Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 03:28 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 02:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 02:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Good. So you understand that much, at least.

Now, to answer your question: if I had a die that rolled nothing but twenties, I would examine the die. Merely turning up an unlikely result, no matter how unlikely, is not proof of being weighted.

Perhaps not proof, but would a hundred 20s in a row, be evidence of a weighted die? While that may not be enough to know that it was weighted, would it be enough to believe it was weighted?

No.

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, 03:35 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 02:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps not proof, but would a hundred 20s in a row, be evidence of a weighted die? While that may not be enough to know that it was weighted, would it be enough to believe it was weighted?

Believe? Yes. No one cares what you believe. You are free to believe that the die is weighted after rolling a single twenty.

But until you examine the die and show that it is weighted, you have no argument.

"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, 06:26 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:38 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.
.. classical debate tactics are good for politics and crooks. It is equally your position to disprove my position as much as it is my position to disprove yours. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 06:27 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 10:54 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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:  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:  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.
Did you really just attempt to imply that religion has no direction as far as persons behaviour?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 01:42 PM)Tomasia 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.

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.

Not that crappy analogy again. Facepalm

You didn't understand what I wrote. By "environment" I mean what was its existence. Was it a different universe? This universe before the Big Bang? A parallel universe?

You make up an intentional deity without any evidence of existence. Don't you see the absurdity of that?

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, 06:30 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 06:26 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  .. classical debate tactics are good for politics and crooks.

And anyone who wants to actually construct a coherent, rational argument.

(14-08-2015 06:26 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It is equally your position to disprove my position as much as it is my position to disprove yours. Thank you.

It really isn't.

"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
14-08-2015, 06:32 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 02:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 02:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  One die may be compared to other dice.

To what are you comparing the universe? Please define it, and compare and contrast three examples. Thank you.

We contrasted it with two examples the dice, and the weasel program. If a need for third one arises I'll keep you informed.

The weasel program has nothing to do with the issue. Facepalm

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, 07:03 PM
Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 01:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Not that crappy analogy again. Facepalm

You didn't understand what I wrote. By "environment" I mean what was its existence. Was it a different universe? This universe before the Big Bang? A parallel universe?

You make up an intentional deity without any evidence of existence. Don't you see the absurdity of that?

None of these questions need to be answered to assume intention, just like I can infer my house was robbed without having answers for similar questions about the robber.

We could be living in some computer simulation, if we were, we can likely figure that out without knowing a single thing about who or what created the program.

"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
14-08-2015, 07:21 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  None of these questions need to be answered to assume intention, just like I can infer my house was robbed without having answers for similar questions about the robber.

All of this is irrelevant unless you can actually demonstrate intent.

You can't.

"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, 07:33 PM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(14-08-2015 07:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not that crappy analogy again. Facepalm

You didn't understand what I wrote. By "environment" I mean what was its existence. Was it a different universe? This universe before the Big Bang? A parallel universe?

You make up an intentional deity without any evidence of existence. Don't you see the absurdity of that?

None of these questions need to be answered to assume intention, just like I can infer my house was robbed without having answers for similar questions about the robber.

We could be living in some computer simulation, if we were, we can likely figure that out without knowing a single thing about who or what created the program.

Even there, you are postulating something for which there is no evidence.

Your whole view is circular - you seem to see intention, then make up some entity to be the intentional agent because you see intention so it need an intender ...

The universe exhibits no evidence of intention, let alone an intentional agent.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: