Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2013, 09:08 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2013 09:14 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 07:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 05:04 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Substantiate your claims.
This thread is rather for you to substantiate YOUR claims....


Probabilities do not provide evidence for god.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 08:44 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 07:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  This thread is rather for you to substantiate YOUR claims....

Cosmologists observe that the universe we reside in is expanding. It contains billions of galaxies.
In those billions of galaxies, we observe billions of stars.
In our own galaxy, we have made numerous observations.
Cosmologists can turn any number of observations we have made into claims.
They can justify those claims with the evidence of those observations.
We can make predictions based on the physical laws that we have observed in the universe.
We can justify those claims about the things we know or the things we can accurately predict.

All of our beliefs that we have about the accuracy of our observations of reality are backed up by evidence.
I believe the earth orbits our sun. I can justify this belief with evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming enough to be called knowledge.
We not only believe this to be true, we know it to be true because we can justify that belief with mountains of evidence.

So you see, our claims are justified by the evidence we have obtained through careful scrutiny of what we observe.

You seem to want to know why a natural process is natural.
You are looking for some finely tuned reason why a storm develops. (It must have been Thor-Odin's Son)
You have this desire for a being to be above us, pulling some puppet strings on the world, causing the tides, making it rain, setting the exact temperature for water to freeze, making a rainbow or leading a sperm to it's final destination.

You find it unfathomable that a tree can naturally grow on it's own without someone guiding every single one of it's cell divisions.
This is the natural world. It's nature. Nature Exists

You want to know WHY ?

I'm sorry, I can only explain what we observe and that observation is as best we can do for now.

Physical laws exist. We observe that.
The universe exists. We observe that.
We exist as a result of both. This also is our observation.
The idea of a god exists because we created that idea in our imagination.
To date our imaginary god has not been observed.

Our imagination can give rise to many creative endeavors. Painting, story telling, conceptual ideas that innovate the world.
Our world, our natural world.
We lay a claim on what we observe. Nothing more.
If you are seeing things that others do not. You might want to see a doctor about that.


The problem, Rhann, is the universe does have an appearance of being fine tuned. Change one of the constants by just a little and life as we know is incapable of existing. Please note, that just because it appears to be fined tuned doesn't necessarily mean it is fine tuned. Really there are four explainations for the apparent fine tunning and out of those 4 only 2 are are credible.

1)An intellect Done it(credible).
2)As a matter of happenstance the universe just happened to hit a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion shot and developed with the constants necessary for life as we know it.(not credible)
3)A multiverse exists which consist of subuniverses each with there own constants. Most universe are unable to support life but we just happen to exist in one that does(this is as credible as 1).
4)It is a brute fact of the universe(because of reasons unknown) that the constants be such to support life(not credible).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2013 02:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 03:14 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 12:44 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Sure, if the universal laws were different, even a tiny bit different, "life like us" would not be able to exist, but probably life that is not like us would evolve in that universe, and they would be sitting around arguing about how perfect it is that their universal laws were perfectly "fine tuned" just for them.
Without finetuning, no universe at all would exist. One example is the cosmological constant.

Whatever. It's all a "god of the gaps" argument. You (psychologically) NEED an answer TODAY. And the only answer you can think of today is to cook up a god. How uncreative. And your god, if she exists, must be really happy that the only reason you believe in her, is because you need an answer today, because you are anal retentive, not that you have a relationship with her, or have experienced her in some way. Real nice. And you have not addressed the "existence" outside of space-time I posed on page one. Get cracking kid. We're waiting.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-03-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 08:44 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Cosmologists observe that the universe we reside in is expanding. It contains billions of galaxies.
In those billions of galaxies, we observe billions of stars.
In our own galaxy, we have made numerous observations.
Cosmologists can turn any number of observations we have made into claims.
They can justify those claims with the evidence of those observations.
We can make predictions based on the physical laws that we have observed in the universe.
We can justify those claims about the things we know or the things we can accurately predict.

All of our beliefs that we have about the accuracy of our observations of reality are backed up by evidence.
I believe the earth orbits our sun. I can justify this belief with evidence.
The evidence is overwhelming enough to be called knowledge.
We not only believe this to be true, we know it to be true because we can justify that belief with mountains of evidence.

So you see, our claims are justified by the evidence we have obtained through careful scrutiny of what we observe.

You seem to want to know why a natural process is natural.
You are looking for some finely tuned reason why a storm develops. (It must have been Thor-Odin's Son)
You have this desire for a being to be above us, pulling some puppet strings on the world, causing the tides, making it rain, setting the exact temperature for water to freeze, making a rainbow or leading a sperm to it's final destination.

You find it unfathomable that a tree can naturally grow on it's own without someone guiding every single one of it's cell divisions.
This is the natural world. It's nature. Nature Exists

You want to know WHY ?

I'm sorry, I can only explain what we observe and that observation is as best we can do for now.

Physical laws exist. We observe that.
The universe exists. We observe that.
We exist as a result of both. This also is our observation.
The idea of a god exists because we created that idea in our imagination.
To date our imaginary god has not been observed.

Our imagination can give rise to many creative endeavors. Painting, story telling, conceptual ideas that innovate the world.
Our world, our natural world.
We lay a claim on what we observe. Nothing more.
If you are seeing things that others do not. You might want to see a doctor about that.


The problem, Rhann, is the universe does have an appearance of being fine tuned. Change one of the constants by just a little and life as we know is incapable of existing. Please note, that just because it appears to be fined tuned doesn't necessarily mean it is fine tuned. Really there are four explainations for the apparent fine tunning and out of those 4 only 2 are are credible.

1)An intellect Done it(credible).
2)As a matter of happenstance the universe just happened to hit a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion shot and developed with the constants necessary for life as we know it.(not credible)
3)A multiverse exists which consist of subuniverses each with there own constants. Most universe are unable to support life but we just happen to exist in one that does(this is as credible as 1).
4)It is a brute fact of the universe(because of reasons unknown) that the constants be such to support life(not credible).



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:35 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2013 09:45 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
I like a good challenging debate but you two are bringing up things that have already been refuted.

The cosmological constant can be 0, a very large positive value or a small negative value. So much for the changing of the constant throwing everything off.

Another note, even if our maths were completely off, reality would not change, because we have fine tuned models of reality doesn't mean those models will change reality. Rather than change reality we change our mathematical models to come closer to resembling reality, constants and all.

Second, probabilities are fun to play with, but to ignore all the forces that cause things to change states is the greatest blunder of the "It's so improbable therefore god" argument.

[Image: stzkUQJ.png]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 13-03-2013 10:05 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The problem, Rhann, is the universe does have an appearance of being fine tuned. Change one of the constants by just a little and life as we know is incapable of existing. Please note, that just because it appears to be fined tuned doesn't necessarily mean it is fine tuned. Really there are four explainations for the apparent fine tunning and out of those 4 only 2 are are credible.

1)An intellect Done it(credible).
2)As a matter of happenstance the universe just happened to hit a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion shot and developed with the constants necessary for life as we know it.(not credible)
3)A multiverse exists which consist of subuniverses each with there own constants. Most universe are unable to support life but we just happen to exist in one that does(this is as credible as 1).
4)It is a brute fact of the universe(because of reasons unknown) that the constants be such to support life(not credible).

1. - Bullshit. You have no evidence to support this, just your rampant anthropocentrism, and that's isn't worth jack shit. A psychological bias is not evidence in cosmology.

2. - Bullshit. You are assuming a multiverse with changing constants, neither of which have been explored beyond hypothesis and thought experiments. Once again, no evidence. Lets also no forget that your chosen intelligent agent says nothing about them in any of his supposed books attributed to him.

3. - Bullshit, for the same reasons as above.

4. - Bullshit. This is putting the cart before the horse. The universe isn't finely tuned to us, we are finely tuned to the universe. If the constants were different, other 'life' might arise; and if it did, it would conform to the constants of that universe. Would it be carbon based and require water? I don't know, and neither do you.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-03-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  1)An intellect Done it(credible).
2)As a matter of happenstance the universe just happened to hit a 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion shot and developed with the constants necessary for life as we know it.(not credible)
3)A multiverse exists which consist of subuniverses each with there own constants. Most universe are unable to support life but we just happen to exist in one that does(this is as credible as 1).
4)It is a brute fact of the universe(because of reasons unknown) that the constants be such to support life(not credible).

1) An intellect Done did it (unknowable, but no evidence for it)
2) ...life as we know it. (Reality. Like others already explained we evolved in the system not the other way around)
3) Most (of the) universe are is unable to support life... (unknown)
4) ...that the constants be such to support life. (Reality. Should say "life as we know it".)

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-03-2013, 09:56 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 07:58 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 07:15 PM)Godexists Wrote:  If the fundamental constants like the atomic forces would be different, no universe would exist. That demands for a explanation.
How can you demonstrate that the universe would not exist if the constants changed?

From Lawrence Krauss:
The density of matter as the universe expands, goes down as 1/volume.

The energy density of empty space remains constant as the universe expands.
And we live when the energy density of empty space is 3 times bigger than the energy density of matter.
It is the only time in the history of the universe when these two densities are about the same.
At all earlier times, the density of matter was much greater. And at all later times, the density of empty space will be much greater.

Why do we live at this special time in the history of the universe ?

It's because only when the repulsive force of the density of empty space and the attractive force of the density of matter are close enough in value for galaxies to form.
If galaxies don't form, stars don't form and we don't form.

To simplify this I offer the following analogy.

An oven has an internal temperature of 2000 degrees.
The oven door is left open and the temperature falls 100 degrees each hour.
Every 30 minutes a pan with cake batter is placed in the oven to cook.
In many of the pans, the batter turns to a black burnt mess never forming to make a delicious tasting cake.
On one of the trials, as the temps fall from 400 to 300 degrees, a nice cake will be perfectly baked.
From that point on, the batter won't form into cake.

It is the nature of the density of matter to decrease over time just like the oven cools over time.
Only at a certain time in our history can galaxies form and only when galaxies form can we form, just as a cake in this oven can only form at a certain time when the temps are just right.


So the values of the universe that bring about the formation of galaxies are not constant.
They change over time. We exist at a time when those values are just right for galaxies to form.
We can only exist at this time. It's not fine tuning. It's spring time when the flowers bloom, when galaxies bloom.

It's nature

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
13-03-2013, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-03-2013 05:33 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 07:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 05:04 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Substantiate your claims.
This thread is rather for you to substantiate YOUR claims....



I'm sorry dipshit, what is the name of this tread?

"Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible"


plau·si·ble
/ˈplôzəbəl/
Adjective

(of an argument or statement) Seeming reasonable or probable.
(of a person) Skilled at producing persuasive arguments, esp. ones intended to deceive.

Synonyms
probable - likely - credible - believable - possible


So, everything I listed on for you to read on Wikipedia (and everything explained to you so far) has already met the burden of plausible. Thank you and goodbye. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
13-03-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: Please present explanations which make philosophical naturalism plausible
(13-03-2013 09:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(13-03-2013 07:58 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  How can you demonstrate that the universe would not exist if the constants changed?

From Lawrence Krauss:
The density of matter as the universe expands, goes down as 1/volume.

The energy density of empty space remains constant as the universe expands.
And we live when the energy density of empty space is 3 times bigger than the energy density of matter.
It is the only time in the history of the universe when these two densities are about the same.
At all earlier times, the density of matter was much greater. And at all later times, the density of empty space will be much greater.

Why do we live at this special time in the history of the universe ?

It's because only when the repulsive force of the density of empty space and the attractive force of the density of matter are close enough in value for galaxies to form.
If galaxies don't form, stars don't form and we don't form.

To simplify this I offer the following analogy.

An oven has an internal temperature of 2000 degrees.
The oven door is left open and the temperature falls 100 degrees each hour.
Every 30 minutes a pan with cake batter is placed in the oven to cook.
In many of the pans, the batter turns to a black burnt mess never forming to make a delicious tasting cake.
On one of the trials, as the temps fall from 400 to 300 degrees, a nice cake will be perfectly baked.
From that point on, the batter won't form into cake.

It is the nature of the density of matter to decrease over time just like the oven cools over time.
Only at a certain time in our history can galaxies form and only when galaxies form can we form, just as a cake in this oven can only form at a certain time when the temps are just right.


So the values of the universe that bring about the formation of galaxies are not constant.
They change over time. We exist at a time when those values are just right for galaxies to form.
We can only exist at this time. It's not fine tuning. It's spring time when the flowers bloom, when galaxies bloom.

It's nature

Yes, but he said 'no universe would exist', not simply 'not this universe'.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: