Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 06:09 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Yeah, like a stopwatch. Which doesn't tell time but measures time.

Fuck. I can't imagine how you function in your day to day life


So a watch is not just something intended by it's maker to tell time as you earlier defined it, but also something that intended by it's maker to measure time.

Could an object created by it's maker not intended to tell or measure time, be a watch?

I'll wait.

Keep shifting those goal posts.

A person could create it and call it anything they wanted.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:07 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So a watch is not just something intended by it's maker to tell time as you earlier defined it, but also something that intended by it's maker to measure time.

Could an object created by it's maker not intended to tell or measure time, be a watch?

I'll wait.

Keep shifting those goal posts.

A person could create it and call it anything they wanted.

I'm just using your own definitions. It's not me moving the goal posts it's you. It's you who expanded your own definition of a watch, not me.

But I'll take your non-answer, as you recognizing the downward spiral of contradictions you were soon to find yourself in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:31 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 07:12 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Just got in from roofing, so I'm really tired, so maybe that's why I can't understand why we're arguing about these points.

A watch, which clearly exhibits properties that show it could not have occurred naturally, is an intentionally-created thing. Sure.

What properties are you asserting about the physical universe we observe, which exhibits properties that show it could not have occurred naturally?

If you're going to simply point to gaps in our knowledge of the universe (which are ever-shrinking), in which to stuff your god(s), it's a pretty piss-poor example. That's why I keep mentioning the thunder and the lightning: people once said, "Look at this thing we don't understand; must be Thor/Zeus/Jesus." Now we know these are quite simple phenomena caused by electrical discharge and the resulting rapid heating of the air molecules around the discharge. No god-intent required. People once thought the diversity we observed in the world could only be caused by a Creator, sculpting each creature (including us) out of clay; now we know that life evolved by Natural Selection (and other gene-pool shaping factors) and diversified to fill whatever niches allowed that gene pool to continue replicating. People once thought the sun was a god; now we know that "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace where hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees". And so on and so on.

We've even figured out the age of the universe and the physics behind everything that happened after the first 10^−43 of a second after the Big Bang, and are coming pretty close to an understanding of that time period. I find it more than a tiny stretch to suppose that in that 0 to 10^−43 second after the Big Bang, God had to "stick His Almighty Fingers in the pie" and cause things to happen "just so".

When you say that the probability of the dice rolls coming up (if indeed that is the case, as it may be chance or the only way the universe could form) as 100 20s in a row "suggests" someone fiddled with the die, it ignores that we are constantly and very precisely measuring this die (the universe), and have watched the rolls being statistically accurate every time. Thus, when we see the 100x20 above, which we see as a "fluke" because we like the result, we can nevertheless conclude with fair certainty that, however improbable that particular result may be (no more or less improbable than the other 100-roll combinations), it is exactly as normal as all the other rolls we have carefully measured. For you to come along and suggest that the roll is "so unlikely" as to require personal intervention not only ignores basic statistics, it ignores that this die has been consistently weighed and measured and found to be predictably regular, every other time. Why suddenly insert a cheating player, where the player cheats in no other circumstance we have ever observed-- indeed, this player's rolls (the laws of the universe, in this metaphor), display a regularity so constant that all of our scientific knowledge and technology is based upon these measurements of regularity-- see, for instance, our use of quantum mechanics and general relativity to predict time to an accuracy necessary to allow GPS satellites/receivers to function.

We see nothing in the universe's laws that suggest anything more than randomness and physical laws at work. Indeed, this discovery would bankrupt every technology we create, including the most accurate watches (cesium clocks). The watch is not random; the universe is. And I like it that way.

(Edited to correct a major grammatical error.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
13-08-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:33 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What I left heavily implied but unstated is that merely observing a single "unlikely" event does not allow us to conclude anything about it.

Assume we both observed a 20D die rolling 20s a hundred times in a row. And both of us are unable to inspect the die any further.

A pot is going around taking bets on whether this was a fluke, or whether the die was weighted, or thrown in some particular way to achieve those results, etc.. (whether the results were intentional). We’ll know for certain after all the bets are in.

While you claim you can’t conclude anything about it, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out which way you’d bet. If we found out it was weighted you likely wouldn’t be all that surprised, where as if it was a fluke you probably would be.

Indeed.

Do you see any reason to consider your highly contrived hypothetical as being in any way applicable to any real world situation?

I don't.

What, then, is the point of it? An extended exercise in "IF A THEN A" might make you feel better, but beyond that?

(13-08-2015 05:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Illuminati did it?
NAH BRO THATS CRAZY TALK.

God did it?
RIGHT ON BRO INNIT OBVIOUS?

Uh... huh. You do that.

While you can likely see a whole slew of others things that I’d have to believe if I believed the Illuminati created the world, what additional things would I have to believe to assume it was created by some deistic God, that’s not already implied by assuming it was created?

Deism? But you're not a deist.

I can freely grant deism as an incoherent and useless - but unfalsifiable - hypothesis. What else ya got?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-08-2015, 07:20 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Keep shifting those goal posts.

A person could create it and call it anything they wanted.

I'm just using your own definitions. It's not me moving the goal posts it's you. It's you who expanded your own definition of a watch, not me.

But I'll take your non-answer, as you recognizing the downward spiral of contradictions you were soon to find yourself in.

Who expanded the definition of a watch?

Let me get this straight, an inanimate object can have intent?

The gun lobby is going to fucking hate you if you say yes. As are a lot of other manufacturers who are going to be very surprised that their products are sentient.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:21 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Keep shifting those goal posts.

A person could create it and call it anything they wanted.

I'm just using your own definitions. It's not me moving the goal posts it's you. It's you who expanded your own definition of a watch, not me.

But I'll take your non-answer, as you recognizing the downward spiral of contradictions you were soon to find yourself in.

You've contradicted yourself so often, you don't even recognize the shit show you've put on. I mean for fuck's sake, I've read better arguments on bathroom stalls.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Tomasia

The watch doesn't have intrinsic purpose. As thebeardeddude pointed out, to be consistent, you'd also have to assume that a rock used to bash someone's skull in has intrinsic purpose. My house serves the purpose of providing me shelter. Now lets imagine that every living thing on earth dies. What would be the purpose of the house then? You could say to provide shelter, but shelter for what? Shelter for nothing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
14-08-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 08:31 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The watch doesn't have intrinsic purpose. As thebeardeddude pointed out, to be consistent, you'd also have to assume that a rock used to bash someone's skull in has intrinsic purpose. My house serves the purpose of providing me shelter. Now lets imagine that every living thing on earth dies. What would be the purpose of the house then? You could say to provide shelter, but shelter for what? Shelter for nothing?

A rock in your scenario would have extrinsic purpose. A purpose given to it by it's user. It's a rock being used to bash someones head in, rather than a rock is an object used to bash someones head in. Where as when speaking of the intrinsic purpose of the watch, we're speaking of what it was design for, that purpose is what defines what a watch is.

intrinsic
/ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk/
adjective
1.
of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent

Telling or measuring time is an essential nature of a watch. We can't even define a watch absent of it's essential nature. A watch that doesn't tell time properly is one we refer to as broken, or not working properly. Where as if a particular rock was ineffective in bashing a person's head in, we couldn't say it was broken.

An object that was created to tell time or measure time wouldn't be a watch, it would be something else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:24 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed.

Do you see any reason to consider your highly contrived hypothetical as being in any way applicable to any real world situation?

Yes, in real world scenarios in which we’re contrasting flukes vs intentional.

Quote:What, then, is the point of it? An extended exercise in "IF A THEN A" might make you feel better, but beyond that?

It serves my curiosity.

Quote:Deism? But you're not a deist.

I’m not. But I still think deism is more believable than a cosmic accident.

And I believe Theism, in particular Christianity is even more believable than Deism. It also requires an entirely different starting point, more closer to home, than the tip of the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 12:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 11:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not sure what you mean by it because your using the wrong word. A fluke implies a fortuitous outcome, something that benefits you.

No, nothing about the references to universe as a fluke, or dice example as a fluke made by others, required the outcome to be fortuitous.

Which is precisely why "fluke" is the wrong fucking word. Angry

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: