Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 21:54:21 GMT
And sentience has probably happened before many times in other places and will probably happen again and again many times over in the universe. And it's just physics? It's just physics that elements work like tinkertoys in this manner? It's very fortuitous that "just physics" has these properties vs. some other set of laws where atoms just got heavier as their weight increased, or where electrons didn't spin in defined subshells. If it had some other set of laws then other things would exist instead. You’re speaking as though you have decided we are the best possible result or the thing that was intended to exist. I don’t know why you think that. Molecules fit together and we work to understand how they function, but I don't know how you determined there is any purpose or design behind it. Regarding luck. Do you think your odds of getting a royal flush are higher/the same/lower than getting a 2hearts, 3spades, Jclubs, Kdiamonds, 9hearts? Other things would exist? How do you know that? I'm in no way saying we are the best possible result. I'm saying it's quite quite fortuitous that we exist in a universe that has, through us, and maybe many others out there, has the ability to comprehend itself. It's quite fortuitous that all the conditions required exist. Why didn't the big bang create a bunch of particles that couldn't mesh together at all? I'm amazed others look at all this and say all the laws of physics are just the way they are, that it all came to be to produce such an end vs an inert universe. The odds of getting a royal flush are the same as getting any other individual hand. It's just amazing that in this one universe, the royal flush was dealt that allows me to be asking these questions. And for that matter, allows you to be here to respond to them!
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 16, 2019 21:59:56 GMT
I’m glad you understand the equal odds of the cards.
So the question is, why are you suggesting we are the royal flush instead of just seemingly ordinary cards?
If you’re astounded that we think it’s just physics, I’m astounded that you think it’s anything more than that. What is so fortuitous about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 16, 2019 22:09:58 GMT
the licks with the chicks
i envied jimi hendrix with this lightning tongue only because i wasn't the one there wrapping plaster around his manhood as he barely stood after having us all wholesale.
sjw 10/16/19 inspired at this very moment in time by the master of space and time.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 22:11:08 GMT
I’m glad you understand the equal odds of the cards. So the question is, why are you suggesting we are the royal flush instead of just random cards? If you’re astounded that we think it’s just physics, I’m astounded that you think it’s anything more than that. What is so fortuitous about it? It's fortuitous for me! I would think you would feel the same way... I see existence as a good thing for as long as I get it! This is the one hand that allows for me to be here right here and right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 16, 2019 22:17:33 GMT
I’m glad you understand the equal odds of the cards. So the question is, why are you suggesting we are the royal flush instead of just random cards? If you’re astounded that we think it’s just physics, I’m astounded that you think it’s anything more than that. What is so fortuitous about it? It's fortuitous for me! I would think you would feel the same way... I see existence as a good thing for as long as I get it! This is the one hand that allows for me to be here right here and right now. I see existence as good as well. I just don’t see any reason to think it was designed or anything in it was intended. It’s just the result of natural physical processes, so far as we can tell. Stars form naturally. Planets form naturally. Life forms naturally. And it has evolved on our planet to produce humans and many other species. What about any of that makes you think it requires a god?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 22:50:46 GMT
It's fortuitous for me! I would think you would feel the same way... I see existence as a good thing for as long as I get it! This is the one hand that allows for me to be here right here and right now. I see existence as good as well. I just don’t see any reason to think it was designed or anything in it was intended. It’s just the result of natural physical processes, so far as we can tell. Stars form naturally. Planets form naturally. Life forms naturally. And it has evolved on our planet to produce humans and many other species. What about any of that makes you think it requires a god? I see so many other options for those natural physical processes and see design. That all the "Naturally's" you see could have occurred in a myriad of ways, or not at all, and so many other ways couldn't have produced a universe that allows for a little speck of itself to question its own existence. That all these "Naturally's" that could have been are this one, its more than a mere chance to me, apparently not to you, and that's OK. I believe this universe was created to foster those little specks because there's a designer out there beyond what this speck can even begin to comprehend that wanted it to be like this. That or the one hand this universe was dealt was the one that allowed for such things out of all the other ones than any other set of "Naturally's" would have allowed for. Humans have pondered this for a very long time. And as far as I know, nobody's given up on this argument from one side or the other. You're left trying to argue that the hand we are dealt was the random one we got, and I'm left trying to argue that something bigger is out there that set it up and I've got another reality beyond ours to ponder where it came from. Both really prove that there's a lot of unknown out there left to explore. I can only imagine a multitude of other worlds in this universe with beings pondering the same kind of questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 16, 2019 22:51:03 GMT
Wow! You are really invested in this. See my previous answer to Amyghost I think it was and I will just rest my case thanks, your claim that there is absolutely no genetic component to religious belief is very clearly not one held by the scientific community, until you can present actual evidence to the contrary of what I have shown, then you are demonstrably incorrect. You are no 'getting' this are you? FIRST you have to define 'religious belief' a nebulous thing, into something that it is even possible to use scientifically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 23:36:51 GMT
If it had some other set of laws then other things would exist instead. You’re speaking as though you have decided we are the best possible result or the thing that was intended to exist. I don’t know why you think that. Molecules fit together and we work to understand how they function, but I don't know how you determined there is any purpose or design behind it. Regarding luck. Do you think your odds of getting a royal flush are higher/the same/lower than getting a 2hearts, 3spades, Jclubs, Kdiamonds, 9hearts? Other things would exist? How do you know that? I'm in no way saying we are the best possible result. I'm saying it's quite quite fortuitous that we exist in a universe that has, through us, and maybe many others out there, has the ability to comprehend itself. It's quite fortuitous that all the conditions required exist. Why didn't the big bang create a bunch of particles that couldn't mesh together at all? What makes you think it even could have? The probability of something is the number of times it does happen divided by the number of times it could have happened. Roll a die 600 times and you'll get about 100 sixes - hence the probability of getting a six is 1/6, or 16.666%. You only have one universe to look at. You have no idea how many different ways it could have turned out, and what fraction of those many ways would allow it to produce life that could ponder the question. In fact you don't even know if it could have turned out differently at all. You're like a guy who looks at a six and says "wow, that was incredibly lucky!" when you have no idea of how many faces the die has, or how many of them are sixes. If the die has one face and it's a six, then no, it wasn't "lucky" that you rolled a six, it was utterly inevitable. Likewise if the die has a million faces and they're ALL sixes. And even if the universe we have is incredibly unlikely, for all you know there's some natural process that forced it into this direction. That's not even without precedent - the great thing about the theory of biological evolution is that it provides a perfect explanation of how incredibly unlikely things can come about if they are broken into many small steps. Hell, it could even be just random chance. Just think about the multiverse hypothesis. Suppose there's a near-infinite number of universes, each one with different physical laws. Perhaps the vast majority actually are 'barren'. But some fraction of them allow matter and life. Maybe it's one universe in a trillion trillion trillion. Or vastly fewer even than that. But there are still those that allow matter and life, and those are the ones with people in them who wonder why they exist. That's perfectly plausible, would provide a complete explanation, and would depend on random chance. What of it? And I'm amazed at those who assume massive improbability when there's no reason to. Or think that if it is massively improbable, that proves... something. But again, a royal flush has the same probability as any hand, but not the same probability as all other hands combined. Which is what makes the royal flush unlikely. We can say with confidence that it's unlikely because we know that there are hundreds of thousands of possible hands that are not royal flushes (649,739 of them, actually). But how many other possible universes are there? You have no idea. Nobody does. Without knowing, you have no basis to consider it unlikely. And yet, you do anyway. Why? And again, even if it is unlikely... so what? What's that supposed to prove?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 0:05:51 GMT
Other things would exist? How do you know that? I'm in no way saying we are the best possible result. I'm saying it's quite quite fortuitous that we exist in a universe that has, through us, and maybe many others out there, has the ability to comprehend itself. It's quite fortuitous that all the conditions required exist. Why didn't the big bang create a bunch of particles that couldn't mesh together at all? What makes you think it even could have? The probability of something is the number of times it does happen divided by the number of times it could have happened. Roll a die 600 times and you'll get about 100 sixes - hence the probability of getting a six is 1/6, or 16.666%. You only have one universe to look at. You have no idea how many different ways it could have turned out, and what fraction of those many ways would allow it to produce life that could ponder the question. In fact you don't even know if it could have turned out differently at all. You're like a guy who looks at a six and says "wow, that was incredibly lucky!" when you have no idea of how many faces the die has, or how many of them are sixes. If the die has one face and it's a six, then no, it wasn't "lucky" that you rolled a six, it was utterly inevitable. Likewise if the die has a million faces and they're ALL sixes. And even if the universe we have is incredibly unlikely, for all you know there's some natural process that forced it into this direction. That's not even without precedent - the great thing about the theory of biological evolution is that it provides a perfect explanation of how incredibly unlikely things can come about if they are broken into many small steps. Hell, it could even be just random chance. Just think about the multiverse hypothesis. Suppose there's a near-infinite number of universes, each one with different physical laws. Perhaps the vast majority actually are 'barren'. But some fraction of them allow matter and life. Maybe it's one universe in a trillion trillion trillion. Or vastly fewer even than that. But there are still those that allow matter and life, and those are the ones with people in them who wonder why they exist. That's perfectly plausible, would provide a complete explanation, and would depend on random chance. What of it? And I'm amazed at those who assume massive improbability when there's no reason to. Or think that if it is massively improbable, that proves... something. But again, a royal flush has the same probability as any hand, but not the same probability as all other hands combined. Which is what makes the royal flush unlikely. We can say with confidence that it's unlikely because we know that there are hundreds of thousands of possible hands that are not royal flushes (649,739 of them, actually). But how many other possible universes are there? You have no idea. Nobody does. Without knowing, you have no basis to consider it unlikely. And yet, you do anyway. Why? And again, even if it is unlikely... so what? What's that supposed to prove? Ok, I just went 3 hours round and round with Arch on this, and it was fun, but I'm not going to jump back in the middle of a discussion that had a lot of points prior and post and remake them, I apologize, but jumping right back onto it with you will not change anything. People have discussed this for centuries, and there's no end in sight. I'll just leave you with a quote from Allan Sandage on the subject who spent much of a lifetime wrestling with similar thoughts.:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 0:38:19 GMT
Ok, I just went 3 hours round and round with Arch on this, and it was fun, but I'm not going to jump back in the middle of a discussion that had a lot of points prior and post and remake them, I apologize, but jumping right back onto it with you will not change anything. People have discussed this for centuries, and there's no end in sight. I'll just leave you with a quote from Allan Sandage on the subject who spent much of a lifetime wrestling with similar thoughts.: That's a foolish sentiment by Sandage. The supernatural does not provide explanations of anything. It doesn't really even attempt to.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 0:41:15 GMT
I see existence as good as well. I just don’t see any reason to think it was designed or anything in it was intended. It’s just the result of natural physical processes, so far as we can tell. Stars form naturally. Planets form naturally. Life forms naturally. And it has evolved on our planet to produce humans and many other species. What about any of that makes you think it requires a god? I see so many other options for those natural physical processes and see design. That all the "Naturally's" you see could have occurred in a myriad of ways, or not at all, and so many other ways couldn't have produced a universe that allows for a little speck of itself to question its own existence. That all these "Naturally's" that could have been are this one, its more than a mere chance to me, apparently not to you, and that's OK. I believe this universe was created to foster those little specks because there's a designer out there beyond what this speck can even begin to comprehend that wanted it to be like this. That or the one hand this universe was dealt was the one that allowed for such things out of all the other ones than any other set of "Naturally's" would have allowed for. Humans have pondered this for a very long time. And as far as I know, nobody's given up on this argument from one side or the other. You're left trying to argue that the hand we are dealt was the random one we got, and I'm left trying to argue that something bigger is out there that set it up and I've got another reality beyond ours to ponder where it came from. Both really prove that there's a lot of unknown out there left to explore. I can only imagine a multitude of other worlds in this universe with beings pondering the same kind of questions. we aren’t in the same position. I agree there is an unknown. But you are the one proposing it was designed, and your only reason for claiming this is that the universe is the way it is. The universe being the way it is in no way means it was purposefully made that way. You are assuming there was intent. Do you have any evidence of that? Us being able to think doesn’t mean anything designed us to think. Us being alive doesn’t mean anything designed us to be alive. Why are you jumping to that conclusion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 0:50:38 GMT
I see so many other options for those natural physical processes and see design. That all the "Naturally's" you see could have occurred in a myriad of ways, or not at all, and so many other ways couldn't have produced a universe that allows for a little speck of itself to question its own existence. That all these "Naturally's" that could have been are this one, its more than a mere chance to me, apparently not to you, and that's OK. I believe this universe was created to foster those little specks because there's a designer out there beyond what this speck can even begin to comprehend that wanted it to be like this. That or the one hand this universe was dealt was the one that allowed for such things out of all the other ones than any other set of "Naturally's" would have allowed for. Humans have pondered this for a very long time. And as far as I know, nobody's given up on this argument from one side or the other. You're left trying to argue that the hand we are dealt was the random one we got, and I'm left trying to argue that something bigger is out there that set it up and I've got another reality beyond ours to ponder where it came from. Both really prove that there's a lot of unknown out there left to explore. I can only imagine a multitude of other worlds in this universe with beings pondering the same kind of questions. we aren’t in the same position. I agree there is an unknown. But you are the one proposing it was designed, and your only reason for claiming this is that the universe is the way it is. The universe being the way it is in no way means it was purposefully made that way. You are assuming there was intent. Do you have any evidence of that? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? All I've heard is "Nature and Physics has to be some way, and this is the one it happens to be."
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 0:56:42 GMT
we aren’t in the same position. I agree there is an unknown. But you are the one proposing it was designed, and your only reason for claiming this is that the universe is the way it is. The universe being the way it is in no way means it was purposefully made that way. You are assuming there was intent. Do you have any evidence of that? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? All I've heard is "Nature and Physics has to be some way, and this is the one it happens to be." I don’t need any. You can either demonstrate there was a designer or a need for one, or you can’t. I don’t have to prove that your myth is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 1:10:45 GMT
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? All I've heard is "Nature and Physics has to be some way, and this is the one it happens to be." I don’t need any. You can either demonstrate there was a designer or a need for one, or you can’t. I don’t have to prove that your myth is wrong. So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 17, 2019 2:00:08 GMT
I don’t need any. You can either demonstrate there was a designer or a need for one, or you can’t. I don’t have to prove that your myth is wrong. So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it. You are the only one of the two of us who has claimed something that requires proof. Saying you see design doesn’t mean there is any. We don’t hold equal positions, because everything I believe is supported by significant evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:22:58 GMT
I don't because I see design. No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:34:24 GMT
So here we find ourselves existing in a universe where you demand proof of design because you don't see it and I don't because I see design. Just as people have done for a very long time. If either of us could prove such with any degree of certainty we would change the world as we know it. You are the only one of the two of us who has claimed something that requires proof. Saying you see design doesn’t mean there is any. We don’t hold equal positions, because everything I believe is supported by significant evidence. Just one post ago when I asked about evidence you didn't need any, now it's supported by significant evidence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:36:04 GMT
I don't because I see design. No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference. I see design. I can't prove design, but I see design.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 17, 2019 2:37:38 GMT
I will just rest my case thanks, your claim that there is absolutely no genetic component to religious belief is very clearly not one held by the scientific community, until you can present actual evidence to the contrary of what I have shown, then you are demonstrably incorrect. You are no 'getting' this are you? FIRST you have to define 'religious belief' a nebulous thing, into something that it is even possible to use scientifically. You are not getting this are you? FIRST you have to provide something that backs up your statement, I have you have not. Until you are able to back up what you claim (that 'There is no genetic disposition towards religion or faith', your exact words), all you are doing is making bold faced, unsupported assertions, and forgive me but I think I might have more faith in the actual supplied and peer-reviewed science than the assertions of someone on a message board who is incapable of supporting what they say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 2:38:08 GMT
No, you do not see design. You choose to label it as design out of personal incredulity. There's a difference. I see design. I can't prove design, but I see design. You're using the word "see" to mean "want it to be".
|
|