Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:10 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:08 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

Miraculous? How so? Consider

A reasonable person would await more evidence.

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
14-08-2015, 10:12 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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"?

If it was a matter of satisfaction, than I’d say that atheism is more satisfying than deism. It would be more satisfying for me to believe the universe was a fluke, a cosmic accident, than to believe in some deistic god. But just because I find it more satisfying doesn’t mean that I find it more believable.

Several months ago I would have said that I found atheism more believable than deism, but then I realized I was mistaking what I found more satisfying as more believable.

Quote:Do they?

I think so, with all this talk about gnostics and agnostics and stuff.

Quote: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.

But I’m trying to understand your “reasonable person”

It’s clear that you think, that a person who claims to know it was a fluke, that we’re a product of a cosmic accident, wouldn’t be a reasonable person.

But could a person: who believes we are cosmic accident, a fluke be a reasonable person? A simple Yes, or No would do.

If no, than how about a person who would take a strong guess that we are a cosmic accident, a fluke? Could he be a reasonable person?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:11 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Whether or not that "allows for a concept of creation", there is still no evidence for it.

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
14-08-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
So let me get this straight. The fact that we do not understand where the universe came from why it came to be or what was around before the known universe is your reason to state that there's no creator. What type of logic is that? Because really it doesnt even sound like a theory. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:35 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Chas,
The uniqueness of our existence within the universe is quite incredible. To wait for further evidence doesn't make much sense seeing as how we can see pretty far into our galaxy and universe and have yet to find other intelligent life. You can observe that we are unique and special in our existence simply because there's no other thing like us in the observable universe. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:36 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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"?

If it was a matter of satisfaction, than I’d say that atheism is more satisfying than deism. It would be more satisfying for me to believe the universe was a fluke, a cosmic accident, than to believe in some deistic god. But just because I find it more satisfying doesn’t mean that I find it more believable.

Several months ago I would have said that I found atheism more believable than deism, but then I realized I was mistaking what I found more satisfying as more believable.

Quote:Do they?

I think so, with all this talk about gnostics and agnostics and stuff.

Quote: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.

But I’m trying to understand your “reasonable person”

It’s clear that you think, that a person who claims to know it was a fluke, that we’re a product of a cosmic accident, wouldn’t be a reasonable person.

But could a person: who believes we are cosmic accident, a fluke be a reasonable person? A simple Yes, or No would do.

If no, than how about a person who would take a strong guess that we are a cosmic accident, a fluke? Could he be a reasonable person?

There you go again, using words in a context that is incorrect thus demonstrating your failings in understanding statistics or your blatant dishonesty.

I believe both to be the more likely scenario.

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, 10:38 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Chas,

Many theories or just run together based on observations. I understand that to you hundreds of thousands of people or even millions of people who were and are willing to die for their faith is not evidence but it sure is to them are you willing to die for your believe that everything was an accident I seriously doubt it. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 10:38 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:17 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  So let me get this straight. The fact that we do not understand where the universe came from why it came to be or what was around before the known universe is your reason to state that there's no creator. What type of logic is that? Because really it doesnt even sound like a theory. Thank you.

I don't think you understand logic.

Lacking knowledge, it is not my job to disprove your speculation.

It is your job to prove your speculation.

... 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, 10:54 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 09:42 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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"?

If it was a matter of satisfaction, than I’d say that atheism is more satisfying than deism. It would be more satisfying for me to believe the universe was a fluke, a cosmic accident, than to believe in some deistic god. But just because I find it more satisfying doesn’t mean that I find it more believable.

Several months ago I would have said that I found atheism more believable than deism, but then I realized I was mistaking what I found more satisfying as more believable.

There is nothing to "believe" with respect to strict deism. It is a meaningless unsubstantiated supposition which, more importantly, changes nothing. It provides no answers. It guides no investigation and mandates no behaviour. It's irrelevant.

It is rather special of you to think that "I don't know" is less believable than "I don't know, therefore X, about which I don't know". I am very curious as to how you arrived at that point.

(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Do they?

I think so, with all this talk about gnostics and agnostics and stuff.

Do you know why that is?

It's to forestall the interminable disingenuous semantics of theists...

(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote: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.

But I’m trying to understand your “reasonable person”

It’s clear that you think, that a person who claims to know it was a fluke, that we’re a product of a cosmic accident, wouldn’t be a reasonable person.

We demonstrably are simply one possibility of many, insofar as the history of our species, our biosphere, our planet, and our solar system are concerned. Unless you are willing to claim that there is no such thing as probability, then you must at least grant this.

However, you - by some charmingly transparent equivocation - slide effortlessly from human beings specifically to the physical laws governing the universe. And assuredly, no one knows the reasons for the latter.

(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But could a person: who believes we are cosmic accident, a fluke be a reasonable person? A simple Yes, or No would do.

Is it possible that there is no purpose to the universe?

Notwithstanding that "accident" remains a loaded and dishonest word, but you don't seem to let things like that bother you.
(because come the fuck on - accident implicitly requires agency)

(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If no, than how about a person who would take a strong guess that we are a cosmic accident, a fluke? Could he be a reasonable person?

I'd love to know if you're going anywhere with this.

If so, go faster.

... 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, 10:58 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 09:48 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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)

It’s not just constructing analogies but, inferring from analogies.

But your right inferring what’s likely from intuition is not the same as drawing a statistical conclusions.

The dice example already accounted for this. Most of us would likely bet that the dice were weighted, based on a series of intuitive assumptions that lead us to conclude that it’s far more likely that the dice were weighted than a fluke. Many of the factors involved in this intuitive assumption are not ones we can neatly reduce to quantitive values.

Yet even if we all know that we’re not drawing statistical conclusions, but likelihoods based on a series of intuitive assumptions, we all know which way we’re gonna bet: in favor of out intuitive conclusions.

But I do have some questions regarding our terrible human intuitions.

Do you think human intuition is absolutely terrible at providing genuine understanding of the universe? Or do you think it’s absolutely terrible at providing a genuine understanding of anything?

Quote: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?

Let’s unpack this for a minute. Human beings are unique objects. Dogs are unique objects. Can i infer accurate things about my dog, from an understanding of myself? Can I understand my dogs behavior, from human behavior? Or can I only understand a dogs behavior, based on other dogs behavior?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: