Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
Interspersed is few and far between. Vitriolic is bitter critisims and malace intent. I apologize for the difficulty in comprehending my posts at times. I continually work to be more clear in meaning. Many will attest that these attempts are not working I guess. Critisism and a work towards understanding can be accomplished without negativity in my opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
If the individual that was initially degraded do to expressing their opinions can consede that it indeed was a harmless joke or poking fun then I will sucede my previous flashing out, apologetically. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 08:14 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:11 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If the individual that was initially degraded do to expressing their opinions can consede that it indeed was a harmless joke or poking fun then I will sucede my previous flashing out, apologetically. Thank you.

Nope, my vitriol was intentional towards the nitwit theist. Drinking Beverage

I don't like dishonest people.

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
16-08-2015, 08:21 AM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2015 08:26 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 07:11 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Whether or not a multiverse exists (I never could make myself care about the answer to that question, though it does seem important to me), I'm saying that our universe could have been any one of the other roll sets on the "chart", and saying that because we got this result which had conditions for our type of life to form (and, likely, others) doesn't mean it had to be or was intended to be this way.

I think a multiverse would be needed to insinuate that it “could have been any other way”. If a variety of points are fixed, just like “weights” of a die are fixed, than there’s no possibility of another roll set. It’s the fixed points of a deterministic universe. Those fixed points may allow for a variety of possibilities, but all within in the parameters of those fixed points, just like a six sided dies parameters only allow for number between 1-6, and no possibilities for an 8.

In this regard there is no chart, that allows for the possibilities of alternative universes, with alternative laws of physics, or consisting of different forms of matter than the ones that exists in our own. There are no alternative rolls here either. We’re merely talking about the weight of the die (even applying it to a multiverse doesn’t change this either, because than we wouldn’t be speaking of the die that led to one universe, but the die that led to multiple universes, which in this regard only increase the space in which an outcome is possible).

Quote:Yes, given the conditions we have (the aforementioned results on the chart) in this universe, I think life is everywhere. Whether it's "complex" life like us anywhere nearby enough to be detectable by our current technology is a whole other question. Remember, life on this planet was nothing but bacteria for 3/4ths of its history, and we've had radio for only 100 years out of 4 billion; we could be looking at dozens of planets covered with mats of bacteria-type life, and it wouldn't show up with what we're currently using to look at those planets.


If we’re looking at the existence of just one universe, which contains certain fixed laws and properties, that allow for possibility of sentient life to exist, I see no reason to assume these points weren't fixed from the start, that the points could have been something else. But assuming the weren’t fixed, and there were billions and billions of possibilities, but just one roll to get it right. That would be one big colossal fluke, perhaps the only fluke worthy of being referred to as a cosmic one.

Quote:Yes, if we found a "time capsule" box. But that's exactly what we don't find in the universe. The universe, as far as we can see, shows exactly what we'd expect to find if it was the result of random laws at work.

But a randomness that operates with the parameters of fixed points. Randomness also exists in Weasel Program. but it’s only able to reach it’s intended outcome as the result of the fixed points of it’s software.

Quote:That's also why, when I'm talking to people who think that DNA is a "language" because it can encode information, I ask them why God blew that opportunity to leave a clear message of that sort. It's the ideal place for such a revelation, other than carving "El Shaddai loves you" on the moon in Hebrew in letters big enough to see from earth…

Dawkins provided a response, in regards to to similar remark, about finding an engraved message like that in our DNA. That he would conclude it’s more likely to an elaborate prank, or a hoax, than to believe that God wrote it.

Quote:"inspiring" human writers thousands of years ago (or in the Mormons' case, 180 years ago) seems like a poor method.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's another discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
One might note that we have a few theists who are active here who are honest people, and who are openly welcomed, even liked. So, I ask you guys to be more specific when insulting "theists", even if you add the adjective "dishonest" before it, to be sure it's clear that we're not attacking them for their theism or even for their disagreement with our opinions, but specifically for the way in which they express those opinions.

Pops:

1) If you (or I) say something in here which is unsupportable and/or clearly, demonstrably wrong, it's going to be attacked. That's just how it works, here.

2) If you refuse to use honest means of acknowledging clearly-demonstrated proofs of unsupported or wrong arguments, repeat things that have been shown to be wrong/misleading, and/or refuse to specifically define terms in a "word salad" type of post, you can expect vitriol in return. Again, they would do the same to me.

3) If you keep coming here and repeating behaviors we have specifically asked you not to do (see above), then you're going to get ever-increasing levels of personal attacks along with your "corrections". Again, just how it works because we're human beings. More importantly, we're human beings who self-correct and who go to a LOT of trouble to educate ourselves on subjects like science, logic/rhetoric, and history/theology. When we see people answering all that time and effort with word-salad responses, it is infuriating. Fury shall follow, in the form of cutting remarks about your sanity, education, and/or intelligence. In other words...

Welcome to TTA! Tongue

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-08-2015, 08:43 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 08:11 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If the individual that was initially degraded do to expressing their opinions can consede that it indeed was a harmless joke or poking fun then I will sucede my previous flashing out, apologetically. Thank you.

Nope, my vitriol was intentional towards the nitwit theist. Drinking Beverage

I don't like dishonest people.
I don't care for liars or hypocrites myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 08:46 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:43 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 08:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nope, my vitriol was intentional towards the nitwit theist. Drinking Beverage

I don't like dishonest people.
I don't care for liars or hypocrites myself.

[Image: cfbdb87bd6240e9c22d95875675dff5c.jpg]

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
16-08-2015, 08:56 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
No one has yet to demonstrate my rock's unintent. Consider

I mean, if one feels confident in asserting the universe as unintentional, I'd imagine they could demonstrate unintent in such a straightforward example of a rock killing a man.

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
16-08-2015, 09:04 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(16-08-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think a multiverse would be needed to insinuate that it “could have been any other way”. If a variety of points are fixed, just like “weights” of a die are fixed, than there’s no possibility of another roll set. It’s the fixed points of a deterministic universe. Those fixed points may allow for a variety of possibilities, but all within in the parameters of those fixed points, just like a six sided dies parameters only allow for number between 1-6, and no possibilities for an 8.

In this regard there is no chart, that allows for the possibilities of alternative universes, with alternative laws of physics, or consisting of different forms of matter than the ones that exists in our own. There are no alternative rolls here either. We’re merely talking about the weight of the die (even applying it to a multiverse doesn’t change this either, because than we wouldn’t be speaking of the die that led to one universe, but the die that led to multiple universes, which in this regard only increase the space in which an outcome is possible).

If we’re looking at the existence of just one universe, which contains certain fixed laws and properties, that allow for possibility of sentient life to exist, I see no reason to assume these points weren't fixed from the start, that the points could have been something else. But assuming the weren’t fixed, and there were billions and billions of possibilities, but just one roll to get it right. That would be one big colossal fluke, perhaps the only fluke worthy of being referred to as a cosmic one.

No, it doesn't require multiple universes, it only requires that other possible law-sets could have happened, and that is exactly the supposition that is represented by the dice in this metaphor. If there are no other possible settings, we have a one-sided die (not that this exists, but you see my point). You cannot say "was set up to allow" unless you acknowledge that other settings were possible. So for the sake of this argument, I have gone with that supposition. Can't move the goal posts now! Even if this is the only way the universe could have formed, it doesn't suggest a designer because it's simply laws of physics in play, and we are the result of those laws, not the other way around. So my post hoc ergo propter hoc objection stands. There is NO reason to assume things were set up to cause us to be here; we are here because of how things are set up, not the other way around. Cart before horse.



(16-08-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But a randomness that operates with the parameters of fixed points. Randomness also exists in Weasel Program. but it’s only able to reach it’s intended outcome as the result of the fixed points of it’s software.

Actually, that's not at all what the Weasel program was set up to do. Please re-Google it and read about cumulative vs. linear mutations. Weasel followed the way nature works because, in evolution, the genes became fixed in place as soon as they did something useful. All Weasel was set up to do is show that it takes a lot less time to "evolve" the word via selection-pressure in a cumulative fashion, as nature actually functions, than by letting all of the variables cycle endlessly like monkeys on keyboards. There is no other information or analogy that can be drawn from that program. So stop using it incorrectly, please!

(16-08-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Dawkins provided a response, in regards to to similar remark, about finding an engraved message like that in our DNA. That he would conclude it’s more likely to an elaborate prank, or a hoax, than to believe that God wrote it.

I don't recall that passage, but I have no doubt that that's not all he said about it. And regardless of that suspicion, it'd be beyond our technical capabilities to insert a message into every creature on the planet, or into an entire population of one type of creature, as would be necessary for that "message" to be seen as the work of a Creator. If it was found in only one specific critter, then yes, one might conclude it was a prank by some grad student, but there is no way we could find such a code in all creatures or in one entire species without as a result of the work of mankind, in the present time.

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-08-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
I should clarify a few things as well. I don't think any point I made, whether valid or not, would be persuasive enough to give anyone a reason to believe God exists. The sort of intentional agent even if the assumption is reasonable, would hardly be something satisfying to believe in. In fact if this sort of God is all that we're left with, I'd chose atheism, not because I find it more believable, but because I would find it more satisfying (though less believable).

My point is, that's I'm not so much arguing for the existence of God, but merely pointing out that in consideration of the universe, of human existence, it's seemingly natural history, even void of a tinkering God, that i see no reason not to believe in God. An argument for why i should believe God doesn't exist, or one that suggest I lack a belief, seems far from convincing to me. I'd still vote in favor of God's existence, even if it's not even remotely at the level of confidence afforded to me by adding in my Christian beliefs.

I’m more interested in what the meaningful criticisms here would be, beyond the typical cliches “there is no evidence”, and in particularly what sort assumptions underlies even the “cliches” themselves, such as "you can’t infer from analogy", "you can’t make intuitive assumptions", etc… These responses tend to vary depending on any particular atheist, though there might be some overlap. But it does some that there is enough variety in responses, to recognize that no two people mean the same thing when claiming “there is no evidence”.

I’m curious to know what those individual differences are, and in particular which one’s amount to meaningful criticisms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: