Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2013, 05:14 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 05:12 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 05:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  That there are intelligent beings in the universe does not make the universe intelligent.

I suppose then you think that even though you have an intelligent organ(called a brain) that's not enough to say you are an intelligent being.

Like a brain is to the body, you are a component of the universe. If you are intelligent then the universe if intelligent.

If it is a brute fact that the universe had to be this way, then it is a brute fact that the universe(or reality as a whole) has to be intelligent. This whole, the universe is the way it is because it has to be that way, takes us a least half way to theism.

Illogical nonsense and woo.

The universe doesn't have to be this way. Our intelligence is a contingent, evolved property - it didn't have to come about.

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
09-10-2013, 06:41 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 04:44 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Does it bother you that in the progression from multiverse to universe he becomes an entirely unnecessary step?
With regard to the second question, I'm not sure what you mean....perhaps you can re-phrase.

I'll expand:
There are many atheist proponents of the multiverse idea. Those proponents see it as likely that our universe exists within some broader multiverse context and propose that our universe is the product of some natural forces in that multiverse.

You are a proponent of the multiverse idea. You see it as likely that our universe exists within some broader multiverse context and propose that the multiverse through properties of emergent complexity produced a god creature. The god creature in turn created our own universe and interacts with some of the universe's inhabitants in a theistic manner.

So there are additional steps you hold above and beyond a conventional multiverse model:
1. You propose that a god creature can and has emerged within the multiverse (just one?)
2. You propose that the god creature was the cause of our universe, rather than some other natural process within the multiverse
3. You propose that the god creature has an ongoing theistic reliationship with out universe's inhabitants
This is a more specific and more complex proposal than the base multiverse model, so we are justified in assessing it as being "less likely" on that basis than the base multiverse model.

But beyond all that, why not accept a simpler model again - that our universe is the multiverse and there is nothing beyond it? Any additional steps seem unjustified given our current understanding and evidence.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
09-10-2013, 02:42 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(08-10-2013 08:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 02:20 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We both know there are far more theists than ghost-sighters and alien abductees combined. We both know there are people who believe in God and people who do not--my comment was regarding the other poster's one-sided, biased comment. He can attempt to elaborate on his special knowledge if he chooses.

Your comment was off-base in terms of if my god and devil exist, we get a lot more insight into ghosts and aliens, too...


And far more people used to think the world was flat and the center of all of creation... Drinking Beverage

And neither is taught in scripture. I'm so tired of defending against straw man arguments, and please spare me the "pillars of the Earth" garbage, which I already understand from the Hebrew and in context.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2013, 11:27 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(08-10-2013 08:35 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And far more people used to think the world was flat and the center of all of creation... Drinking Beverage

And neither is taught in scripture. I'm so tired of defending against straw man arguments, and please spare me the "pillars of the Earth" garbage, which I already understand from the Hebrew and in context.

They still thought they lived inside a cosmic snow globe, that stars existed inside the solid firmament and could fall to Earth and be wrestled with, and that outer space was filled with water...

So yeah, not a strawman, biblical people were really that ignorant (or at least as ignorant as all of their contemporary neighbors whom they plagiarized their stories from). It was a Greek philosopher and mathematician named Eratosthenes that deduced the world was round, and calculated it's circumference by measuring the differences in shadows between Alexandria and Syene.

And of course, the Bible never told us that the Earth revolved around the sun, or the means by which that happens. Even if you plead that the bible said nothing, than the corollary that it didn't tell us anything about the cosmos that is not observable to the naked eye (namely that there are many stars and they are beautiful, something any child can tell you; imagine that, a child can tell you as much about the stars as your god did! Laughat ) is a damning omission.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 11:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And neither is taught in scripture. I'm so tired of defending against straw man arguments, and please spare me the "pillars of the Earth" garbage, which I already understand from the Hebrew and in context.

They still thought they lived inside a cosmic snow globe, that stars existed inside the solid firmament and could fall to Earth and be wrestled with, and that outer space was filled with water...

So yeah, not a strawman, biblical people were really that ignorant (or at least as ignorant as all of their contemporary neighbors whom they plagiarized their stories from). It was a Greek philosopher and mathematician named Eratosthenes that deduced the world was round, and calculated it's circumference by measuring the differences in shadows between Alexandria and Syene.

And of course, the Bible never told us that the Earth revolved around the sun, or the means by which that happens. Even if you plead that the bible said nothing, than the corollary that it didn't tell us anything about the cosmos that is not observable to the naked eye (namely that there are many stars and they are beautiful, something any child can tell you; imagine that, a child can tell you as much about the stars as your god did! Laughat ) is a damning omission.

"Separating the waters from the waters...?" refers to terrestial Pangaea and ocean water and water stored below to come up to water the ground and FLOOD.

I'm aware of Eratosthenes's good work. He was born in the 3rd century BCE. His experiments would have occured after the Septuagint was written and therefore he might have been inspired in his experiments by Job's writings turned to the Greek language! Thanks for the new idea for me.

Your argument from silence forgot black holes, brain neurons, apatheism, and about 5 billion other things. And? Perhaps you'd prefer physics formulae in the Bible 2 millennia before Sir Issac Newton's time?

1. Straw man 2. Straw man 3. Straw man

"Atheist, please."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 03:15 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2013 03:21 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(09-10-2013 06:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  But beyond all that, why not accept a simpler model again - that our universe is the multiverse and there is nothing beyond it? Any additional steps seem unjustified given our current understanding and evidence.

Doesn't a multiverse require something beyond it? If our universe is part of a multiverse then some external entity must have generated our universe. A multiverse requires the existence of a universe generator.....an entity to generate the individual universes.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is eternal....that gets rid of the question of where did this universe generator come from? However, I do think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is not emergent complex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't really know do we....and assuming it isn't emergent complex doesn't make for a simpler explanation.

If this entity is eternally emergent complex wouldn't it look a lot like God? Our universe is emergent complex and after 14 billion years it is becoming more intelligent and more self reflective. What might it look like after a hundred trillion years? The comparison is bad because an eternally emergent complex thing is going to look quite a bit different than a finite emergent complex thing. The finite thing will have once been simple, the eternal one will always have been infinitely complex.

A lot of atheists are proponents of a multiverse, because without it, this universe really does look designed....and a designed universe requires an intelligent designer. But even if I accepted the multiverse idea, I would still have to travel a long road to atheism. To be an atheist, I would have to assume the entity which generates the universes is not emergent complex. That puts me into a position of having to make an assumption for the sole purpose of becoming an atheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:54 PM
Re: RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 03:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 06:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  But beyond all that, why not accept a simpler model again - that our universe is the multiverse and there is nothing beyond it? Any additional steps seem unjustified given our current understanding and evidence.

Doesn't a multiverse require something beyond it? If our universe is part of a multiverse then some external entity must have generated our universe. A multiverse requires the existence of a universe generator.....an entity to generate the individual universes.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is eternal....that gets rid of the question of where did this universe generator come from? However, I do think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is not emergent complex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't really know do we....and assuming it isn't emergent complex doesn't make for a simpler explanation.

If this entity is eternally emergent complex wouldn't it look a lot like God? Our universe is emergent complex and after 14 billion years it is becoming more intelligent and more self reflective. What might it look like after a hundred trillion years? The comparison is bad because an eternally emergent complex thing is going to look quite a bit different than a finite emergent complex thing. The finite thing will have once been simple, the eternal one will always have been infinitely complex.

A lot of atheists are proponents of a multiverse, because without it, this universe really does look designed....and a designed universe requires an intelligent designer. But even if I accepted the multiverse idea, I would still have to travel a long road to atheism. To be an atheist, I would have to assume the entity which generates the universes is not emergent complex. That puts me into a position of having to make an assumption for the sole purpose of becoming an atheist.

An entity "must" have generated our universe is an unfounded.assertion.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 03:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Doesn't a multiverse require something beyond it? If our universe is part of a multiverse then some external entity must have generated our universe. A multiverse requires the existence of a universe generator.....an entity to generate the individual universes.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is eternal....that gets rid of the question of where did this universe generator come from? However, I do think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is not emergent complex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't really know do we....and assuming it isn't emergent complex doesn't make for a simpler explanation.

If this entity is eternally emergent complex wouldn't it look a lot like God? Our universe is emergent complex and after 14 billion years it is becoming more intelligent and more self reflective. What might it look like after a hundred trillion years? The comparison is bad because an eternally emergent complex thing is going to look quite a bit different than a finite emergent complex thing. The finite thing will have once been simple, the eternal one will always have been infinitely complex.

A lot of atheists are proponents of a multiverse, because without it, this universe really does look designed....and a designed universe requires an intelligent designer. But even if I accepted the multiverse idea, I would still have to travel a long road to atheism. To be an atheist, I would have to assume the entity which generates the universes is not emergent complex. That puts me into a position of having to make an assumption for the sole purpose of becoming an atheist.

An entity "must" have generated our universe is an unfounded.assertion.

So is the "multi-verse" for that matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 05:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  An entity "must" have generated our universe is an unfounded.assertion.

So is the "multi-verse" for that matter.

Then I won't even mention god. Ah shit, I just did. Angel

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 08:21 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 03:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 06:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  But beyond all that, why not accept a simpler model again - that our universe is the multiverse and there is nothing beyond it? Any additional steps seem unjustified given our current understanding and evidence.
Doesn't a multiverse require something beyond it? If our universe is part of a multiverse then some external entity must have generated our universe. A multiverse requires the existence of a universe generator.....an entity to generate the individual universes.

A multiverse doesn't need anything beyond it. A universe doesn't need anything beyond it. There is no point accepting as fact, or even accepting as probable that for which there is no evidence. It's OK to say "I don't know". It's OK to take a conservative, sceptical stance. It's OK to say "My mind is open to evidence as it comes in".

I'm not a multiverse believer or disbeliever. Our universe might be the "prime" one, or might not be, or perhaps there is no prime reality. Philosophy in so far as it has tried to shed light on our origins proved unreliable in so far as we have been able to discover facts through science that contradicts traditional philosophical stances. The universe has always turned out to be much more interesting and surprising than our smartest philosophical minds have proposed. The universe may infinitely regress. There may be a prime reality. We may live in the prime reality. I don't have a reasonable basis of evidence to decide between these possibilities. The simplest possibility is that our reality is the prime one, so that is a reasonable conservative hypothesis to operate from in the mean time. Both alternatives are more complex, and if you start throwing a god in there as well then you are in my view in profoundly unfounded territory.

(10-10-2013 03:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is eternal....that gets rid of the question of where did this universe generator come from? However, I do think it is unreasonable to assume that entity is not emergent complex. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't really know do we....and assuming it isn't emergent complex doesn't make for a simpler explanation.

If this entity is eternally emergent complex wouldn't it look a lot like God? Our universe is emergent complex and after 14 billion years it is becoming more intelligent and more self reflective. What might it look like after a hundred trillion years? The comparison is bad because an eternally emergent complex thing is going to look quite a bit different than a finite emergent complex thing. The finite thing will have once been simple, the eternal one will always have been infinitely complex.

A lot of atheists are proponents of a multiverse, because without it, this universe really does look designed....and a designed universe requires an intelligent designer. But even if I accepted the multiverse idea, I would still have to travel a long road to atheism. To be an atheist, I would have to assume the entity which generates the universes is not emergent complex. That puts me into a position of having to make an assumption for the sole purpose of becoming an atheist.

You assume and assume, but you don't know... and the kind of thinking you are applying to the problem has a poor track record of producing reliable results. As for teleological argument, I disagree that the universe looks designed. If it does look designed, what purpose does it look designed for? How would we distinguish between a universe designed for that purpose and one for whom that purpose is an accidental property? You are right in saying that some atheists look at the universe and suspect that it is the result of some boiling ocean of universe raw material that through emergent complexity created this universe alongside many other that might have different fundamental properties and physics. That's one possible explanation of how the universe's physics came to be set the way they are, to go alongside the possibility that there really was only one way that the universe's physics could be for some yet unknown reason.

To put a god alongside this you are arguing that the multiverse he inhabits is capable of producing a god-being through emergent complexity alone, but is not producing our universe through emergent complexity alone - our universe requires a god-being to intercede between the raw emergent complexity of the multiverse and the creation act for our universe. That argument seems hard to justify. Wouldn't it be simpler to expect that the universe could come about by a more direct means? Is it really easier for a universe to spawn a god than it is for that universe to spawn some kind of child universe? How do you justify that assertion?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: