Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 12:53 PM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 01:29 PM by Chas.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:38 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  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.

What would make me want to die for not believing in a deity? Consider

And what you did there is commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Drinking Beverage

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, 12:59 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.

Then you haven't thought it through, or you let your feels rule instead of your intellect.

Where did the deistic agent come from? Where did the environment in which the deistic agent dwells come from?

You see? By positing this agent, you have explained exactly nothing - you have just pushed the question back one level.

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, 01:09 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  By positing this agent, you have explained exactly nothing - you have just pushed the question back one level.

Which is a problem usually addressed by claiming that the agent in question is of a kind that does not require an answer to the question, for no adequately explained reason.

Before you attempt to answer that, Tomasia, I encourage you to do some reading on what "special pleading" means.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 11:28 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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?

The fact that it keeps rolling on 20s, even after that 100th roll, suggests the dice are likely weighted, rather then each number appearing about 1/20th of time over that many rolls. It could just be a fluke, but the chances of it being a fluke, are less than the chances of it being weighted.

Quote: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.

What would a combination of 20s, or even any other combination besides the one you listed result in? A different universe? I highlighted this earlier. That I’m speaking of the metaphorical dice that accounts for the totality, including if there are multiple universes. In this regard there are no alternatives rolls. There’s only that one roll, that accounts for all the subsequent roles, even the rolls that produce a variety of other universes in the multiverse.

In this sense there are no considerations of an alternative roll. The dice have already been decided, weighted to allow for an endless stream of diversity, weighted to allow for combinations that create conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and able to contemplate the universe itself.

We might have to borrow from another analogy to illustrate the point I’m making, like the “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” Program. The form(ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL) is already weighted into the dice here, and once you let the dice roll, even though we might not know when it will take on the form, we know it eventually will, given enough time to run.

Even if we could roll the cosmic first dice again, the time line might be different, and the exact placement might be different, but given enough time, the form (conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, a “means for the universe to be aware of itself”, will occur. The dice are already weighted, like the dice in the weasel program are. Once they're rolled, given adequate enough time, they’ll take on this form.

Quote:. But that does not imply that it had to be this way,

Given enough time, the form had to arise.

Just like “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” had to arise. It might not of have had to occur at the same exact time and place that it occurred. But it would have inevitably occurred at one point in time, or one place or the other, or one universe or the other. That inevitability is insured by the weights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I should have been more specific.

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

Then you haven't thought it through, or you let your feels rule instead of your intellect.

Where did the deistic agent come from? Where did the environment in which the deistic agent dwells come from?

You see? By positing this agent, you have explained exactly nothing - you have just pushed the question back one level.

Shucks, Chas, you saved me having to point it out...

... 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, 01:32 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 01:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then you haven't thought it through, or you let your feels rule instead of your intellect.

Where did the deistic agent come from? Where did the environment in which the deistic agent dwells come from?

You see? By positing this agent, you have explained exactly nothing - you have just pushed the question back one level.

Shucks, Chas, you saved me having to point it out...

You can't go away and then come back and expect to have all the fun. No

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, 01:34 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 is not possible to arrive at such a conclusion rationally.

(14-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

The dice are facile and irrelevant.

You have completely and conspicuously avoided giving any substantiation to your, ah, "theory" that you can conclude similar things about the universe...

(14-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.

No one took issue with his clarified usage. Your desperate equivocation, on the other hand...

When was the last time someone called an earthquake accidental? Just curioius.

... 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, 01:42 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 12:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then you haven't thought it through, or you let your feels rule instead of your intellect.

Where did the deistic agent come from? Where did the environment in which the deistic agent dwells come from?

You see? By positing this agent, you have explained exactly nothing - you have just pushed the question back one level.

Yes, I haven't explained nothing about the agent. In this deistic picture, we can say he's entirely absent in the lives of his creature. We know nothing about him, where he lives, or where he comes from, etc...

Now if you're saying you can't infer intent, without knowing the intentional agent's shoe size, or what part of town he's from, than I would disagree with you, for the same reason, that I can infer my house was robbed by examining my house, without knowing what part of town the robber was from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The fact that it keeps rolling on 20s, even after that 100th roll, suggests the dice are likely weighted, rather then each number appearing about 1/20th of time over that many rolls. It could just be a fluke, but the chances of it being a fluke, are less than the chances of it being weighted.

You have no way of knowing this without examining the die itself.

(14-08-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What would a combination of 20s, or even any other combination besides the one you listed result in? A different universe? I highlighted this earlier. That I’m speaking of the metaphorical dice that accounts for the totality, including if there are multiple universes. In this regard there are no alternatives rolls. There’s only that one roll, that accounts for all the subsequent roles, even the rolls that produce a variety of other universes in the multiverse.

A question for you, Tomasia: which of the following series of die rolls is less likely than the other?

[20, 20, 20, 20, 20]

[3, 9, 20, 11, 7]

(14-08-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In this sense there are no considerations of an alternative roll. The dice have already been decided, weighted to allow for an endless stream of diversity, weighted to allow for combinations that create conscious, self-aware creatures, with creative and moral capacities, and able to contemplate the universe itself.

Speculation is not evidence. You have no basis for asserting that the dice could ever have come up differently at all, let alone that there is such a radical rage of possibilities that the odds are against life coming into existence. You can propose hypothetical alternatives all you like. They are just hypothetical.

And even if the formation of a universe in which life could come into being was unlikely, to try and base an argument against atheism on that is fallacious.

(14-08-2015 01:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We might have to borrow from another analogy to illustrate the point I’m making

Your point is well illustrated.

It is simply wrong.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-08-2015, 02:16 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 01:59 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have no way of knowing this without examining the die ...

A question for you, Tomasia: which of the following series of die rolls is less likely than the other?

[20, 20, 20, 20, 20]

[3, 9, 20, 11, 7]

If you bought a random number generator app that suppose to randomly generate a number between 1-20., and you check it the first time it's a 20, it's a 20 again the second time, etc.... How many times in row would it have to show twenty before you a request refund?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: