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

[Swammerdami]

Did God create cancer? Yes or no?

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

 

[EricH]

Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.

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.

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Nobody here, with the exception of you, believes in a creator god. And nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Take your misrepresentations of what people are saying and shove it.

 

[pood]

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

Did God create cancer? Yes or no?

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?

 

[pood]

Did God create cancer? Yes or no?

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

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.

 

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps it would be best to stick to the known causes of cancer before trying to blame God.

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.

I'm calling out the intellectual dishonesty of folks who know about the man-made causes of cancer whilst pointing the finger at God.

Nobody here, with the exception of you, believes in a creator god. And nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

Take your preaching about consistency and shove it.

Take your misrepresentations of what people are saying and shove it.

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

nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

 

[pood]

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

nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

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]

Meanwhile, scientists create designer chromosomes in landmark genetic engineering feat.

More proof of God, cuz the words “create” and “designer” and “engineering.”

 

[EricH]

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

nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

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?

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.

 

[pood]

I know he gets it, but I don’t see how h

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

nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

 

[Elixir]

I know he gets it, but I don’t see how h

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

nobody here has claimed that God is the cause of cancer.

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?

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.

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.

Have you ever noticed that people who are irrational assume that others have the same impediment?

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

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.

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!

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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.

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".

 

[pood]

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

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.

 

[bilby]

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."

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.

 

[Swammerdami]

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."

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.

You need to work on your definite vs indefinite articles. Try Googling "a vs the."

 

[bilby]

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."

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.

You need to work on your definite vs indefinite articles. Try Googling "a vs the."

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.