I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
You have stated that there are only two credible explanations for the existence of our universe. Then further along you state that these two options require an intellect. So you have effectively posited that position. However that assertion is so far nothing more than your opinion.

I see no reason to consider a "transcendent reality" without some sort of coherent concept of what it is. I will give you that it is a possibility, but you fail to show why it's any more plausible or necessary than a natural explanation.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
06-03-2014, 08:49 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 05:06 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You have stated that there are only two credible explanations for the existence of our universe. Then further along you state that these two options require an intellect. So you have effectively posited that position. However that assertion is so far nothing more than your opinion.

No, I did not say that(the bolded part). I said "in option B the creator need not be intelligent." In option B the creator maybe an unintelligent naturalistic mechanism.

The only assertions I have made are the following:
1) a fine tuning problem exists and it cries out for an explanation.
2) Options A and B are the only two explanations which are reasonable.


(06-03-2014 05:06 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  I see no reason to consider a "transcendent reality" without some sort of coherent concept of what it is. I will give you that it is a possibility, but you fail to show why it's any more plausible or necessary than a natural explanation.

By transcendent I mean extending beyond ordinary experience....existing outside our space-time. A transcendent reality is not inconsistent with a natural explanation. Another sub universe in the multiverse would be transcendent to us.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 08:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No, I did not say that(the bolded part). I said "in option B the creator need not be intelligent." In option B the creator maybe an unintelligent naturalistic mechanism.

You're right, I mis-remembered. Should've gone back an reread.

Quote:By transcendent I mean extending beyond ordinary experience....existing outside our space-time. A transcendent reality is not inconsistent with a natural explanation. Another sub universe in the multiverse would be transcendent to us.

Okay sure. And?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 08:55 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(06-03-2014 08:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No, I did not say that(the bolded part). I said "in option B the creator need not be intelligent." In option B the creator maybe an unintelligent naturalistic mechanism.

You're right, I mis-remembered. Should've gone back an reread.

Quote:By transcendent I mean extending beyond ordinary experience....existing outside our space-time. A transcendent reality is not inconsistent with a natural explanation. Another sub universe in the multiverse would be transcendent to us.

Okay sure. And?

Well given that option A and B are at the moment the only explanations which are reasonable it would seem that in formulating a world view we would have to conclude that there is likely a transcendent reality. Our observations seem to indicate that the world isn't a what-you-can-see-is-all-there-is kind of world.

Agree or disagree?

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 09:57 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
Quote:B) All possible universes exists and our Universe is just one of them.

I'm still not comfortable with how you stated this, but for the sake of argument I'll tentatively agree. Go on.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 09:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
Quote:B) All possible universes exists and our Universe is just one of them.

I'm still not comfortable with how you stated this, but for the sake of argument I'll tentatively agree. Go on.

I don't like the way I stated that either because all possible universe don't need to exist. Just a large number of possible universes need to exist or need to have existed to make B reasonable.

Anyways if A and B are the only reasonable explanations for the fine tuning problem then principle of indifference tells us that each has a 50% probability of being right. So at this point it is not unreasonable to conclude that there is at least a 50% chance our universe is the product of an intellect.

Now consider the fact the B does not exclude the existence of an intellect. The universe generating mechanism could be an intellect generating possible universes at random. If this intellect were to produce enough universes, it would be likely that one would be generated which by pure happenstance just happens to be tuned for emergent complexity.

All this so far considered, as long as you assign the probability of an intellect behind B to be greater than 0, it is more likely than not that our universe is the product of an intellect.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
You break things down into general probabilities very quickly. Good for you, again I think it's a pretty simpleminded way of looking at it.

I have a problem with the way you throw out this universe generating mechanism as if it is a transcendent force actually creating something from nothing. I know you've not defined it as such, but you've essentially categorized it as such for your argument.

Quote:By transcendent I mean extending beyond ordinary experience....existing outside our space-time. A transcendent reality is not inconsistent with a natural explanation. Another sub universe in the multiverse would be transcendent to us.

Yes, but you seem to be relying heavily on the terms "created" and "generated".

As I see it, this universe was "generated" from something transcendent, that is outside of our space/time, but by no means does this point towards an intellect.

If we posit that there is every bit as much of a chance of our universe being born of a system that is eternal as there is that some intellect spontaneously created such a system (what generated the intellect? Facepalm ), then your probability drops to really goddamn close to 50% and we are back to the intellectually honest answer of "I don't know" until further evidence provides us with more information.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
06-03-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
And to add to that.

For me, purely philosophically speaking, if you take Ockham's razor to that equation the percentage of probability of an intellect drops well below the 50% mark into the "probably not" zone. But I know that's not very scientific.....just my position.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
07-03-2014, 06:40 AM
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 11:51 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  And to add to that.

For me, purely philosophically speaking, if you take Ockham's razor to that equation the percentage of probability of an intellect drops well below the 50% mark into the "probably not" zone. But I know that's not very scientific.....just my position.

Ockham's razor doesn't apply in this situation because both A and B require the same amount of assumptions.

A requires the assumption of an intellect to create this one fine tuned universe.
B requires the assumption of a mechanism which creates many universes.

Both require a transcendent reality in which these things exist.

Principle of indifference takes us back to 50% probability for each.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
07-03-2014, 06:55 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2014 07:01 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: I'm yer Huckleberry. Blowmedown.
(06-03-2014 11:33 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  As I see it, this universe was "generated" from something transcendent, that is outside of our space/time, but by no means does this point towards an intellect.

A transcendent reality does not point toward an intellect. The curious observation of apparent fine tunings is what points toward an intellect. The curious observation of apparent fine tunings also points toward a multiverse.

(06-03-2014 11:33 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  If we posit that there is every bit as much of a chance of our universe being born of a system that is eternal as there is that some intellect spontaneously created such a system (what generated the intellect? Facepalm ), then your probability drops to really goddamn close to 50% and we are back to the intellectually honest answer of "I don't know" until further evidence provides us with more information.

What generated the universe generating mechanism of the multiverse?Facepalm We don't know, probably will never know what generated the intellect or what generated the universe generating mechanism of the multiverse. That is all part of the transcendent reality we both agree exists. Further you are now asking a question about something we are not discussing and to go there is a shifting of the goal post. Remember, we are discussing, "whether or not it appears the universe is the product of an intellect". We are trying to answer that question based only on what we can observe and infer.

Insults From Thinkingatheists forgiven 151
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: