Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 11:00 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.

"We don't know therefore I do".

Classic apolotard, mate. Just classic.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

And you fail to see why that's baseless?

"A reminds me of B, therefore A shares B's properties" is not sound reasoning.

(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

The poor, belaboured dice example is not applicable to cosmology.

You can claim all you like that things are more or less "likely", but if that evaluation is based on precisely nothing, I'm afraid I can't muster much interest.

(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Indeed. Our terrible, ignorant, inadequate intuition. Yes; clearly a good source of pretend knowledge.

(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I do have some questions regarding our terrible human intuitions.

By all means.

(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

With regards to internal subjective matters, it makes no difference. With regards to verifiable external observations? Absolutely terrible.

The farther beyond the bounds of our immediate perception, the worse we are at intuiting. Why should this surprise you at all?

(14-08-2015 10:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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?

Human beings are not dogs. I am glad we seem to agree on this. I credit that you are intelligent enough to understand that not every proposition need be strictly and absolutely binary - but then, I'm left wondering why you'd be disingenous enough to imply that they are.

Humans and dogs are both warm-blooded. They are both social animals. They are both carnivorous. The are both mammals. They share fundamental biochemistry. They exist within similar natural environments. They descend from a common anscestor. Do you agree on that?

That they are separate objects does not preclude their belonging to many of the same sets.

What other objects occupy the set of "universe" for you to make comparisons to? Please define them, and 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, 11:28 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Right, I get what you're saying, and what you've been saying. Okay so far...

(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Actually, those odds presuppose that any combination of rolls is a "fluke", in that sense; it only just so happens that the particular outcome we've generated is one we find favorable after-the-fact, which is why we're using the term fluke at all, rather than just saying "the result". You address this later in your reply, so I'll just throw that out there for now.

(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Why is that so? Are you suggesting that because of a particular outcome, compared to equally-likely other outcomes, it suddenly changes the odds that the dice are "likely" weighted? Perhaps it would help you if I stated that, instead, when we made a roll-set of 100, we then consulted a (really huge) chart, and looked at what each of those outcomes gave us, each being a different universe? Say, for instance, if THIS universe was the result of rolls of:

15 3 10 2 4 2 1 14 13 3
11 9 1 5 18 3 6 6 1 13
9 3 10 8 16 3 19 14 2 4
11 8 5 14 14 13 20 15 2 3
2 6 4 19 13 6 18 11 11 19
14 3 15 10 19 19 1 4 1 2
13 19 5 4 10 1 15 3 17 4
20 2 15 10 9 20 7 20 8 6
19 6 1 9 17 14 20 11 13 20
5 7 20 4 8 1 3 15 1 2

(https://www.random.org/integers/?num=100...ml&rnd=new)

That above set of rolls has the exact probability of occurring as the all-20s example. That above set results in our universe's laws forming in the Big Bang (assuming, again, that this factor is necessary at all), but all-20s does not. Is that dice-set weighted? We rolled a result, we checked the chart, and we got a universe out of it-- our particular universe. By saying we're assuming we had to be the result of intent because we're here, you're getting the cart before the horse (technically, it's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy) by presuming that the outcome made the dice roll necessary to the favorable outcome.

(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

No. They also did what you say, in terms of explaining suffering, but they were quite literally gods that controlled the thunder, the lightning, or were the sun itself in the case of the ancient Egyptians and a few others (e.g. Apollo). The randomness of these phenomena, and their clear disdain for the desires of man, also led to the conclusion in most of those religions that the gods cared little for our desires, were angry at us, perhaps could be placated, and/or were capricious.

(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Totally agree with you...I've always liked that view of the Creator. My Beloved and I speak on that subject a fair bit. Her disdain for Creationists is even more fierce than mine because she feels their view of the "fingers in the pie" version is disrespectful to a God who sets up the universe to run on its own, self-assemble, make life, etc., before the Big Bang/Prime Moving event.

(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.

Again, I hear what you're saying, but see again my reference to the post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. You're presuming intent from favorable outcome; as you say, it did not have to be this way, any more than it "had" to be the result I got when I clicked the Random Integer Generator "go" button. But that does not imply that it had to be this way, or was crafted to be this way. It simply does not follow. You may presume such, if you like (many do), but to assert it as "clearly" so means you are injecting a presupposition into the argument. We see that everything within the universe functions by natural law; we have no reason to suppose the new phenomenon you propose, in which a supernatural agent was required, suddenly, where we have no evidence of supernatural causation of anything (aside from our previously-discussed mythologies). To continue our dice metaphor, you're essentially declaring that in order to get this universe on "outcomes chart" (all possible universes), someone had to say, "I want a universe with these properties, including humans", walk over to find where that was on the chart, and carefully weight each of the 100 dice to get that outcome... or, I suppose it'd be that they simply wrote down 100 d20 results by pencil, since if you're a Creator you don't need dice! Tongue

(14-08-2015 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Yes, if you're looking to find god wherever we just don't know yet, you're filling gaps. You might be right, you might be wrong, but it's still plugging god into gaps. History has shown that this is not a very good rhetorical or philosophical strategy in the age of science. Guys like Krauss are already knocking on the door of plugging that particular gap.

I urge you to carefully consider why you think (in reverse) that a given equally-likely outcome on a random dice roll means it "likely" is weighted. That's about the clearest case of observer-bias I could name. Yes, I'm just as likely as you to suspect something else is going on and want to investigate it, but that's because I'm as human and biased as you. Science is the process of investigating to find out for sure, and NOT presupposing conclusions before we have any data on the subject. What little data we have come from the regularity of the dice rolls within the game, which we can measure; if you want to presuppose that the game was created by the Game Master using weighted dice to attain a given outcome, that's fine, but since we (as you say) cannot (yet) measure those dice, it becomes irrelevant supposition. But most theists don't stick to strict deism, when they posit a Creator of the kind you mention; they look to fingers in the pie (weighted dice in the game), and that throws the whole game out of whack, making it an issue that science must tackle.

"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
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-08-2015, 11:39 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

I should have been more specific.

I find it more believable that a deistic agent exists, than to believe one doesn’t exist.

It’s atheism in the old sense of the word, a belief that there is no God.

I understand most atheists here wouldn’t describe themselves as believing God doesn’t exist, but lacking a belief. But I really don’t what to make of this. It’s all very weird to me. Dom suggests that she doesn’t have any belief she just has assumptions. Stevil suggests he doesn’t as well, because belief is too rigid a term for him. Matt likes the word “guess.

Even trying to get you to clarify what it means to “not know” is like pulling teeth.

In the dice example, when I’m betting that the dice are weighted, I agree that I don’t know they are weighted, because I’m not able to inspect them and confirm that they are. I agree that it would be unreasonable to say “I know they are weighted”.

But even though I don’t know that they are weighted, I believe they are weighted, based on some intuitive assumptions, and that’s why I’m making the bet.

Assuming you would bet the same way I would. Would you say you believe they are weighted?

Quote: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)

I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again. Earlier it was folks arguing with me over using the term unintentional, because it required agency, and that flukes, and accidents would be more appropriate since they don’t.

“Cosmic Accident” was a term introduced here by Rocketsurgeon. No one took issue with his use of the word, and accepted it as appropriate given the way he was implying it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 12:10 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

I should have been more specific.

I find it more believable that a deistic agent exists, than to believe one doesn’t exist.

It’s atheism in the old sense of the word, a belief that there is no God.

I understand most atheists here wouldn’t describe themselves as believing God doesn’t exist, but lacking a belief. But I really don’t what to make of this. It’s all very weird to me. Dom suggests that she doesn’t have any belief she just has assumptions. Stevil suggests he doesn’t as well, because belief is too rigid a term for him. Matt likes the word “guess.

Even trying to get you to clarify what it means to “not know” is like pulling teeth.

In the dice example, when I’m betting that the dice are weighted, I agree that I don’t know they are weighted, because I’m not able to inspect them and confirm that they are. I agree that it would be unreasonable to say “I know they are weighted”.

But even though I don’t know that they are weighted, I believe they are weighted, based on some intuitive assumptions, and that’s why I’m making the bet.

Assuming you would bet the same way I would. Would you say you believe they are weighted?

Quote: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)

I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again. Earlier it was folks arguing with me over using the term unintentional, because it required agency, and that flukes, and accidents would be more appropriate since they don’t.

“Cosmic Accident” was a term introduced here by Rocketsurgeon. No one took issue with his use of the word, and accepted it as appropriate given the way he was implying it.

Yep, I used the term deliberately, in response to the assertion that we were afraid of the term. I am not; I think it's a perfectly reasonable metaphor to describe random laws landing on "all the right numbers" for this particular universe, given the assumption that they (e.g. the strength of the gravitational constant) could vary (as present science seems to suggest they may).

Similarly, I have no issue with admitting that it is only my opinion that all gods are unreal, inventions of the fertile human imagination. I could be wrong. *shrug* Any Deity that has an issue with human frailty and/or intellectual honesty is one I would not worship, so I don't let it bother me.

And no, I might suspect they were weighted, if something was on the line and the person "miraculously" rolled the exact figures they needed at such improbable odds, but in general I find most gamers would never cheat themselves by rolling weighted dice. It defeats the whole purpose of gaming, unless you're playing competitively... I've never played games competitively. And wouldn't, as I am a big fan of honesty. On the rare occasion I've seen people cheat, we tend to mock them with "Aww, he's trying to win the game." (Since the point is to play, not to win, for most of us.)

But on a more serious note, since we're using dice-rolling as a direct metaphor for the creation of the universe by whatever means, I'd say no, I see no reason to assume dice that are never weighted in the real world would need to be weighted in the pre-world... for reasons I already stated. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"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
14-08-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(12-08-2015 06:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(11-08-2015 07:20 PM)Octapulse Wrote:  In the last four hours Tomasa has addressed every new comment except for this one . . . hmm

Consider

What's there to respond to? Was I suppose to disagree with it?

If you chose not to answer his response to your claim that there are no flukes when he provided an Excellent example of one, then you either cannot defend your position or are too lazy to. I vote for the former

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
14-08-2015, 12:42 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 12:46 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

I should have been more specific.

I find it more believable that a deistic agent exists, than to believe one doesn’t exist.

It’s atheism in the old sense of the word, a belief that there is no God.

I understand most atheists here wouldn’t describe themselves as believing God doesn’t exist, but lacking a belief. But I really don’t what to make of this. It’s all very weird to me. Dom suggests that she doesn’t have any belief she just has assumptions. Stevil suggests he doesn’t as well, because belief is too rigid a term for him. Matt likes the word “guess.

Even trying to get you to clarify what it means to “not know” is like pulling teeth.

In the dice example, when I’m betting that the dice are weighted, I agree that I don’t know they are weighted, because I’m not able to inspect them and confirm that they are. I agree that it would be unreasonable to say “I know they are weighted”.

But even though I don’t know that they are weighted, I believe they are weighted, based on some intuitive assumptions, and that’s why I’m making the bet.

Assuming you would bet the same way I would. Would you say you believe they are weighted?

Quote: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)

I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again. Earlier it was folks arguing with me over using the term unintentional, because it required agency, and that flukes, and accidents would be more appropriate since they don’t.

“Cosmic Accident” was a term introduced here by Rocketsurgeon. No one took issue with his use of the word, and accepted it as appropriate given the way he was implying it.

"“Cosmic Accident” was a term introduced here by Rocketsurgeon. No one took issue with his use of the word, and accepted it as appropriate given the way he was implying it."

You still don't understand what the word "accident" meant in that context. He has clarified exactly what it means, and it is not a term that implies intent or unintent.

"I really don’t want to go down this rabbit hole again."

You never (not once) actually made a case for any of the language you wanted to abuse in your opinions. You're still stuck down the rabbit hole because you won't admit you were wrong in the language you used, abused, and misinterpreted when others made statements.

You are too dishonest to admit when you're wrong, and you've been called out multiple times by multiple people on this tread alone.

You create straw men versions of what others say (hence the reason you latch on to the words "fluke" or "accident" or "unintentional" because you manipulate the person's meaning to fit your bullshit).

You move the goal posts (a watch that isn't a watch or a watch with intent...no wait, purpose, no wait...etc)

You flat out don't answer questions and you don't even admit when questions and words don't make sense in a given context in a similar way to how you use them (hence the entire point of this thread and a rock having unintent. There is no such thing as unintent or unintentional when objects are not conscious, you'd need to show consciousness and the propensity for intent in order to claim unintent. Something you refuse to do for the cosmos, only saying that "you can't." Which makes you dishonest and disingenuous.)

And you are a hypocrite. For instance, in this post http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid829952
you say "Yes, a similar explanation that I found more convincing, more persuasive than my current religious worldview, would be all that's needed." in response to my question "Would such an explanation based on natural observations be sufficient to show you God doesn't exist? If not, you'll need to provide the appropriate level of evidence to my rock and man."

The hypocrisy is that such explanations exist for the universe without the need of supernature or any supernatural anything (deistic or theistic). But you DON'T accept those explanations even though you explicitly said you would.

You are a disingenuous, hypocritical, and dishonest individual.

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, 12:49 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 05:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  duplicate post

I also want to be clear, this is the 2ND TIME YOU HAVE RETROACTIVELY ALTERED A POST YOU MADE TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE YOU SAID SOMETHING INCREDIBLY STUPID THAT WAS CALLED OUT.

You are so blatantly a dishonest individual.

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, 12:50 PM
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.

No, you haven't been paying attention.

I don't believe in a creator because there is no evidence of one.

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, 12:51 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:35 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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.

You have no idea if we are the only life or the only intelligent life.

If you think we are, you do not understand the vastness of the universe.

And you probably don't understand probability, either. Dodgy

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: