A Question of Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: A Question of Order
Egor, Egor, Egor tsk tsk tsk.

I am disappoint.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 03:01 AM
 
RE: A Question of Order
(15-11-2012 04:20 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Egor, Egor, Egor tsk tsk tsk.

I am disappoint.

You are what? Huh
Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2012, 05:49 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 12:07 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I don't think it qualifies as an argument from ignorance, unless God is defined in some very strong way relevant, to actual tributes.
Even from an evolutionary position, the reason that allegedly tiny ball exploded, as the source , such, could be loosely termed God, minus all the trappings, as creator in a bare bones scenario. Cool
There are attributes assumed when we use a term like "God" (as Reltznik said). It's a loaded word, one that already comes with a definition beyond "source of the big bang".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 09:17 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(16-11-2012 03:01 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 04:20 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Egor, Egor, Egor tsk tsk tsk.

I am disappoint.

You are what? Huh
He figured out how to play dumb. At least, I assume he is playing. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
19-11-2012, 09:30 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(12-11-2012 03:26 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(12-11-2012 05:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The premise is : "if there is no order".
There IS order.
The premise is false.

Was there order before there were human beings to perceive it?
The point of historical sciences is to better understand the universe and its order prior to human existence and any human recording. Aka, geology.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 10:15 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 04:14 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 11:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I see the other shoe has dropped, just as I had expected.
It hardly stops anything in it's tracks. One should not project one's own ideas, assumptions and fears onto others.
Some are able to say "we don't have all the answers yet", and be comfortable with that.

Really? Well I call those people willfully ignorant. I call them stupid, and I call them dumbasses. Especially, when they tout that crap and then walk around like it's some kind of wisdom.

Quote:Positing THE answer is "god", which has been proven false so many times in the past,

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed that. When did we prove God didn't create the order in the universe? Consider


Quote:We know from Chaos Theory, that "order" arises spontaneously, in this universe.

We know nothing of the sort. We know that virtual particles "appear" to form spontaneously. How the hell could order arise spontaneously? That doesn't even make sense? It's like true-sounding gibberish.

Quote:We also know from Relativity, Uncertainty, and the Math of Dirac, (spinors), that what our brains perceive or consider "logical" or "common sense" by *intuition*, is unreliable. Therefore the only rational position, is to take the one which requires evidence. The perceived (common sense) perception of cause/effect falls apart upon closer inspection for many reasons.

Why can't you just say there's order in the universe and you simply don't know whether or not there is an intelligent force behind its creation? Or at least just say you're an atheist because you fucking want to be an atheist and you really don't give a damn about mysteries or arguments to the contrary.

(13-11-2012 11:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If you think you understand the quantum, you don't understand the quantum. To clarify, is the quantum included in the above statement?

What? Hobo
Well, not quoted in here is your response that you can be a theist, or an agnostic, but not an atheist. I am not sure how that works out, since if we really get down to it, doesn't theist and atheist imply a belief (or lack of a belief) and agnostics talk about knowledge? Of course we cannot KNOW for a fact if there is a god or not. But the evidence has completely shown time and time again that the things attributed to god have been proven time and time again to not be god.

What is lightning? Oh it is Zues up on the mountain. Why does it rain? Why does the volcano erupt? All of these were given up to a god of some sort or another, and they've all been proven through science to have an origin that religion didn't explain. And then you come out and arrogantly ask "when did we prove there was no god ordering the universe?" You cannot prove a negative. We're not out there looking for reasons to not believe in God... we're out there looking for reasons why things work the way they work.. and during the course of doing this, we've come to reject the superstitious notion of a divine being... not that hard to grasp.

As far as the "if there is no order why doesn't the sun rise in the south" Even if this were the case and the universe is ordered (I don't know enough about the subject to make a definitive claim one way or another) that doesn't automatically imply "god did it" its the exact same tired arguments for lightning, volcanoes, and earthquakes. God did it. Yeah, the atheists are the willfully ignorant ones. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 06:24 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(13-11-2012 11:09 AM)Egor Wrote:  Let me ask again: If there is no order in the universe, why doesn't the sun rise in the south?
Depends...

Do you mean, could the sun ever rise in the south?
Sure. If we get hit with an external force, say a very large asteroid, at the right speed at the right angle with the right force, sure it could potentially knock the earth into a north/south rotation. That would still be very "orderly".
Or, in the past, when the earth was formed, it could have been so in a way that it would have given it a different rotational direction. (some one can clarify, I'm too lazy to Google, doesn't one of the planets spin counter to the others, and another spin on its side?)

Or do you mean spontaneously?
Like, today the sun rose in the east, but tomorrow it will rise in the south. Then the next day it'll rise in the east again, but the following day it rises in the north.
That's...well.... grade school physics.

So, if he asks, "Why doesn't the sun rise in the south?", just ask back, "Why would it?"

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 11:23 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(19-11-2012 06:24 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(13-11-2012 11:09 AM)Egor Wrote:  Let me ask again: If there is no order in the universe, why doesn't the sun rise in the south?
Depends...

Do you mean, could the sun ever rise in the south?
Sure. If we get hit with an external force, say a very large asteroid, at the right speed at the right angle with the right force, sure it could potentially knock the earth into a north/south rotation. That would still be very "orderly".
Or, in the past, when the earth was formed, it could have been so in a way that it would have given it a different rotational direction. (some one can clarify, I'm too lazy to Google, doesn't one of the planets spin counter to the others, and another spin on its side?)

Or do you mean spontaneously?
Like, today the sun rose in the east, but tomorrow it will rise in the south. Then the next day it'll rise in the east again, but the following day it rises in the north.
That's...well.... grade school physics.

So, if he asks, "Why doesn't the sun rise in the south?", just ask back, "Why would it?"
IIRC correctly, Venus spins counter to the solar standard, but relatively slowly; its solar day is almost half its year. Uranus is pretty much spinning sideways, and I'll stop there before we descend into the type of humor that pairing "Uranus" and "sideways" in the same sentence normally devolves into.

As for why it doesn't rise in the south? Despite my flip answers earlier (which are edge cases), south is defined by the Earth's spin. East is the direction we're spinning towards, west the direction we're spinning away from, north is to the left of east and south to the right of east. The appearance of sunrise is generated by the patch of Earth we're on spinning towards the sun -- that's why it appears in the east. Similarly, this is why sunrise appears in the west. This spin coupled with a superhot semi-liquid nickle-iron core is why we have magnetism, which is what causes compasses to point northish. (Compare magnetic north with north pole, they're close but not the same.)

Is this all orderly? Kinda-kinda. They do all arise from the same basic facts (spin, geometry) and thus are fairly well linked. Want the sun to rise in the west? Change the earth's spin. Can't do that? Of course not, that's an incredible amount of inertia at work there (or, rather, not at work, since inertia never works, but... yeah, you know what I mean). Except sometimes the earth's rotation DOES change. It wobbles, due to the shifting mass of its continents and oceans and not-quite even distribution of its mantle, like a hollow top filled two-thirds with water and one thirds with pebbles. This happens on a geological timescale (measure it in fractions of an inch per year), but it does happen. So, eventually the sun might rise in what we now consider the south. Only then it won't be the south any more.

Bottom line, for me to be convinced that there's some sort of divine ordering (rather than patterns forming from chaos, like water forming beads rather than stay thinly spread out over a surface), I'd AT A MINIMUM have to see some order that wasn't simply the result of inertia, common cause, or universal physics. The sun rising in the east? Doesn't count.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: