Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 09:18 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? Than an honest man would hold that he does not know.

An honest man would acknowledge that in the absence of evidence for the claim of intention, intention cannot be reasonably inferred.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-08-2015, 09:19 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(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?”

It’s not an inevitable question. It’s only some atheists who think it is an inevitable one. The problem goes back to an earlier question. What is added to claiming the universe was created, by saying the universe has a creator? Is anything being said in the second claim, that’s not already implicit in the first? And what is added to a claim that the universe had a creator, by claiming it is a “deistic agent”?

But just to play along, and answer your question: “Why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?” There just is.

Quote: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.

I would like to know more about this reasonable person, because I know many atheists tend to draw a distinction between knowing and believing.

Would a reasonable person, believe it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person just lack a belief?

Would a reasonable person guess it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person conclude that he’s not able to make a guess one way or the other?

Quote:Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so.

A reasonable person would conclude that he doesn’t know if I desire to feel really, really special.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia 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?”

It’s not an inevitable question. It’s only some atheists who think it is an inevitable one. The problem goes back to an earlier question. What is added to claiming the universe was created, by saying the universe has a creator? Is anything being said in the second claim, that’s not already implicit in the first? And what is added to a claim that the universe had a creator, by claiming it is a “deistic agent”?

But just to play along, and answer your question: “Why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?” There just is.

Quote: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.

I would like to know more about this reasonable person, because I know many atheists tend to draw a distinction between knowing and believing.

Would a reasonable person, believe it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person just lack a belief?

Would a reasonable person guess it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person conclude that he’s not able to make a guess one way or the other?

Quote:Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so.

A reasonable person would conclude that he doesn’t know if I desire to feel really, really special.

"What is added to claiming the universe was created, by saying the universe has a creator? Is anything being said in the second claim, that’s not already implicit in the first? And what is added to a claim that the universe had a creator, by claiming it is a “deistic agent”? "

Facepalm

Yes, the addition of a theistic or deistic agent to the origin of the universe is an additional and unnecessary claim. To quote Tim Minchin in his poem "Storm", "every mystery throughout history has turned out to be not magic."

It is an asinine assumption through a paucity of evidence to claim a supernatural addition to nature.

If one posits that something must have always been, then one should stop at the most fundamental unit we observe, the universe. Occam's razor.

A reasonable person does't assume the existence of things without any reason to actually believe they exist. And that is why deism and theism fail, because they posit unnecessary complications with no additional information being added. There is no predictive information added by adding in supernature. It doesn't explain anything. It only raises additional questions and because of the nature of the speculation of the supernatural "thing", it is untestable and unfalsifiable, thereby rendering it indistinguishable from fiction.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-08-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Your belief in a god and the bias it produces, is exactly the same sort of illogical belief with the same sort of bias as a belief in any other myth or fiction. You'd have just as much validity for your beliefs if you claimed Gandalf did it.

All hail Gandalf who died as Gandalf the Grey and was reborn Gandalf the White. May he save humanity from itself. Bowing

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
14-08-2015, 09:42 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No, I don't agree.

It's not true, that I can only infer things about dice from other dice, or that I can only infer things about computer programs from other computer programs. I can infer things about computer programs from dice, etc... Or in other words I can infer things through analogies. We do so all the time, even intuitively. Comparing human beings to moist robots, etc...

If a man wanted to think of the universe as a computer program, applying inferences from one to the other, it's entirely reasonable. A man's understanding of computers and software can likely inform his understanding of the universe. Even though the universe is not a computer (though some say it could be).

You may want to put the universe under a glass box, claiming that we can't draw comparisons and inferences regarding it by other objects that are not the universe, but yea that argument doesn't stick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 09:48 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia 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?”

It’s not an inevitable question. It’s only some atheists who think it is an inevitable one. The problem goes back to an earlier question. What is added to claiming the universe was created, by saying the universe has a creator? Is anything being said in the second claim, that’s not already implicit in the first? And what is added to a claim that the universe had a creator, by claiming it is a “deistic agent”?

Nothing per se, in that semantically disingenuous example.

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But just to play along, and answer your question: “Why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?” There just is.

If you are not satisfied that the universe itself "just is", why would you ever be satisfied to declare the it must have been created but that the creater "just is"?

There is no reason to do so, absent some overriding presupposition. It is a completely meaningless non-answer.


(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: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.

I would like to know more about this reasonable person, because I know many atheists tend to draw a distinction between knowing and believing.

Do they?

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Would a reasonable person, believe it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person just lack a belief?

Would a reasonable person guess it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person conclude that he’s not able to make a guess one way or the other?

At minimum they might be inclined to reject the incoherent and unsubstantiated claims of anyone who did claim to know. Given the long record of phenomena once thought inexplicable and/or intentional, and now demonstrably no such thing.

But no, we both know what you're looking for here. No, neither I nor anyone else can disprove such an intentionally unfalsifiable claim. In that sense, feel free to go on believing what magical fees-based special pleading keeps you happy.

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so.

A reasonable person would conclude that he doesn’t know if I desire to feel really, really special.

Your repeated insistence that the universe possesses the properties it apparently does in order that you, specifically, might exist begs to differ.

... 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, 09:48 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:02 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. Do you acknowledge as much?

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

No, I don't agree.

It's not true, that I can only infer things about dice from other dice, or that I can only infer things about computer programs from other computer programs. I can infer things about computer programs from dice, etc... Or in other words I can infer things through analogies. We do so all the time, even intuitively. Comparing human beings to moist robots, etc...

Constructing analogies is not the same as drawing statistical conclusions. Implying otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Which is it?

Human intuition is absolutely terrible at providing genuine understanding of the universe.
(hint: physics and statistics are not intuitive)

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If a man wanted to think of the universe as a computer program...

He'd be making a series of gigantic unfounded assumptions for no reason?

Wait, let's see where you were going with it:
(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... applying inferences from one to the other, it's entirely reasonable.

This must be some new use of the word "reasonable" I was previously unaware of.

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  A man's understanding of computers and software can likely inform his understanding of the universe. Even though the universe is not a computer (though some say it could be).

So your answer to my objection - that you cannot make comparisons to a unique object - is to insist that you can, if you first pretend analogies are literally true?

Uh... right.

(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You may want to put the universe under a glass box, claiming that we can't draw comparisons and inferences regarding it by other objects that are not the universe, but yea that argument doesn't stick.

Define the universe. Compare and contrast three examples.

What you feel it might kind of resemble, on the basis of your naive intuition, is the exact opposite of compelling.

... 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, 10:05 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But just to play along, and answer your question: “Why is there a diestic agent like the one we observe?” There just is.

Why is there a universe like the one we observe? There just is.

Quote:
Quote: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.

I would like to know more about this reasonable person, because I know many atheists tend to draw a distinction between knowing and believing.

Would a reasonable person, believe it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person just lack a belief?

Is anyone actually claiming that the universe is just a fluke? Consider

Quote:Would a reasonable person guess it was a fluke, a cosmic accident? Or would a reasonable person conclude that he’s not able to make a guess one way or the other?

A reasonable person might say, "I don't know, but it might be X, where X is consistent with the evidence.."

Quote:
Quote:Just because you really, really, want to feel special doesn't make it so.

A reasonable person would conclude that he doesn’t know if I desire to feel really, really special.

But the evidence is that you do.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-08-2015, 10:10 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:03 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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.
Indeed the fact you can only see one black dog in all the observable existence is still quite unique and miraculous. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:11 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

An honest man would acknowledge that in the absence of evidence for the claim of intention, intention cannot be reasonably inferred.
An honest man could deduce that since we can not explain everything or see everything or observe everything that we cannot know everything. The fact that some things are unexplainable even through science allows for a concept of creation. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: