Poll: Atheists only: Do you believe no god(s) exists?
Yes, I believe no god(s) exists
No, I do not believe no god(s) exists
[Show Results]
 
For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2017, 09:27 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 08:31 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 08:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is not assumed, it bolstered by evidence.


No, there is evidence of order in open systems. That order comes at the cost of increased disorder elsewhere.


No. Crystals are ordered, not designed.


No. See above.
Sorry I should have specified closed systems.
The standard model for inflation is not described as an open system. There is no "elsewhere" in this scenario.
Yes or No?

Open or closed is not the issue for inflation. What is the point you are trying to make?

Quote:Crystals are part of an open system, unlike inflation.
Yes or No?

Again, what is your point about inflation?

Quote:Our best bet in a closed system = Design
Yes or No? Please state your reason if no.

No, you have made no case for that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 09:54 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 09:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 08:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not against inflation. I'm actually using it to prove my point.
I'm showing that inflation theory suggests all laws break down during inflation which brings this closed system into disorder & randomness yet somehow it becomes orderly & full of laws after inflation.

Within closed systems disorder can only lead to order by design.

When do you plan to show that ?
http://www.edge.org/conversation/alan_gu...y-universe
There is nowhere in science that design is discussed. Ever.

You're contradicting yourself.
If "all laws break down" then so does "within closed systems disorder can only lead to order by design".

We don't know enough to posit ANYTHING.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.120...61003/meta
The design part was a philosophical argument inferred from the only known alternative to randomness in a closed system that I can think of. It's not a law, just an observation.
If it's not always the case I am more than willing to be corrected.

I'm pretty sure I have heard many philosophical arguments that randomness & design are on opposing sides of the spectrum.

I assume that if a closed system shows clear signs that it's current state is less likely to be random then it can only be the product of a conscious causation.
If there is flaw in this logic I am more than willing to learn.

I'm actually not quite certain what is meant by "laws break down" during inflation. I assumed it means the current laws if Physics don't exist at that period in time.
If I'm wrong or anyone knows better please let me know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 09:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 08:31 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Sorry I should have specified closed systems.
The standard model for inflation is not described as an open system. There is no "elsewhere" in this scenario.
Yes or No?

Open or closed is not the issue for inflation. What is the point you are trying to make?

Quote:Crystals are part of an open system, unlike inflation.
Yes or No?

Again, what is your point about inflation?

Quote:Our best bet in a closed system = Design
Yes or No? Please state your reason if no.

No, you have made no case for that.
Unless I'm mistaken, when physicists state the laws of physics break down during inflation it means they don't apply at this period in time. Correct me if I am wrong please.
If the closed system went from having a totally different set of laws or maybe no laws at all to a new state with laws, it's only logical that something must have caused this to happen.
I agree we don't yet know what that something is.
However.
If that something isn't random then it has to be none random by logical necessity
None random = Design.
If you object to this, please explain why.

When I look at Martin Rees' research I observed a closed universe with more order than disorder with regards to the universal constants around the time of inflation.

It has led me to believe that a designer has interfered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 10:21 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 09:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The design part was a philosophical argument inferred from the only known alternative to randomness in a closed system that I can think of. It's not a law, just an observation.
If it's not always the case I am more than willing to be corrected.

I assume that if a closed system shows clear signs that it's current state is less likely to be random then it can only be the product of a conscious causation.

As per usual, you are not even wrong. Your understanding of entropy, randomness, and even basic philosophy is so completely, bafflingly off the mark that the only way for you to possibly make any progress whatsoever is to discard literally everything that you think you know and start again, because everything that you think you know about it is not just wrong, but almost completely unrelated to the actual concepts.

"Entropy" does not mean "disorder". The two concepts are only tangentially related; a system at maximum entropy is actually at equilibrium, which most people would consider to be pretty well ordered.

"Random" does not mean "total chaos". Stochastic systems are fundamentally random, but within constraints determined by their previous states. Assuming that true randomness does exist within the universe, it would be stochastic.

A closed system that is influenced by a designer is not a closed system.

You posit a complete false dichotomy between "everything is truly random" and "there is a designer" with no backing, while discarding the possibility of stochastic or deterministic systems outright. This is not a philosophical argument. It is not even an observation. It is, flatly and without any sort of possible defense, a fallacy.

(05-02-2017 09:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm actually not quite certain what is meant by "laws break down" during inflation. I assumed it means the current laws if Physics don't exist at that period in time.
If I'm wrong or anyone knows better please let me know.

You are wrong.

This has been explained to you previously. The laws of physics did not cease to exist before this point in time. The conditions were simply so extreme that the models we use to represent those laws under normal circumstances became unworkable.

And even if they hadn't existed, you would not be able to use this as a basis to argue even for the possibility of fine tuning, because you still would not have established that those laws could have been any different.

Pay attention.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
05-02-2017, 10:24 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 10:10 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 09:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  Open or closed is not the issue for inflation. What is the point you are trying to make?


Again, what is your point about inflation?


No, you have made no case for that.
Unless I'm mistaken, when physicists state the laws of physics break down during inflation it means they don't apply at this period in time. Correct me if I am wrong please.

That depends on what you understand that to mean. The laws of physics that we observe now are not applicable to a singularity, but they do not 'break down' during the inflationary period.

Quote:If the closed system went from having a totally different set of laws or maybe no laws at all to a new state with laws, it's only logical that something must have caused this to happen.

It didn't, so no problem.

Quote:I agree we don't yet know what that something is.
However.
If that something isn't random then it has to be none random by logical necessity
None random = Design.
If you object to this, please explain why.

Your belief that the laws of physics broke down or changed is the issue. They didn't.

Quote:When I look at Martin Rees' research I observed a closed universe with more order than disorder with regards to the universal constants around the time of inflation.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Quote:It has led me to believe that a designer has interfered.

I do not see that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2017, 10:53 PM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 10:10 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It has led me to believe that a designer has interfered.

Didn't you say you weren't talking about a designer ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:27 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 05:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You are, and have always been, doing nothing but wasting time with "you can't call it that" rather than actually dealing with the argument.
Your argument is a non starter, it is a strawman.
No theist other than deists take on a belief in an undetectable invisible god that doesn't interact with existence or the supposed afterlife. Your argument appeals to no-one.
Deists really don't care about their god, they don't believe they have to pray to it or satisfy it in anyway. They behave as if there is no god.

Theists on the other hand do not believe in the god that you assume they do.
So your version of a garage dragon is irrelevant to anything. It's not even a topic worth talking about.

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?
As I have answered. This is an irrelevant question.

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I have snipped the idiocy with you saying "durr i don't know what a unicorn is, nobody does", because I don't care to indulge someone who is being deliberately thick and thinks it's clever. If you want to make a fool of yourself in public, it's no skin off my nose.
So you know what a unicorn is, even though you believe they don't exist.
That's a special kind of special right there.

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Since we are explicitly not talking about insufficiently formed claims, no one cares.
We are talking about insufficiently formed claims though.
God claims are insufficiently formed, they have no falsifiable criteria.
Unicorn claims are insufficiently formed.

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  All non-deistic religions make claims about their gods having interacted with the universe in specific ways. If those ways are, in theory, detectable - as they are for the majority of the major religions - then we can prove that those gods do not exist.
Are you able to offer your proof on the Christian god. Is it expected to be detectable? How, when and where is it to be detectable?

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If they claim that these interactions are not detectable, or if the deity is deistic, they are garage dragons, and do not exist by definition.
I'm just going to ignore your insistence on using the term "garage dragon" for reasons previously mentioned.

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In either case, we know that these gods do not exist.
Really?

(05-02-2017 02:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There are nebulously-defined claims made about these deities as well, and pointing out that these are incoherent is also valid. But this does not stop us from disproving these entities' existence by investigating the more complete claims, or from stating quite plainly that these more nebulous claims are also bunk.

When a Christian says "you have inherited original sin", we are perfectly justified in laughing in their face. The fact that they cannot sufficiently define "original sin" does not weaken the case for disproving its existence. It strengthens it.
They haven't provided any falsifiable criteria. We cannot falsify it because the claim is insufficiently formulated to evaluate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:33 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 08:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Within closed systems disorder can only lead to order by design.
[/quote]
No, actually.

In a random juggling of pieces there are many more chances of things to be disordered than ordered. But there are also those ordered states too, they can come about randomly but there are less of them so they are more unlikely, but given enough time they do happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 04:53 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(06-02-2017 12:33 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 08:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Within closed systems disorder can only lead to order by design.
No, actually.

In a random juggling of pieces there are many more chances of things to be disordered than ordered. But there are also those ordered states too, they can come about randomly but there are less of them so they are more unlikely, but given enough time they do happen.
I wont disagree here.
But if it is, in more cases than not, order generally points to design would it not be a fair assumption?
Something far more orderly like say the name of God etched across a constellation maybe, should be an indication of design.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 04:57 AM
RE: For Atheists: Do you believe no god(s) exist?
(05-02-2017 10:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-02-2017 10:10 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It has led me to believe that a designer has interfered.

Didn't you say you weren't talking about a designer ?
No.
I was always talking about a designer.
I said I wasn't talking about fine tuning for life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: