interested in the atheist perspective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-11-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 03:08 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 05:08 AM)Dom Wrote:  Atheists don't believe in any gods.

The rest has nothing to do with atheism.

There must be a nest of theists someplace trying to come up with ways to discredit science in order to convert us heathens.

Too bad science is not the foundation of atheism in any way. Not believing in any gods is a simple concept. Atheists are not by necessity scientists.

Science is just a method used to learn new things. It has nothing to do with gods or atheists.

Haha.. What are you going on about? I'm certainly not one to discredit science. What you replied makes close to no sense with respect to my OP. I did notice you got some street cred for it though.. hmmm.. fuck uninformed Christians?

So you think if you can prove there is a "fine tuner" that this will change anything for atheists? Or what is your point with this?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 03:14 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I'm no physicist so this is all wild speculation which must be taken with several million grains of salt but the first question I'd ask is if it can be any different; perhaps that is the only possible value. If it can be different, how is it tied to other constants? Theists often talk about modifying one value but if modifying one results in a set of complementary changes to other values it may turn out that multiple combinations work so the odds of hitting a good value are higher than claimed.

If the values precluded the formation of suns and planets then could some other structure be formed instead? Whenever theists get to "life could not have appeared" you need to remember to mentally revise it to "life as we know it" or "human life". The chances that the values are what they are given that we are here are 100%. The problem is assuming that suns and planets and people are an intended goal.

Beyond that, if some form of multiverse exists and there are multiple universes then it would not be surprising that we find ourselves in a universe that can support galaxies and life. Again, the odds that the values are such that life can exist given the existence of life are 100%.

We don't know how many universes exist, or if ours undergoes some sort of repeating cycle with different constants, or what sets of values allow for SOME form of life so I don't see how anybody can set odds on how unlikely the combination of values we see really is.

Physicists are working on the questions and maybe someday we will have more to go on. For now the only answer I really have is "I don't know... and neither does anybody else".

Neither am I so take what I reply with a grain of salt as well Big Grin

"If the values precluded the formation of suns and planets then could some other structure be formed instead?"

I think that the CC in particular allowed matter to gather, and without it everything would have just spread out too fast.

"The problem is assuming that suns and planets and people are an intended goal."

wholeheartedly agree

"Beyond that, if some form of multiverse exists and there are multiple universes then it would not be surprising that we find ourselves in a universe that can support galaxies and life. Again, the odds that the values are such that life can exist given the existence of life are 100%."

IF a multiverse exists yes I agree. What attracts me to these concepts is that we don't know yet. I also find it interesting that both concepts evolved as an explanation to these constants. They both at this time require a "leap of faith" so to speak. I have heard said that we will never be able to test for another Universe. Obviously time and technology growth could change this, but it is interesting to me that this battle between concepts might never be resolved. IMO the fine tuner argument will be around a long time because of this.

If you have time and haven't seen this already this is awesome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRkjhWeo...9Um0BBiibd
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 03:08 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Haha.. What are you going on about? I'm certainly not one to discredit science. What you replied makes close to no sense with respect to my OP. I did notice you got some street cred for it though.. hmmm.. fuck uninformed Christians?

So you think if you can prove there is a "fine tuner" that this will change anything for atheists? Or what is your point with this?

Well, if I could prove a fine tuner this should obviously change things for atheists. I can't obviously, nor was it my goal to do so. My point was to get the vibe from atheists on various things

-Atheist => no god for sure, or => no evidence of a god.

-Fine-tuner was just intriguing

-The half C moving question has been bothering me. I have a rough understanding of relativity, and understand how time works between a stationary thing and a moving thing. What gets murky to me is things like

1. <-------------- A(v=.5c) B(v=.5c)------------------->

-Time in general fucking baffles me. It seems really simple, but I feel like I don't have any significant understanding of it.

I don't know man shit is just interesting to talk about IMO
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 03:49 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 08:08 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Fine tuner Consider

I believe you should always use one if you are serious about playing any string instrument.

Cause and effect seem to give people lots of trouble. For instance the Egyptians considered the Nile crocodile a god because they “brought” with them the floods to water their crop fields. For some reason it didn’t occur to them that the rising waters is what brought the crocs in the first place. Facepalm

When creationists say that if our planet wasn’t exactly 93 million miles from the sun, had a mix of 20.9% oxygen in the air we breathe etc. etc. the human species would have gone extinct or it never would have existed in the first place - same mistake the Egyptians made with the crocodiles, putting the “croc” before the cart so to speak Laugh out load

The human species evolved to survive in this environment and not the other way around. The environment did not evolve to fit the human species. Comprende amigo?

Easy peasy nice and easy.

I should have made it more clear.. The energy density of vacuum space(Cosmological Constant) is what I was referring to.

Let me take a stand for the fine tuning argument for a moment.

We both agree that the environment didn't evolve to fit the human species. That is obvious/stupid and I don't think an intelligent fine tuner would suggest so. I don't think that Earth position, climate etc.. have a cause effect relationship like you suggested. Conditions in this case don't cause life to form they allow.

A very slight deviation from the Cosmo constant and nothing would be allowed to form.
----------------------------

Now this doesn't necessarily imply that there is a Fine tuner. The constants could just be some blunt fact, or imply the idea of a Multiverse. I just find it intriguing that at the end of the day the Multiverse concept, and the fine tuner idea both require a 'leap of faith'

Why does it seem like everything requires a leap of faith when believers want to forcefully pigeonhole any atheist into a “belief”?

Contempalting anything including multiverses requires nothing but a questioning, thinking mind. Now if people went around building houses of worship and praying to the Multiverse then yes, it would be a fair point but no one seems to be doing that. In contrast many do just that to their “Fine Tuner”. “Our Fine Tuner who art in heaven...” etc.

The human race has exactly one data point on what to base what life can and can’t tolerate, where life can exist and how that life evolves. 1.

Furthermore who says life has to exist? If the universe was such that life could not exist then life would not exist. I hate to break this but the universe doesn’t have us in mind. Extrapolate your own comment and change the word “environment” to “Universe” and you have, “We both agree that the universe didn’t evolve to fit the human species. That is obvious/stupid and I don’t think an intelligent fine tuner would suggest so.” I agree with that.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
26-11-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:24 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  So you think if you can prove there is a "fine tuner" that this will change anything for atheists? Or what is your point with this?

Well, if I could prove a fine tuner this should obviously change things for atheists. I can't obviously, nor was it my goal to do so. My point was to get the vibe from atheists on various things

-Atheist => no god for sure, or => no evidence of a god.

-Fine-tuner was just intriguing

-The half C moving question has been bothering me. I have a rough understanding of relativity, and understand how time works between a stationary thing and a moving thing. What gets murky to me is things like

1. <-------------- A(v=.5c) B(v=.5c)------------------->

-Time in general fucking baffles me. It seems really simple, but I feel like I don't have any significant understanding of it.

I don't know man shit is just interesting to talk about IMO

Even if there were a fine tuner the way you outlined, that doesn't mean that he/she/it is a god and needs to be worshiped.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 05:41 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:24 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:08 PM)Dom Wrote:  So you think if you can prove there is a "fine tuner" that this will change anything for atheists? Or what is your point with this?

-Atheist => no god for sure, or => no evidence of a god.

I'll just pop in here...

Atheist is formed from the Greek 'Theos', meaning 'god' and the negative prefix A-, which means 'not' or 'without'. Atheist literally means 'without god', or in more general terms 'one who does not believe in god'.

In the context you placed above, atheist can apply to both the stance 'no god for sure' and 'no evidence of a god', depending on the word before atheist. These words are gnostic and agnostic respectively.
Gnostics claim knowledge that there is no god, while agnostics do not claim to know for sure, but simply do not believe.
The majority of atheists (in my experience) tend to fall under the latter category.

(26-11-2014 04:24 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  -Time in general fucking baffles me. It seems really simple, but I feel like I don't have any significant understanding of it.

As I understand it, time, like most things in physics runs directly counter to the intuitive; thanks to our evolution providing us such a small scope on the universe.

Hence why I stay away from physics. Not only does it involve too much math of which I am incapable, but it also makes pretty much no sense without it.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
26-11-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 05:17 PM by RogueWarrior.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
If someone is going to make the prediction that:

a deviation of the cosmological constant will prevent formation of life, or whatever.

How do we go about testing that? We currently do not, and will most probably never, have the ability to observe a universe where we can fiddle with the cosmological constant to test the prediction above.

That is the major problem with the fine tuning argument. There is no way to test the predictions. This makes the whole concept of fine tuning a massive argument from ignorance.

The other problem with fine tuning is the presupposition that humans are supposed to be here. That is starting the argument ass backwards.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RogueWarrior's post
26-11-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:24 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I don't know man shit is just interesting to talk about IMO

Why not on a science forum then. Here you're just gonna find peeps assuming you have a theistic agenda, especially after posting in this section.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-11-2014, 05:36 PM (This post was last modified: 26-11-2014 05:46 PM by Switz5678.)
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 04:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Why does it seem like everything requires a leap of faith when believers want to forcefully pigeonhole any atheist into a “belief”?

Contempalting anything including multiverses requires nothing but a questioning, thinking mind. Now if people went around building houses of worship and praying to the Multiverse then yes, it would be a fair point but no one seems to be doing that. In contrast many do just that to their “Fine Tuner”. “Our Fine Tuner who art in heaven...” etc.

The human race has exactly one data point on what to base what life can and can’t tolerate, where life can exist and how that life evolves. 1.

Furthermore who says life has to exist? If the universe was such that life could not exist then life would not exist. I hate to break this but the universe doesn’t have us in mind. Extrapolate your own comment and change the word “environment” to “Universe” and you have, “We both agree that the universe didn’t evolve to fit the human species. That is obvious/stupid and I don’t think an intelligent fine tuner would suggest so.” I agree with that.

I have no idea why things "seem" some way to you. I don't care for your ideas on what many do with the concept of a fine tuner. I really don't think you understand the strongest form of the fine tuner argument. You think this is a cause and effect? You think extrapolating to Universe means something? No shit the universe didn't evolve to fit the human species.. This is not profound, nor does it make sense.

A fine tuner stance is simple. At some point something interacted with what we call this Universe. This interaction placed a set of values on important interaction outcomes that allowed the formation of the Universe as we know it.

Multiverse stance. There is infinite possibilities, and therefor one Universe would have the values that ours does. This allows the formation of the Universe as we know it.

"Furthermore who says life has to exist?"

-I certainly did not Confused

" If the universe was such that life could not exist then life would not exist."

-profound insight

edit( I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. I'm not trying to bait and switch. My intentions were just to get some ideas bouncing around, not to turn this into a God debate. This is my fault for putting this OP in this section)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-11-2014, 05:38 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(26-11-2014 05:23 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(26-11-2014 04:24 PM)Switz5678 Wrote:  I don't know man shit is just interesting to talk about IMO

Why not on a science forum then. Here you're just gonna find peeps assuming you have a theistic agenda, especially after posting in this section.

I'm sorry, you are right. Can i request to have it moved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: