NEED Help with a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2017, 11:44 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 10:59 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Suppose a hundred years from now we can create a virtual universe in which we populate it with pseudo living beings who from their perspective perceive everything just as we do. On that virtual planet some people believe they owe their existence to a Creator while others believe their existence is the result of unguided natural forces. Which belief would be closer to the truth? Is this scenario incomprehensible?

I'd just repeat my questions which never gets answered, which is to ask why it matters to them if something created their environment or not. We would be their "gods", which no doubt they'd be making up all kinds of silly stories about just as people do here, and they would be rather disappointed to find out we're just a bunch of plebs.

Of course they'd be correct to hold a belief that is correct. That's a tautology. You also haven't mentioned people such as myself who have no belief either way about whether there was some sort of creator. All the evidence indicates that if there was one, it took a hands-off approach very quickly and everything happened on its own since then. It makes no practical difference if it was started off by something, or needed no such involvement. This is a very different question to asking if a character in a story book is real.

And guess what? If there was a creator, it's probably a pleb too. There's no reason to think it knows we even exist, let alone that we are self-aware. It's all about a need to feel special. How would we know if the beings in an environment we create are really self aware, or just act like it?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
14-11-2017, 11:48 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 11:18 PM)Astreja Wrote:  At some point you'll have to answer the question "Who or what created the creator?" and you'll be no further ahead.

Not to mention questions like what is all that quantum stuff for, how does one electron go through two slits at the same time, WTF are black holes, and who needs brain eating parasites. The creator has a lot of 'splainin' to do Huh

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2017, 11:59 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
Somewhere in an unknown universe 13.8 billion years ago.

Loomingfrum: "Hey Splon. What does this big green button do?"
Splon: "Dunno. Just press it and see".
Loomingfrum: "OK. Probably a complete waste of time though".

A short time later.

Boglingfork: "Hey guys. We seem to be missing a singularity. You wouldn't know anything about that would you?"

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2017, 03:03 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 04:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  If that were true we should abandon the notion of dark matter since it is currently undetectable.
You seriously need to educate yourself.
We dont postulate dark matter and have no evidence. Its the other way around: We measure additional gravitational fore and attribute it to matter we cant detect (yet).
Again the difference between dark matter and your god is: We already have detected conventional matter. We havent detected any gods yet.


(14-11-2017 04:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  However we do infer its existence by indirect evidence. I infer the existence of God by indirect evidence.
I infer the existence of universe creating pixies by indirect evidence. How to find out who/what is right?

(14-11-2017 04:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Theism isn't about the existence of thousands of Gods. Its about the existence of a transcendent personal being commonly referred to as God as opposed to the notion of a beneficent mother nature and blind luck.
A "personal" being!? I am sure you have additional evidence that leads us from "can create universes and intelligent life" to "Allah who wants us to slay all unbelievers and women to conceil themselves" (Your god, the one you avoid to name, you know, his name is Allah, right?)

Ohh, i forgot, you dont have any evidence at all. The best you have is the claim to have indirect evidence for a "non personal" god. Drinking Beverage

By the way, transcendent sounds really cool. Too bad its only a feeble attempt of name dropping. It means nothing else but "outside of our universe" which again, is a claim that needs to be supported. Having a cool name for something unsupported doesnt support it, it just suggests you dont intent to support your claim.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
15-11-2017, 05:53 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 10:59 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I know I've raised this before but there is no canned Rolodex response to it so I don't get an answer. Suppose a hundred years from now we can create a virtual universe in which we populate it with pseudo living beings who from their perspective perceive everything just as we do. On that virtual planet some people believe they owe their existence to a Creator while others believe their existence is the result of unguided natural forces. Which belief would be closer to the truth? Is this scenario incomprehensible?

Aliens? Is your alleged god now aliens?Facepalm

How about these aliens materialize and explain themselves? That would clear this up real quick.

An alien that created everything, yet it can't communicate in direct fashion to anything in the universe that it created. This is a deity that contradicts it's own alleged characteristics, it displays immense powers in creating everything, yet can't do something that is trivially simple- appear and explain. Something mere humans can easily do. Facepalm

Are you still going to be dishonest and claim that this alien doesn't have a particular name? You've already claimed it desires a personal, caring relationship with us. Are you going stop your pretentious chucklefuckery?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2017, 06:02 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2017 04:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 10:59 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I believe you are spectacularly wrong about relativity. It wasn't Einsteins mathematical prowess that led to his famous general relativity it was his willingness to use his imagination and thought experiments to come to what really amounted to inspiration about how the universe behaved. Then he applied the math to it.

