Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2013, 08:38 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 08:03 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Your the one claiming there is reason to believe no universe would exist without the constant being that specific value. You don't send someone off on a goose chase to find the evidence your claiming exists.

This is almost as bas as asing a christian for evidence their god exists, and them telling you to read the bible.
Stephen Hawking

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.


If things were different, then things would be different. Your point?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 09:47 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:33 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, God.

That's pretty damn compelling lol. Quite the pwnage you managed there. I'm very curious to see people's reactions.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt


Come on Ghost, I'm pretty sure you're smarter than that.

:EDIT:

And a mined quote no less, go figure. I'm pretty sure that I had already called GodExists out on that already. Guess you didn't read the post.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 09:41 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 08:03 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Your the one claiming there is reason to believe no universe would exist without the constant being that specific value. You don't send someone off on a goose chase to find the evidence your claiming exists.

This is almost as bas as asing a christian for evidence their god exists, and them telling you to read the bible.
Stephen Hawking

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.
Listen Dr William Lane Craig, or Matt, or whatever the hell your name is...if you are going to "quote mine", then at least be really damned obscure. When Hawkins wrote that passage he was asking a question about fine tuning that he later answered to the "NEGATIVE": he said no fine-tuning was necessary. Of course, in the process of your quote mining, you made damned sure not to tell the other forum members that....didn't you?

For a very-well written explanation of the context of that quote, I suggest this link: http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/16...-universe/

Furthermore, the explanation of the context of that quote can be further verified by actually reading the book, which is here - http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/steph...f_time.pdf

Q.E.D - you are wrong dude and you don't know what you are talking about.



Now...quit confusing the people who seek truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Julius's post
17-03-2013, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2013 10:00 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 08:03 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Your the one claiming there is reason to believe no universe would exist without the constant being that specific value. You don't send someone off on a goose chase to find the evidence your claiming exists.

This is almost as bas as asing a christian for evidence their god exists, and them telling you to read the bible.
Stephen Hawking

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.

Claim: The universe would not exist if the constant was different.
Proof: Stephen Hawking says if it was any smaller the universe would have re collapsed.

Perhaps Ghost can fill me in on where the 'pwnage' is. I seem to have missed it.

(17-03-2013 08:33 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, God.

That's pretty damn compelling lol. Quite the pwnage you managed there. I'm very curious to see people's reactions.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
I recall seeing a QI episode that mentioned a while back printers used to use ^...jkljashudfus...^ symbols to indicated sarcasm.

Just a suggestion there, Matt.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-03-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 09:53 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Stephen Hawking

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.

Claim: The universe would not exist if the constant was different.
Proof: Stephen Hawking says if it was any smaller the universe would have re collapsed.

Perhaps Ghost can fill me in on where the 'pwnage' is. I seem to have missed it.

(17-03-2013 08:33 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, God.

That's pretty damn compelling lol. Quite the pwnage you managed there. I'm very curious to see people's reactions.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Also....who the hell is this "Godexists"? He registers on 3-13 and makes this topic the very same day. Then, he gets deceitful and "Guess Who" says this deceitfulness - this lying - is "Ownage"?

Is this "Godexists" some kind of vicious sock puppet?

I'm beginning to wonder. Especially considering that "Guess Who" reffered to some members on this board as asshole the first time he introduced himself to "GodExists"

Julius


Don't piss on my leg and call it rain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2013 07:23 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Ah, Julius.

I just took a shit. It had more to say than you ever have.

Damnit! That was dumb of me. The sign clearly says "don't feed the trolls" Drinking Beverage

ON EDIT: Hey, Julius, you slanderous mold infestation. How about this. The forum admins can check to see if my IP and God's IP are the same. If they are, you warthog-faced buffoon, they can ban me. If they are not, they ban you. Sound fair, you miserable vomitous mass?

Hey, EKills.

I'm pretty sure you know better than to speak to me like that.

His point is simple. He said that if things were slightly different that the universe would not exist. People immediately descended on him and said that he was wrong and demanded that he prove it. He posted a quote that proved it. What Hawking says CLEARLY supports his very simple statement.

Now I'm aware of the fact that you guys are having your little pissing contest about God and all, but you may be aware of the fact that I don't actually care. I'm familiar with Hawking and Greene and they both say, quite clearly, that if conditions were slightly different that the universe would not have been able to support the creation of matter and by extension, life (the 'wouldn't exist' thing is news to me). Multiverse theory, should it prove true, tells us that there is a plurality of universes and that each one has different values (an idea that was arrived at as a way of explaining the discrepancy between the value of our universe and the fact that there were thousands (a high number I can't think of and don't want to embellish) of different shapes of string) and that in some, they would never get past the hot soup stage because of this difference in conditions. Any way you slice it, THIS universe, whether it's alone or one of many, has conditions that can support the creation of matter and life. Any way you slice it, if these conditions were slightly different, neither would be possible (or the universe wouldn't exist).

That's just fact. If you don't generate enough thrust or lift, your plane won't take off. If the values are slightly different, no life. If people can't admit to those facts or conveniently ignore them because they're inconvenient, then I don't have much respect for that.

Does any of this mean there's a God? Have I ever in my life suggested that anything does? No I have not. Anyone who thinks that that is what I am suggesting is either not taking the time to read what I wrote or they are so incapable of independent thought that all they have to offer in terms of a response is an automatic talking point and because I don't tow the strict ideological line, that means that I'm a creationist. It's patently ridiculous.

Hey, Asp.

Smaller is different. It's a value. 3 is smaller than 4. Pwn. Did I miss something? Did people expect that by different he meant 'if it was a maple-glazed doughnut'?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 07:37 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(17-03-2013 08:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-03-2013 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Stephen Hawking

“If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.


If things were different, then things would be different. Your point?

There are two points.

There is no reason to suppose the rate of expansion could be different.

If the universe could have different parameters, then a different universe would exist.

We wouldn't be here. So?

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
18-03-2013, 07:56 AM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
A word from my favourite poet Piet Hein:
The universe may be as great as they say
But it wouldn't be missed if it didn't exist
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2013, 11:01 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2013 11:07 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(18-03-2013 07:16 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, EKills.

I'm pretty sure you know better than to speak to me like that.

His point is simple. He said that if things were slightly different that the universe would not exist. People immediately descended on him and said that he was wrong and demanded that he prove it. He posted a quote that proved it. What Hawking says CLEARLY supports his very simple statement.


Yeah, because disingenuously quote mining a scientist clearly proves his point.

Without absolute knowledge, you do not know whether life could exist in other universes with other constants. Our life, on our planet, might be incredibly precarious. But if he is going to CLAIM that no life would exist if any of the constants changed, then he would need to show evidence that all other sets of possible combinations of variables for the constants would be unable to support ANY life (not just our own). Quite clearly, neither he nor anyone else is capable of doing this. Thus he should withdraw his claim, because he is unable to support it. Quote mining Hawkins is not proof of his claim.

That being said, I guess I did give you too much credit. It won't happen again. And for the record, I'll talk to you however I goddamn well please. If you don't like it you can keep quit, or put me on ignore like that intellectual coward and troll, MrBlowjob. But if you say something that piques my interest or raises my ire, I will not keep silent. If you have a trouble with the style, that sounds like a 'you' problem.





This isn't a witch hunt. This troll doesn't need you as a noble guardian, fighting off the unwashed masses. He quite clearly came here to pick a fight, and I'm bored enough to give it to him. If you want to throw your lot it with him, it's your ass.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: