-universe/






can you imagine a car to produce itself, before it actually exists ? same with the universe......

That's one of the characteristics of a sufficiently advanced car.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No, most of those are post hoc reasoning, did you read Stenger?

Some are just dumb, showing they don't know what the words mean.

This is the stupidity that caught my eye, the inclination around a sphere radiating in a mostly sphereical fashin?
Seriously, this is really dumb

Seasons not related to eccentricity.



OH MY LACKING GOD they are all too stupid to read all 402

They must have one in there that says:

The air is transparent enough for us to see thru.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by punshhh

And yet here you are!

Is this fate? us becoming drawn together at this point in this thread.

Two ships that collide in the night.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by punshhh

The problem still remains, we don't know if the universe we know is a natural spontaneous event, or a construction. The fact that it appears to fit the natural scenario may only be circumstantial.

But until there's any evidence which suggests otherwise, the naturalistic explanation is the one that it's most logical to adopt.

[Humes fork]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Good speech by Sean Carroll!

Yep, he is my favorite anti-religious crusader.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by realpaladin

Nope, it is rather like those buckets of old paintbrushes you keep in the attic. You don't really use them anymore but still need a place to put them. So they kind of accumulate there, because, well, you never really are going to reuse them and keep on buying new ones.

Kind of like that, but then with humans. And a small lump of molten metal with a crust on top of it.

I wouldn't have put it that way in a million years

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

It's amazing that it's precisely this inability to realize why it's not a matter of 50/50 that is what drives people like Punshhh and others to continue pursuing these arguments and questions. If they could only understand why it's nothing more than a presupposition in an ocean of nigh infinite presupposition with no compass to indicate what is probable or what is not improbable.

You appear to be agreeing with me.

Or are you suggesting that the two alternative options, ie (A) a spontaneous natural phenomena or (B) a construction, are only two possibilities out of a nigh infinite number of alternatives?

The implication being that the chance of B is nigh infinite to one against.

If you are its a flawed argument. True there might well be an infinite number of potential versions of A or B, but all these debates distill down to these two options. As there are only two options on the table, its a 50/50 probability.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

But until there's any evidence which suggests otherwise, the naturalistic explanation is the one that it's most logical to adopt.

For practical purposes may be, I'm not convinced.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by punshhh

You appear to be agreeing with me.

Or are you suggesting that the two alternative options, ie (A) a spontaneous natural phenomena or (B) a construction, are only two possibilities out of a nigh infinite number of alternatives?

The implication being that the chance of B is nigh infinite to one against.

If you are its a flawed argument. True there might well be an infinite number of potential versions of A or B, but all these debates distill down to these two options. As there are only two options on the table, its a 50/50 probability.

You have a die. It has 100 faces, each of which are as likely as any other to end up face up. 99 of the faces are red. 1 is black. There are therefore 2 options - a red face will be uppermost or a black face will be uppermost.

What are the odds of the die landing in such a way that the black face is uppermost? If what you've said above is true, then it's 50/50.