Prove it. Just more made up bullshit.
And you are totally wrong. He worked on the EQUATIONS for at least 10 years, and THEN waited for EXPERIMENTAL evidence to confirm his equations. He never used "philosophy" to do any of it.
"To paraphrase his own words, he was lead to the special theory of relativity, more or less directly by considering Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. In particular, Einstein noted that Maxwell's theory implied that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. One way he inferred this is by explicitly showing that there are no solutions to Maxwell's equations (which thus describe the electromagnetic field (roughly speaking, "light")) in which the light is stationary and in particular, any solution to Maxwell's equations describing how light moves in a vacuum implies that it moves at the same velocity!"

Quote:The standard response...don't you ever get tired of these shop worn catch phrases? Make an argument...tell me what you know about probability and how it favors your position. In atheist speak debunked only means some sound bite response has been crafted against it that is rarely well thought out.

Sorry loser, it is YOU that have failed to make any arguments. All you can say is "See here's some shit I can't explain ... therefore gawd". That's not an argument and it's CERTAINLY not "philosophical". There is NOTHING "well thought out" about yet again using your pathetic "god of the gaps" rubbish. Relativity is NON-INTUITIVE, as is Uncertainty. Your entire pile of rubbish assumes the universe and reality are and must appear to human brains to "make sense". Quantum Mechanics does not appear to "make sense" to human brains. One electron going through two slits was never "predicted", (and neither was relativity), by human "logic". Your "what I can imagine" crap is not how reality works .... thus the FOUNDATION of all your arguments is false, flawed, and wrong. In addition you use words, (again you are no philosopher) that apply ONLY to a universe with spacetime ALREADY in place, (a mind must THINK, intention PRECEDES action ... and they are all TEMPORAL processes, as is "creation" and EVERY other thing you ascribe to your incoherent deity). The words you use the describe your gap filler (gods) DO NOT APPLY to the environment it would have had to "be" in. You can describe no being without invoking temporal concepts ... so all you can do is SHUT UP, and say nothing, as you have no language to use to describe it. Restating a BELIEF in a being which *does things* (a mind "works", intends, plans designs .... they ALL REQUIRE TIME) in a timeless environment is a meaningless set of words, that cannot even apply to the environment assumed. They DON'T APPLY, and cannot apply. The belief is rubbish. It's the same cultish unexamined amateur rubbish all theists spout.

You also cannot justify how it is you came up with only one god. Just proof your concepts simply arise from your learned biases. Just as in your "what if 100 years from now" bullshit, an omnipotent deity could have created intelligent robot universe makers with the power to make universes to play with, and THAT would answer, consistently, all your questions. Too bad. You lose. Intelligent Design is a question about "proximate" (closest/nearest) cause, not ultimate cause, which of course you never addressed.

There is NOT ONE example of a "mind" that works in the absence of a healthy functioning physical brain. You have none. There is none. It's a concept in search of a mechanism.
There is nothing at all intelligent about positing the emergent properties ("thinking" and "design") of a BRAIN, without a BRAIN. It's just nonsense.
You entire argument is based on "it doesn't make sense to see what we see in the absence of .... " and THEN YOU turn around and violate YOUR OWN LOGIC, invoking the processes of a brain with no brain or possible mechanism.

Quote:I don't care whether you find it coherent or not. I don't care if I persuade you because the merit of my arguments doesn't rest with those arguing against me. I believe we owe our existence to mind, intent, plan and design the same technique scientists used to create a virtual universe. I'm very confident naturalistic forces couldn't create a virtual universe yet if its true that naturalistic forces created the real universe how could I rule out the possibility they could cause a virtual universe to exist. I run into the same conundrum how do the natural forces impart to the virtual universe all the conditions necessary to create a universe in which life occurs?

It's not incoherent "to me", it's objectively incoherent. Obviously, with your pathetic attempts, you could not possibly care. If you claim to be a "philosophic theist" yet can't even BEGIN to define coherently what you are even talking about. You cannot define your rubbish nor can you explain how it is even consistent with a timeless environment. Every one of your "mind, intent, plan and design" elements REQUIRE TIME. Before this universe there was no spacetime, so your garbage is dismissed as nothing but a fairy tale, that is not even consistent with your premises and assumptions.

Show us where EXACTLY science ever once created a virtual universe, and show us where it peer-reviewed, and show us how it is relevant here today. All your assumptions are nothing but made up nonsense.
What is it about infants dying of cancer by the millions do you think is "designed". LOL. Pretty incompetent designer there.

Quote:I know I've raised this before but there is no canned Rolodex response to it so I don't get an answer. Suppose a hundred years from now we can create a virtual universe in which we populate it with pseudo living beings who from their perspective perceive everything just as we do. On that virtual planet some people believe they owe their existence to a Creator while others believe their existence is the result of unguided natural forces. Which belief would be closer to the truth? Is this scenario incomprehensible?

Suppose 100 years from now we could create Pink Sparkly Unicorn universe creators. Just as your question's irrelevance, so would they be irrelevant. Your question has NO RELEVANCE. We're not talking about "beliefs". We're talking about what is relevant TODAY, here now. You ain't much of a "philosopher" now are you ?

No it's totally comprehensible. Just childish and irrelevant.
So go ahead, gramps. Live in the fairy tale, god of the gaps world you've demonstrated your real world is all about. LOL.

TTA is on the nut-a-week plan. Your week is just about up. Thanks for demonstrating you've got nothing but the old tired "I got no better answer, .... therefore gawd".

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-11-2017, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2017 07:04 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(14-11-2017 05:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-11-2017 04:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  It proves in a carefully controlled experiment run by intelligent people they can produce amino acids. To get to even that point in the real world a plethora of conditions in a narrow range need obtain. Don't worry mother nature has it covered whatever we need she provides...

So let me get this straight. You god(s) can only make life happen in a very narrow range. Kinda stupid unimaginative gods ya got there.

Sounds like the God in question is constrained by the "laws of reality" he himself created, and which he could change at will to better suit his "purposes."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
15-11-2017, 10:37 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
brunumb

Quote:Our existence is not a given outcome of the universe. We are merely a lucky happenstance. If not for a wayward asteroid the dinosaurs may have continued their domination of the earth beyond a meagre 180 million years providing no niche for our tiny mammalian ancestors to gain a foothold.

Luck doesn't begin to describe it. Even from a naturalistic standpoint no one can seriously argue a universe has to exist least of all one that not only supports life but as you allege caused life. You don't have to argue with me about this there are several scientists convinced this is one of many or an infinitude of universes due precisely to the myriad of exacting conditions for human life to exist. However, they don't believe other universes exist (with variable conditions and properties) because there is direct evidence other universes exist, they believe it because its either that or the only other logical conclusion is our universe was intentionally designed and created and like most of you scientists find that notion detestable.

Here's the funny thing, you guys (atheists in general) often consider yourselves skeptics, people who only believe things that can be factually proven to be true. Yet instead of applying a modicum of skepticism to the notion we owe our existence to happenstance, most express complete confidence and faith in the belief we owe our existence to mindless natural forces minus any plan or intent to do so. Its not due to an overwhelming preponderance of evidence its because its the preferred explanation. If there was a preponderance of evidence the majority, not the minority of people would be atheists. That's true of anything else that was thought to be true.

Astreja,

Quote:The probability of us being here is 1.0. It happened, we're here, and there are more plausible explanations in science than in theology.

The probability of someone winning the lottery that won the lottery is 1 also. The odds of winning prior to winning is whatever the odds are. I believe the methodology of science is an objective truth finder and science will find the truth where it lies. Many scientific discoveries are favorable to theism not that anyone here can bring themselves to admit it.

Quote:As far as I can tell, nothing "has to" exist, not even the universe.

The irony is it may turn out we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces that didn't have to exist, didn't have to create a universe and a place for humans to exist. If so, that is far more astounding and miraculous cause than if it was caused intentionally by design. Common sense what would be more miraculous if a person drove from NJ to CA with his eyes open or with his eyes closed? Its no miracle scientists are able to create virtual universes and wield God like power over them. They designed and created them to operate as they do. They also control the law of physics.

Quote:Personally I find it much, much easier to imagine a naturalistic universe than some creator-god of undefined origins. At some point you'll have to answer the question "Who or what created the creator?" and you'll be no further ahead.

We do live in a naturalistic universe, no need to imagine it. Neither postulate answers all questions I'll be content to find the definitive answer to why the universe and intelligent humans exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2017, 11:23 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(15-11-2017 10:37 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I'll be content to find the definitive answer to why the universe and intelligent humans exist.

You've already decided. God-did-it.

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like brunumb's post
15-11-2017, 11:42 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(15-11-2017 10:37 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I believe the methodology of science is an objective truth finder and science will find the truth where it lies.

Fine. Until science finds evidence for your hypothetical god I'm not going to take the matter seriously.

Quote:The irony is it may turn out we owe our existence to mindless naturalistic forces that didn't have to exist, didn't have to create a universe and a place for humans to exist. If so, that is far more astounding and miraculous cause than if it was caused intentionally by design.

Have fun with your argument from incredulity. If that's the best you can do, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Astreja's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: