• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

To denote the thread has been moved
Lion IRC said:
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.
Click to expand...

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.
Click to expand...
Nobody here, with the exception of you, believes in a creator god. And nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

Lion IRC said:
Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.
Click to expand...
Take your misrepresentations of what people are saying and shove it.
 
EricH said:
Lion IRC said:

As a (former) medical professional do you really think we lack any evidence for the cause(s) of cancer other than God?
Click to expand...

Did God create cancer? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

You see, Lion, this is the point — honestly, can you be this obtuse? I don’t think so. The former medical professional DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. So of course he believes we have naturalistic evidence for cancer arising — he just named some of it. YOU, otoh, DO believe in God, and so once again we are asking, why, if God exists, should we praise him for the good things in creation but absolve him of responsibility of the bad things?

Or, more simply: Did God create cancer? Yes or no?
 
Swammerdami said:
EricH said:
Did God create cancer? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

It is sometimes said that Aristotle's Law of the Excluded Middle set Western civilization back by at least a thousand years.
Click to expand...

Is there a middle in here we should not be excluding? That God exists but Satan creates cancer, maybe? But then, God made Satan, so … the point is, if you have an omnipotent and omniscient god, he cannot be excluded from blame for bad stuff, even if bad stuff happens downstream from him, by the instrumentality of others, because if this creator God exists, he made everything.
 
EricH said:
Lion IRC said:
bilby said:
Lion IRC said:
Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Perhaps it would also be best to stick to the known causes of bloody everything, before trying to blame (or credit) any gods.

But of course, such a level of consistency and reasonableness is utterly beyond your abilities.
Click to expand...

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.
Click to expand...
Nobody here, with the exception of you, believes in a creator god. And nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

Lion IRC said:
Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.
Click to expand...
Take your misrepresentations of what people are saying and shove it.
Click to expand...

EricH said:
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it
Click to expand...

EricH said:
nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.
Click to expand...
 
Lion IRC said:

EricH said:
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it
Click to expand...

EricH said:
nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are really not done yet with these sorts of disingenuous fun and games, are you?

I can hardly believe you don’t understand this. Are you trying to fool us into believing you caught EricH in a contradiction? The FIRST quote from him, OBVIOUSLY, since he is an atheist, was posing a HYPOTHETICAL — you know, IF. He is adopting YOUR stance, for the sake of argument or discussion, that God exists, and then seeing what follows from that. Which is, If God exists, he did a supurb job of creating and spreading the cancer that torments and often kills so many people, including often small children.

The SECOND quote from him drops the hypothetical and states plainly that nobody here claims God causes cancer BECAUSE NO ONE HERE THINKS GOD EXISTS.

Get it? Finally?
 
pood said:
Lion IRC said:

EricH said:
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it
Click to expand...

EricH said:
nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are really not done yet with these sorts of disingenuous fun and games, are you?

I can hardly believe you don’t understand this. Are you trying to fool us into believing you caught EricH in a contradiction? The FIRST quote from him, OBVIOUSLY, since he is an atheist, was posing a HYPOTHETICAL — you know, IF. He is adopting YOUR stance, for the sake of argument or discussion, that God exists, and then seeing what follows from that. Which is, If God exists, he did a supurb job of creating and spreading the cancer that torments and often kills so many people, including often small children.

The SECOND quote from him drops the hypothetical and states plainly that nobody here claims God causes cancer BECAUSE NO ONE HERE THINKS GOD EXISTS.

Get it? Finally?
Click to expand...
Oh, he gets it. I am sure of that.

It is impossible not to recognize the meaning and context of my statements, but Lion manages to do just that anyway. Pretending that atheists believe in God and blame God for various phenomena is an act, designed to draw our attention away from the fact that he won't acknowledge that his logic should lead him to believe that God deliberately created cancer.
 
Last edited:
I know he gets it, but I don’t see how h
EricH said:
pood said:
Lion IRC said:

EricH said:
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it
Click to expand...

EricH said:
nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are really not done yet with these sorts of disingenuous fun and games, are you?

I can hardly believe you don’t understand this. Are you trying to fool us into believing you caught EricH in a contradiction? The FIRST quote from him, OBVIOUSLY, since he is an atheist, was posing a HYPOTHETICAL — you know, IF. He is adopting YOUR stance, for the sake of argument or discussion, that God exists, and then seeing what follows from that. Which is, If God exists, he did a supurb job of creating and spreading the cancer that torments and often kills so many people, including often small children.

The SECOND quote from him drops the hypothetical and states plainly that nobody here claims God causes cancer BECAUSE NO ONE HERE THINKS GOD EXISTS.

Get it? Finally?
Click to expand...
Oh, he gets it. I am sure of that.

It is impossible not to recognize the meaning and context of my statements, but Lion manages to do just that anyway. Pretending that atheists believe in God and blame God for various phenomena is an act, designed to draw our attention away from the fact that he won't acknowledge that his logic should lead him to believe that God deliberately created cancer.
Click to expand...
I know he gets it, but I can’t see how he thinks he can get away with fooling anyone here by cherry-picking your first quote out of its intended context. It’s jaw-dropping.
 
pood said:
As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that? As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that until the system hits a meaningful differentiation, especially given the mechanics of simulation/host divisions, that there are infinite settings wherein this universe is being simulated, in addition to one where it is as "base" as possible.

If every equation, if every relationship of math is somehow real, then there are infinite copies of any finite structure splayed across it.
 
pood said:
I know he gets it, but I don’t see how h
EricH said:
pood said:
Lion IRC said:

EricH said:
As a doctor who worked with cancer patients for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that God did a superb job of creating cancer and spreading it
Click to expand...

EricH said:
nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are really not done yet with these sorts of disingenuous fun and games, are you?

I can hardly believe you don’t understand this. Are you trying to fool us into believing you caught EricH in a contradiction? The FIRST quote from him, OBVIOUSLY, since he is an atheist, was posing a HYPOTHETICAL — you know, IF. He is adopting YOUR stance, for the sake of argument or discussion, that God exists, and then seeing what follows from that. Which is, If God exists, he did a supurb job of creating and spreading the cancer that torments and often kills so many people, including often small children.

The SECOND quote from him drops the hypothetical and states plainly that nobody here claims God causes cancer BECAUSE NO ONE HERE THINKS GOD EXISTS.

Get it? Finally?
Click to expand...
Oh, he gets it. I am sure of that.

It is impossible not to recognize the meaning and context of my statements, but Lion manages to do just that anyway. Pretending that atheists believe in God and blame God for various phenomena is an act, designed to draw our attention away from the fact that he won't acknowledge that his logic should lead him to believe that God deliberately created cancer.
Click to expand...
I know he gets it, but I can’t see how he thinks he can get away with fooling anyone here by cherry-picking your first quote out of its intended context. It’s jaw-dropping.
Click to expand...
Have you ever noticed that people who are irrational assume that others have the same impediment?
 
Jarhyn said:
pood said:
As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that? As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that until the system hits a meaningful differentiation, especially given the mechanics of simulation/host divisions, that there are infinite settings wherein this universe is being simulated, in addition to one where it is as "base" as possible.

If every equation, if every relationship of math is somehow real, then there are infinite copies of any finite structure splayed across it.
Click to expand...

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."

If you followed this so far, and agree with it, it's only a small step further to conclude that every describable universe is just as real as ours!
 
Swammerdami said:
Jarhyn said:
pood said:
As I say I’ll have to reread it, but the Level IV mathematical multiverse really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It says, as I recall, that every mathematical structure instantiates a real world. Why should we think that? As far as I can tell, it would mean, for example, that Potelemy’s geocentric system really does exist in some Platonist realm of a mathematical multiverse. Of course, that would also be consistent with Lewis’s modal multiverse.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that until the system hits a meaningful differentiation, especially given the mechanics of simulation/host divisions, that there are infinite settings wherein this universe is being simulated, in addition to one where it is as "base" as possible.

If every equation, if every relationship of math is somehow real, then there are infinite copies of any finite structure splayed across it.
Click to expand...

As a thought experiment, imagine a PERFECT simulation of our universe. And I mean PERFECT -- every neuron is simulated, every microtubule or molecule within that neuron is perfectly simulated, etc. If we experience emotions or consciousness in our real universe, so would the corresponding creatures in the perfectly simulated copy, no?

Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."

If you followed this so far, and agree with it, it's only a small step further to conclude that every describable universe is just as real as ours!
Click to expand...
More, every "described" universe, not merely "describable".

For those things to actually be "real" they have to actually be instantiated, not merely implied as to instantiability.
 
Jarhyn said:
More, every "described" universe, not merely "describable".

For those things to actually be "real" they have to actually be instantiated, not merely implied as to instantiability.
Click to expand...

Write axioms and atomic primitives with pencil on a sheet of paper and -- presto! -- that complete mathematical system exists whether a conscious being derives the theorems or not. Furthermore, actually writing with pencil and paper is a needless diversion.
 
Swammerdami said:
Jarhyn said:
More, every "described" universe, not merely "describable".

For those things to actually be "real" they have to actually be instantiated, not merely implied as to instantiability.
Click to expand...

Write axioms and atomic primitives with pencil on a sheet of paper and -- presto! -- that complete mathematical system exists whether a conscious being derives the theorems or not. Furthermore, actually writing with pencil and paper is a needless diversion.
Click to expand...
Not sure that you can use "exists" that way. It can exist, can operate, but until it DOES operate, it isn't operating.

"Existing as a possibility" is not existence in the manner we are discussing.

"Possibility space" is not, in point of fact, "reality".
 
So, we have a mathematics that describes Ptolemy’s geocentric system. Should we conclude that in one or more of the various multiverses, such a system actually exists?
 
pood said:
So, we have a mathematics that describes Ptolemy’s geocentric system. Should we conclude that in one or more of the various multiverses, such a system actually exists?
Click to expand...
I mean, here it exists as an operational implementation subordinate to this universe. Clearly Ptolemy's system exists operating on the paper (and computers) it operates on.

Whether it exists elsewhere, other than in simulation upon papers on earth, but in some other real implementation space in which we are merely another implementation is to be seen, yet, I think.

It's just not a very interesting universe because the simulation doesn't create operationally meaningful complexity.

We can conclude that such a system exists as it exists where it is observed to exist, namely our paper implementation.
 
Swammerdami said:
Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."
Click to expand...
So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?

I concur - if we allow logical contradictions, then anything and everything is true.

Sadly, there's little evidence that reality does allow logical contradictions, so any conclusions we reach from assuming their existence are likely to be of little value.
 
bilby said:
Swammerdami said:
Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."
Click to expand...
So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?

I concur - if we allow logical contradictions, then anything and everything is true.

Sadly, there's little evidence that reality does allow logical contradictions, so any conclusions we reach from assuming their existence are likely to be of little value.
Click to expand...

You need to work on your definite vs indefinite articles. Try Googling "a vs the."
 
Swammerdami said:
bilby said:
Swammerdami said:
Now imagine that a very similar universe is also being simulated PERFECTLY. Perhaps a universe VERY similar to ours, except that Al Gore became President in 2001. The creatures in that simulated universe would ALSO experience the same emotions as they would were that alternate universe "real."
Click to expand...
So, if the simulation can be a perfect replica of ours, but also simultaneously NOT be a perfect replica of ours?

I concur - if we allow logical contradictions, then anything and everything is true.

Sadly, there's little evidence that reality does allow logical contradictions, so any conclusions we reach from assuming their existence are likely to be of little value.
Click to expand...

You need to work on your definite vs indefinite articles. Try Googling "a vs the."
Click to expand...
Yeah, my objection is agnostic to the quibble you raise. Feel free to re-read it with "a" substituted for "the", and you will find that this change is of zero significance.

But thanks for playing. :rolleyesa:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom