Ah ha! You can't explain X, therefore God!

[T.G.G. Moogly]

These six ideas are not exhaustive; Nor are they equally plausible. 1, 2 and 3 are all pretty parsimonious. 4, 5, and 6 all rely on the assumed existence of unexplained and un-evidenced entities for which there is no explanation as to why they remain undiscovered. 5 and 6 rely on the existence of intelligence without biology, which is something we can reasonably infer to be impossible - intelligence has only been observed in highly complex biological systems, that require very specific arrangements of mass-energy. Such complex arrangements can develop from pre-existing matter and energy over long periods of time by the action of natural selection, but their spontaneous existence without any such evolution is extraordinarily unlikely; their spontaneous existence from nothing at all is even less plausible, and the claim that this occurred is an extraordinary claim, for which we would need very strong evidence indeed, if we are to accept it. Supporters of this idea do not, however, provide strong evidence. They instead declare that evidence of any kind is not needed, and that belief in the absence of evidence is somehow virtuous. That, not to put too fine a point on it, is bullshit. And that they don't take the same approach to the hundreds of equally extraordinary, but different and incompatible, truth claims subscribed to by other religious claimants strongly suggests that they know it.

It's definitely bullshit but it's easy bullshit, it doesn't require a lot of big words or any effort, and can satisfy a brain that is incapable of understanding otherwise. Plus you have a big sky buddy to be your friend all the time, except that it might screw with you anytime because of the magic garden episode.

I'm still waiting to learn how the universe loses energy. Vanishing gravitons have been theoretically discussed but that would only mean the universe is more than we can immediately sense, with more dimensions, etc., not that any energy was lost.

It's kinda cool to think of all energy as motion. Things never stop moving, the motion just takes up less and less space, which lends itself nicely to an oscillating universe. Of course, we don't know what "space" actually is, only that there is no such thing as empty space, except provincially.

 

[none]

Not sure how Lion IRC can top himself after solipsism

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not a solipsist.
OK!

I was just pointing out that the actual objective existence of 'reality' in time is practically impossible for one entity to prove to another entity. That problem is what permits solipsism, but it doesn't necessitate such a paradigm. And I do believe in the metaphysical plausibility of objective reality so I don't have any dog in that fight so to speak.

An observer hallucinating/imagining two brains in two different vats suspended in a holographic universe that doesn't really exist, might wonder if those two brains could ever really objectively know one another. And what if the observer is simply an artificial intelligence machine programmed to obverse the universe.

Who am I? What am I? Why am I? Is consciousness a dream? Which side of the mirror am I on?



#ontology #epistemology

 

[none]

I'm not a solipsist.
OK!

I was just pointing out that the actual objective existence of 'reality' in time is practically impossible for one entity to prove to another entity. That problem is what permits solipsism, but it doesn't necessitate such a paradigm.

An observer hallucinating/imagining two brains in two different vats suspended in a holographic universe that doesn't really exist, might wonder if those two brains could ever really objectively know one another. And what if the observer is simply an artificial intelligence machine programmed to obverse the universe.

Who am I? What am I? Why am I? Is consciousness a dream?

View attachment 8883

#ontology #epistemology

who is your audience?

 

[Lion IRC]

Who wants to know?

 

[none]

Who wants to know?

who is your audience?

 

[Lion IRC]

Who wants to know?

who is your audience?

Who wants to know?

 

[none]

who is your audience?

Who wants to know?

who is your audience?

 

[Underseer]

"...distracted from the actual wonders of existence"

Don't you mean distracted BY the wonders of existence?



"...a marvelous phenomenon". LOL

Words like marvel and phenomenon and wondrous give rise to many existential why questions.

Yeah, like the northern lights, great floods, lightning, supernovas, comets, etc...

We are running out of unexplained phenomenon.

You can't explain lightning without Zeus, therefore Zeus is definitely real!

The existence of lightning demands an explanation because lightning is wondrous, and the only possible explanation is Zeus. I can't understand any explanation for lightning other than Zeus, therefore lightning proves Zeus.

You don't deny that lightning exists, do you?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lightning is only a theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Lightning is only a theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Atheist claptrap. If lightning is only a theory, then what did Thor shoot from his hammer to kill all the frost giants?

Unless you can show me a living frost giant, I'm going to need you to retract your baseless assertion.

 

[DBT]

I was just pointing out that the actual objective existence of 'reality' in time is practically impossible for one entity to prove to another entity.

The hammer test. You as an entity place your hand flat onto a block of hardwood while another entity slams a 4lb hammer onto the top of your hand.....objectively of course, independent witnesses present to confirm the event may be questioned separately as to what they observed....