interested in the atheist perspective
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2014, 06:35 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(30-11-2014 06:12 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 05:47 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Sounds like a pretty dumb system to me. Drinking Beverage

You might also know it as denialism: the denial of reality itself. It's insanity of the highest quality.
Note that solipsists ignore that their philosophy is self-defeating by means of special pleading. Anything and everything is unknowable, except these two things:
  1. Solipsism being true
  2. Cogito ergo sum

Why are those two things not only knowable, but 100% true, under solipsism? Your guess is as good as mine.

That had never occurred to me. I may have to rethink some things.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2014, 07:22 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(30-11-2014 02:35 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  
(27-11-2014 01:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The fraction of the known universe suitable for human life is so vanishingly tiny as to be utterly insignificant in every imaginable way. It amounts to a small part of the minority land surface of a single planet of tens in a single system of millions of a single galaxy of billions, composed of baryonic matter comprising at best 5% of observable interaction.

Cosmic narcissism; that's all it is. Incomprehensible self-importance and an utter inability to think outside one's own self.

"But the universe is complicated and therefore unlikely, therefore GAAAWD", our woebegotten conversational partner might say. To which the answer is a), we don't know the odds, creation of universes being somewhat outside the bounds of our current study, and b), vanishingly unlikely shit happens all the time - I can spend one measly hour flipping coins and the sequence I produce will be one in a trillion trillion trillion.

It seems to me an act of pathological insanity to gaze at the infinite cosmos and declare,
"Yes. This is all for me."

Why we are supposing that A fine tuner would want there to be many places for humans to inhabit?Perhaps Humans are just an unintended consequence. What you have done is created a Strawman, and proceeded to defeat it.

"b), vanishingly unlikely shit happens all the time - I can spend one measly hour flipping coins and the sequence I produce will be one in a trillion trillion trillion."

It is not unlikely for you to flip a coin for an hour and get a sequence. What would be unlikely is for you to do it again and get the same sequence. I don't understand your logic..

The logic is that the state of the universe is the equivalent of the first series of coin tosses.

Show me a second universe and we can talk about fine-tuning.

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
30-11-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(30-11-2014 05:40 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(30-11-2014 04:45 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Well apart from "I exist", everything is up to interpretation

Actually, under solipsism, nothing can ever be known - not even solipsism itself.

It doesn't seem to make much sense. I know that I exist. Whether I'm an actual human being or a brain inside a solution with cables in some crazy scientist's lab, that I don't know. But I do exist. I am myself. However, before we go off topic, you should consider opening another thread for this topic, if you want to keep discussing it. Tongue

About the fine-tuning argument, you're reading it from a biased perspective.

As Richard Dawkins said, the life that evolved on this planet is suited to this planet because it's the one that could evolve here. What if this planet was hotter? Well then another type of life that could survive in those conditions would have evolved.

This type of life evolved here because it's the one that could. Here.

Not to mention that the vast majority of this universe is hostile to life. You wouldn't survive 5 minutes in space. I mean, Earth is 2/3 water and we cannot live in it.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
30-11-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
My perspective in the words of Carl Sagan.




“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
30-11-2014, 11:42 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
The "Fine Tuning" argument is another classic example of scientific cherry-picking by creationists. They embrace the notion that the universe has been very carefully set up to allow their own personal existence while simultaneously ignoring all of the related science that would lock any "Fine Tuner" away at the beginning of the universe.

The universe is not perfectly designed for life, life is adequately evolved for existence in an insignificantly tiny proportion of the universe.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
01-12-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: interested in the atheist perspective
(30-11-2014 02:35 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  Why we are supposing that A fine tuner would want there to be many places for humans to inhabit?Perhaps Humans are just an unintended consequence. What you have done is created a Strawman, and proceeded to defeat it.

Are we instead to suppose an unknown "fine tuner" who acted on unknown reasons via unknown means for unknown ends?
(for bonus points, you can double down on futility and call the unknowns unknowable!)

Notwithstanding the utter pointlessness of insisting on some wholly presuppositional notion of "purpose" in anything. Such teleology is nothing but childish agenticity writ on a cosmic scale.

Notwithstanding, too, the vanishingly small number of people would would ever bother making the "argument" without an explicitly theistic religious motive.

But no. It's a dead end if ever I heard one. Deism - and yes, that's precisely what you're proposing here - is incoherent. It's irrelevant at best. The answer to every question ever becomes "because the tuner/GAAAAWD wanted it that way". That answer is always - and necessarily - useless. By introducing it we not only have the means to discover, but now we've implicitly mandated some motive behind every aspect of reality - to say nothing of finding a coherent way to define and understand the creator without kicking the can up the infinite, sisyphean road of special pleading...

An answer that explains everything explains nothing. Adding a meaningless step between the question and the (non)answer is not a useful exercise.
Instead of, "Why X? We don't know."
We get: "Why X? Because A. Why A? We don't know."

Is there any non-presuppositional reason to do so? I've yet to hear one.

(30-11-2014 02:35 AM)Switz5678 Wrote:  "b), vanishingly unlikely shit happens all the time - I can spend one measly hour flipping coins and the sequence I produce will be one in a trillion trillion trillion."

It is not unlikely for you to flip a coin for an hour and get a sequence. What would be unlikely is for you to do it again and get the same sequence. I don't understand your logic..

Comparing a sequence is possible only if there is something to compare to. Do you have two universes to compare between? I wasn't aware such data was available!

Any individual sequence is of infinitesimal probability. That a sequence results is a certainty. Do you understand the difference?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: