Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 07:59 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What properties are you asserting about the physical universe we observe, which exhibits properties that show it could not have occurred naturally?

I hardly ever say something could not happen. Even if something where to be very unlikely it could happen. It could very well be possible that we’re just a fluke. I find the arguments for it, like Alex Rosenberg's quite interesting, but I don’t find it very believable. But it’s possible. I also don’t use the words natural vs supernatural, because I really don’t know where one term ends and the other begins. The question is primarily the one analogous to our dice example, on how we (perhaps not collectively) infer something was a “cosmic accident” a “fluke” vs intentional.

Going back to our dice example, we both just watched the dice being rolled and drawings 20s, a hundred times (assuming at this point we’re not able to inspect the dice further).

A person who assumes it’s a fluke can’t just site the odds (0.7888609x10^-13.) as support, because those odds already presuppose that it was a fluke.

But what are all of us betting in the pot that it’s wasn’t fluke, that the dice where weighted, basing ours bet on? We clearly haven’t calculated the exact odds here. But we have an intuitive sense of what the odds are: that the dice are far more likely to be weighted than a fluke. We’re also likely to be making the bets quite confidently, believing it to be a sure thing.

Quote: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."

I know you’ve mentioned this example several times, and I’ve just sort of ignored it because it’s inaccurate. And that inaccuracy wasn’t really related to the thread at hand, so I didn’t address it. But since it’s been mentioned again, I will. The religious view, including the Greek view of thunder and lightening weren’t predicated on explaining lightening or thunder, but rather in regards to explaining suffering and calamity. That a man’s or a communities suffering, whether it be by a defeat in war, thunder, or disease, etc.. was punishment, for something that they had done wrong.

This is the fundamental question of Job, with the writer of Job questioning this prevalent assumption. And the question transformed by the writers of the Gospels, who see something redemptive in it, expressed in the suffering of Jesus. But this is all some tangent, so we can ignore it, I just wanted to address your repeated but inaccurate example.

Quote: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"
…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.

Creating a self-sustaining system, that doesn’t need a mechanic to come out every so often to change a defective part, is far more impressive than the sort that needs constant tinkering by it’s creator to sustain itself.

I’m not positing an intentional agent that sticks his finger here and there when everything is already in motion, fixing any possible stray movements, or disfunctioning part along the way. But one that weighted the dice, before initial movement even begun. In this sense we’re not talking about multiple rolls, but only the first one, the source of all the subsequent rolls as well.

Why do I say the dice are weighted? Because they are. They are weighted to be able to produce matter. Matter that’s weighted, that has the qualities that allow for a nearly endless stream of diversity in it’s arraignments. Including an arrangement that produces conscious creatures, with moral, creative, and rational capacities, a “way for the cosmos to know itself”. And not just this, but also the existence of the physical laws that government this, that insures that these arrangements are not just a possibility, but come into fruition.

None of this had to be. It’s entirely conceivable that matter lacked the properties needed to produce conscious self aware creatures. It could just have had only the properties to produce only a series of empty planets, a series of inanimate objects, or rather than being able to arrange itself into conscious creatures, produce only zombies. Or the laws need to have been such to allow for these arrangement of matter to ever come into fruition at all.

You can say it didn’t have to have these properties, but it just did. And lucky for us it just did, or we wouldn’t have been able to sit here and talk about it. But here we couldn’t really apply the “term” fluke. We’d just have to concede the dice are weighted. No one weighted them. They just were.

Quote: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),

A man appealing to intention, is accused of plugging in gaps, by a person who then fills those supposed gaps with flukes, and cosmic accidents. But I don't think any of us are filling in gaps, anymore than a man believing the dice is weighted, and betting on it being so, is filling a gap.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
14-08-2015, 08:17 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 08:21 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 05:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Sure, the broadest, vaguest, most useless sense of "comparing things". An extraordinarily contrived "if A then A" hypothetical is not a useful tool.

Could you give a real example?

(14-08-2015 05:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.

Tautological circlejerking satisfies your... curiosity?

Okay, then.

(14-08-2015 05:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Deism? But you're not a deist.

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

And your magical special pleading excuse for the deistic agent itself not being a "cosmic accident"?

I mean, I guess I could credit that, while satisfied in principle with vapid baseless assertion that some things "just are" to the point of being unexplainable rather than merely unexplained, you nonetheless feel a pressing need to go several turtles down before arbitrarily declaring yourself satisfied with a series of meaningless non-answers. I guess I could grant you that.

I don't see how it accomplishes anything, mind you. And I utterly fail to see how it would ever convince a reasonable person.

(14-08-2015 05:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Ah, yes. Magical special pleading returns for a thrilling encore performance.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
14-08-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What properties are you asserting about the physical universe we observe, which exhibits properties that show it could not have occurred naturally?

I hardly ever say something could not happen. Even if something where to be very unlikely it could happen. It could very well be possible that we’re just a fluke. I find the arguments for it, like Alex Rosenberg's quite interesting, but I don’t find it very believable. But it’s possible. I also don’t use the words natural vs supernatural, because I really don’t know where one term ends and the other begins. The question is primarily the one analogous to our dice example, on how we (perhaps not collectively) infer something was a “cosmic accident” a “fluke” vs intentional.

Going back to our dice example, we both just watched the dice being rolled and drawings 20s, a hundred times (assuming at this point we’re not able to inspect the dice further).

A person who assumes it’s a fluke can’t just site the odds (0.7888609x10^-13.) as support, because those odds already presuppose that it was a fluke.

But what are all of us betting in the pot that it’s wasn’t fluke, that the dice where weighted, basing ours bet on? We clearly haven’t calculated the exact odds here. But we have an intuitive sense of what the odds are: that the dice are far more likely to be weighted than a fluke. We’re also likely to be making the bets quite confidently, believing it to be a sure thing.

Quote: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."

I know you’ve mentioned this example several times, and I’ve just sort of ignored it because it’s inaccurate. And that inaccuracy wasn’t really related to the thread at hand, so I didn’t address it. But since it’s been mentioned again, I will. The religious view, including the Greek view of thunder and lightening weren’t predicated on explaining lightening or thunder, but rather in regards to explaining suffering and calamity. That a man’s or a communities suffering, whether it be by a defeat in war, thunder, or disease, etc.. was punishment, for something that they had done wrong.

This is the fundamental question of Job, with the writer of Job questioning this prevalent assumption. And the question transformed by the writers of the Gospels, who see something redemptive in it, expressed in the suffering of Jesus. But this is all some tangent, so we can ignore it, I just wanted to address your repeated but inaccurate example.

Quote: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"
…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.

Creating a self-sustaining system, that doesn’t need a mechanic to come out every so often to change a defective part, is far more impressive than the sort that needs constant tinkering by it’s creator to sustain itself.

I’m not positing an intentional agent that sticks his finger here and there when everything is already in motion, fixing any possible stray movements, or disfunctioning part along the way. But one that weighted the dice, before initial movement even begun. In this sense we’re not talking about multiple rolls, but only the first one, the source of all the subsequent rolls as well.

Why do I say the dice are weighted? Because they are. They are weighted to be able to produce matter. Matter that’s weighted, that has the qualities that allow for a nearly endless stream of diversity in it’s arraignments. Including an arrangement that produces conscious creatures, with moral, creative, and rational capacities, a “way for the cosmos to know itself”. And not just this, but also the existence of the physical laws that government this, that insures that these arrangements are not just a possibility, but come into fruition.

None of this had to be. It’s entirely conceivable that matter lacked the properties needed to produce conscious self aware creatures. It could just have had only the properties to produce only a series of empty planets, a series of inanimate objects, or rather than being able to arrange itself into conscious creatures, produce only zombies. Or the laws need to have been such to allow for these arrangement of matter to ever come into fruition at all.

You can say it didn’t have to have these properties, but it just did. And lucky for us it just did, or we wouldn’t have been able to sit here and talk about it. But here we couldn’t really apply the “term” fluke. We’d just have to concede the dice are weighted. No one weighted them. They just were.

Quote: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),

A man appealing to intention, is accused of plugging in gaps, by a person who then fills those supposed gaps with flukes, and cosmic accidents. But I don't think any of us are filling in gaps, anymore than a man believing the dice is weighted, and betting on it being so, is filling a gap.

And he doubled down Drinking Beverage

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
14-08-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 08:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure, the broadest, vaguest, most useless sense of "comparing things". An extraordinarily contrived "if A then A" hypothetical is not a useful tool.

Sadly I’m not the author of the D20 die, rolling 20s, a hundred times in a row, example, that was Rocketsurgeon, who used the outcome to describe a fluke. I just borrowed it, and expanded the example a bit.

Quote:Could you give a real example?

I’m sure I could, I’d probably have to do some digging to find the most suitable example to use, but I don’t see why I should. It also would seem to be more of a nuisance to offer an additional example, after we’ve been using the hypothetical example, and it seems to serve the discussion just fine.

Quote:Tautological circlejerking satisfies your... curiosity?

Hearing the different sort of answers satisfies my curiosity, particularly the ones that aren’t all that predictable, from those that actually try and provide genuine responses.

Quote:And your magical special pleading excuse for the deistic agent itself not being a "cosmic accident”?

Why would I assume a cosmic accident?

Quote:I don't see how it accomplishes anything, mind you. And I utterly fail to see how it would ever convince a reasonable person.

And what would a reasonable person believe? That a “deistic agent” doesn’t exist? That we’re just a fluke, a “cosmic accident”? Or is a reasonable person the sort that just repeats on queue his lack of belief? I am guessing the model of a reasonable person, is yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why do I say the dice are weighted? Because they are. They are weighted to be able to produce matter. Matter that’s weighted, that has the qualities that allow for a nearly endless stream of diversity in it’s arraignments. Including an arrangement that produces conscious creatures, with moral, creative, and rational capacities, a “way for the cosmos to know itself”. And not just this, but also the existence of the physical laws that government this, that insures that these arrangements are not just a possibility, but come into fruition.

None of this had to be. It’s entirely conceivable that matter lacked the properties needed to produce conscious self aware creatures. It could just have had only the properties to produce only a series of empty planets, a series of inanimate objects, or rather than being able to arrange itself into conscious creatures, produce only zombies. Or the laws need to have been such to allow for these arrangement of matter to ever come into fruition at all.

You can say it didn’t have to have these properties, but it just did. And lucky for us it just did, or we wouldn’t have been able to sit here and talk about it. But here we couldn’t really apply the “term” fluke. We’d just have to concede the dice are weighted. No one weighted them. They just were.

I'd like to highlight this, because it's either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.
(the dilemma of the apologist: you decide!)

Clearly, all your waffling on about multiple dice and hundreds of rolls under controlled observation is meaningless. You are taking one data point - "existence exists" - and concluding from it that the dice are loaded. This is not possible. An honest person would admit this. But, let us grant that other realities are possible. Then what? Then nothing, nonetheless.
(since there is no way for you, or anyone, to know enough to make any comparison; not that that stops you, if your claims are presuppositional)

Although I suppose this does circle back to my suspicion that you don't actually understand statistics.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-08-2015, 08:52 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:And your magical special pleading excuse for the deistic agent itself not being a "cosmic accident”?

Why would I assume a cosmic accident?

Instead of "why is there a universe like the one we observe?", your question is then - inevitably - "why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?"
(supposing for the moment this is a claim we can actually investigate, and not merely the vacuous non-answer it invariably really is)

Don't go full turtles on me.

(14-08-2015 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I don't see how it accomplishes anything, mind you. And I utterly fail to see how it would ever convince a reasonable person.

And what would a reasonable person believe? That a “deistic agent” doesn’t exist? That we’re just a fluke, a “cosmic accident”? Or is a reasonable person the sort that just repeats on queue his lack of belief? I am guessing the model of a reasonable person, is yourself?

A reasonable person like me is fully content to say some magic words of my own: I don't know.

I don't know the origin of the observable universe. I don't pretend to.

Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so. Our experience with exploring our universe has invariably shown us that we are not special. Our status on this planet is not special. Our planet is not special. Our sun is not special. Our galaxy is not special. We lack any possible means of judging whether our observable universe is special - rendering it baseless if not outright dishonest to insist that it must be.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
14-08-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 08:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Clearly, all your waffling on about multiple dice and hundreds of rolls under controlled observation is meaningless. You are taking one data point - "existence exists" - and concluding from it that the dice are loaded. This is not possible......
(since there is no way for you, or anyone, to know enough to make any comparison; not that that stops you, if your claims are presuppositional)

Let's see if can parse out your contention here.

Your issue is that in the hypothetical dice scenario I have multiple dice (some weighted, some not), multiple rolls to compare this roll to, that serves as basis to draw our inferences of intention, or a fluke from.

Where as in regards to the cosmic metaphorical dice roll I don't. That I don't have comparative scenarios to draw from? Than an honest man would hold that he does not know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Clearly, all your waffling on about multiple dice and hundreds of rolls under controlled observation is meaningless. You are taking one data point - "existence exists" - and concluding from it that the dice are loaded. This is not possible......
(since there is no way for you, or anyone, to know enough to make any comparison; not that that stops you, if your claims are presuppositional)

Let's see if can parse out your contention here.

Your issue is that in the hypothetical dice scenario I have multiple dice (some weighted, some not), multiple rolls to compare this roll to, that serves as basis to draw our inferences of intention, or a fluke from.

Where as in regards to the cosmic metaphorical dice roll I don't. That I don't have comparative scenarios to draw from?

Indeed. Do you acknowledge as much?

If not, could you please define the universe? Compare and contrast three examples.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
14-08-2015, 09:03 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 08:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why would I assume a cosmic accident?

Instead of "why is there a universe like the one we observe?", your question is then - inevitably - "why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?"
(supposing for the moment this is a claim we can actually investigate, and not merely the vacuous non-answer it invariably really is)

Don't go full turtles on me.

(14-08-2015 08:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And what would a reasonable person believe? That a “deistic agent” doesn’t exist? That we’re just a fluke, a “cosmic accident”? Or is a reasonable person the sort that just repeats on queue his lack of belief? I am guessing the model of a reasonable person, is yourself?

A reasonable person like me is fully content to say some magic words of my own: I don't know.

I don't know the origin of the observable universe. I don't pretend to.

Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so. Our experience with exploring our universe has invariably shown us that we are not special. Our status on this planet is not special. Our planet is not special. Our sun is not special. Our galaxy is not special. We lack any possible means of judging whether our observable universe is special - rendering it baseless if not outright dishonest to insist that it must be.
How can you say that our existence is not special when we are the only living planet in the observable universe? There may very will be other life supporting planets. But even the observation of these has yet to prove any intelligent life. We are indeed unique to this universe. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 08:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Instead of "why is there a universe like the one we observe?", your question is then - inevitably - "why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?"
(supposing for the moment this is a claim we can actually investigate, and not merely the vacuous non-answer it invariably really is)

Don't go full turtles on me.


A reasonable person like me is fully content to say some magic words of my own: I don't know.

I don't know the origin of the observable universe. I don't pretend to.

Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so. Our experience with exploring our universe has invariably shown us that we are not special. Our status on this planet is not special. Our planet is not special. Our sun is not special. Our galaxy is not special. We lack any possible means of judging whether our observable universe is special - rendering it baseless if not outright dishonest to insist that it must be.
How can you say that our existence is not special when we are the only living planet in the observable universe? There may very will be other life supporting planets. But even the observation of these has yet to prove any intelligent life. We are indeed unique to this universe. Thank you.

The observable universe is a far, far greater set than the planets it is possible for us to observe closely enough to detect life. The former provably contains thousands of planets and almost certainly contains trillions. The latter contains one. Do you see the discrepancy?

If I see one black dog out the window, it does not prove that all dogs are black. And it certainly does not prove that there is only one black dog in the universe.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: