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

What would count as proof of God

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,427
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:

View attachment 36656

And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.
Plus, most flat earthers ARE Christians - prove me wrong! :hysterical:
According to Encyclopædia Britannica 2007, 2.3% of the world identifies as atheist.
According to YouGov, 2% of 8,215 respondents chose, "I have always believed the world is flat."

Damn I'm good.

You actually suck, at math at least. For one thing that data is over 15 years old.
More important:
"Identify as atheist" are a minority group among the approximately 68% of all people, the non-Christians, virtually all of whom think your bible is fiction. In fact. most Christians think that other Christians' bibles are wrong. They still fall for the superstition, just a different version.
Just to bring you up to speed, more recently, one 2018 research paper using indirect methods estimated that 26% of Americans are atheists,
And FYI I don't number myself among them.

Have you come up with any rationale for saying evolution looks designed?
 

Ephesians

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2022
Messages
65
You actually suck, at math at least.

That doesn't follow at all. And I bet I'm better at math than you are.

For one thing that data is over 15 years old.

Oh, how much do you think atheism has grown from 2% in 15 years? And why is it only 2% after thousands of years of human history? If it's only 2% after thousands of years of human history, then why would it dramatically increase in 15 years? Use your brain, girl. As I said before, to most people the world looks designed. I hate to break this to you but the atheists are the 'conspiracy theorists' and 'nutters' when it comes to ultimate human origins.

68% of all people, the non-Christians

Non-Christian does not equate to "believes Bible is fiction" or agnosticism or atheism. Stop being silly. You know I'm right.

most Christians think that other Christians' bibles are wrong

Now you're equivocating between Bible translation preference and the source material of the Bible being fiction. Come on, girl... Who do you think you're foolin', girl?

2018 research paper using indirect methods estimated that 26% of Americans are atheists

First of all, without even looking at your source... I know that's bullshit. Everybody does. Even the people in this thread who don't like me who are on your side knows that's bullshit. You know how I know? Because I'm a genius. Now... let me go look up your source to confirm my genius... one sec...

Oh, look at that... straight from your own source, "However, methodological problems have been identified with this particular study since people do not have binary relationships to questions on God and instead have more complex responses to such questions."

Lul. How do I do it? How am I so badass?

Have you come up with any rationale for saying evolution looks designed?

I don't know what you mean by rationale. It looks designed. What more needs to be said? My computer looks designed, too. Do I have a rationale for that? No. But I do have vast amounts of evidence that is outside of its appearance of being designed.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Living things are also apparently designed (implying a designer) but it turns out they evolved. No designer needed.

Is the universe even apparently designed? Apparently not, unless, perhaps, the designer had a liking for empty space. Ninety-nine percent of the universe is empty space, lethal to all life and utterly uninteresting. To be fair, it‘s not really empty — it’s full of virtual particles, fields, etc. — but for human purposes it‘s a void wasteland.

Funny kind of thing to “design.”
It's a trap either way. What is "apparent" is not a good indicator of what "is" because one thing that most certainly "is" is that the sort of interactions even a simulation creator would undertake would still be detectable (and no, this is not the same as 'theism': theism puts their creators in a much smaller box, and also fails to understand various elements of the metaphysics this would imply).

For instance, I can fairly reliably predict that IF there is a god, there should be the occasional gravity wave popping up from the surface of the earth; any sudden appearance of mass would generate a gravity wave and one we would promptly triangulate to an event here, and we would be Very Curious Indeed!

Now, if they decided to rearrange some stuff that's already here, we would have an electromagnetic wave, or possibly a sound wave that originates from a very curious and sudden absence of a large amount of material in one place and it's presence in other places, or it's removal and exchange of something completely different.

Of course, if it changes distribution of mass, that's still going to make some stuff happen that we can watch.

So, still detectable.

In fact, ANY rearrangement of matter will cause this form of gravitational anomaly, and several other forms of anomaly. Further, there would be a LOT of funky bullshit going on at the chemical level. Observable funky bullshit.

We don't see any of it.

Our universe is made of matter and energy in observed fields that have never in any moment acted in such a way to observably engage in uncaused phenomena.

If you wish to demonstrate a 'god' or a 'demon' or whatever the fuck else you think you can trick us into thinking you actually believe in (and if you do so believe, that's cute, good for you!), Then produce it. Shouldn't be too hard, and hey, there are a few Nobel prizes and probably a number of other more "Trololol" prizes offered for the doing.

I can demonstrate the reality of any thing I claim exists, and can generally describe the core model by which it exists as a phenomena.

I would at least find it amusing to watch them scratch their ass at actually trying to describe the nature of a demon, not just what They think it wants and why but what it actually is or how it's mind functions as a mechanism, or even if they could deliver a sensible understanding of what they actually think it gets out of its goals and how those goals actually serve it's existence.

But they won't.

These are too difficult of concepts for most religious people I have encountered, and for that matter most backwater internet trolls, to understand. Honestly, they escape a lot of the "rational free thinkers" and "infidels" here.

There are zero or more 'gods'. If anyone wishes to rule out 'zero' you have to produce at least one.

Managing that, you then have to convince me, someone who has actually done exactly the thing you claim was done to create the universe* so as to create a different subordinate one; that the goals of such an entity are necessarily benign, acceptable, or in any way compatible with the rest of the claims.

As far as I see it even "intelligent creator god" just gets you as far as "some selfish shlub who knows how to turn a computer on". Some such schlubs would likely be like me. Some would be demonstrably worse.



*define a set of rules, and a set of algorithmic behaviors to implement those rules on a platform which, when so implemented, provide a general framework for internally driven causality),

Also, sorry @pood, I may have meandered in my mind from responding to you, to responding to the other one.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.
Yes it does, which is why we're able to rationally discern it, explain it, make predictions, etc.

If evolution were apparently undersigned, arbitrary, or chaotic, then one would think it'd be extremely difficult to understand if not impossible to understand, explain, and predict.
The rest is just bafflegab
That's a pretty bad argument, bro. My faith in God has just grown 10-fold. Are you mad?

Wow, 10-fold no less! Man, your faith must have been pretty shitty until I showed up. Could it be that I am God? :unsure:
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.
Yes it does, which is why we're able to rationally discern it, explain it, make predictions, etc.

To say that the process of evolution looks designed is a meaningless statement.

At least, it seems, you accept the fact of evolution, so I suppose that makes you better than a YEC.

Evolution occurs — it must occur — when organisms reproduce with variation in an environment that is constantly changing. In that case, some variations will be better in a given environment, whereas others will be worse. We can identify the better variations because they tend to spread, increasing the fitness (reproductive success) of the populations that possess those particular variations. This is an entirely natural, partly stochastic process that has no mind, intent, or design behind it.

Therefore your claim that evolution looks to be a designed process is false. Perhaps you are trying to say that dear Jesus made it be so that organisms reproduce with variation, and made it be so that such organisms face changing environments that select for, or against, particular variations — which, if this is what you mean, it is no different from saying, “Jesus made the world.” If that is your claim, please provide evidence to support it. So far you have provided zero (0) evidence.

By your own logic, of course, if a process looks to be natural, then we assume it is natural until a defeater can be found for the claim. In the case of evolution, though, we know that evolution does not just appear to be a natural, undirected process, we know that it is.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Also, this discussion about whether most people think the bible is fiction is meaningless. Even if most people did believe the bible is not just true, but literally true (and most people don’t) that would be standard and fallacious argument ad populum and would have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,898
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
Non-Christian does not equate to "believes Bible is fiction" or agnosticism or atheism. Stop being silly. You know I'm right.
They just don't think this thing called a christ is real. It's kinda like a unicorn to them so they recognize christ tales as entertainment, not fact.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
It turns out that currently, 31.1 percent of the world population identify as Christian. That means the vast majority of the world does not so identify. Using your own fallacious ad populum logic, we can conclude that the bible is fiction, because most people believe that it is.

So you can either abandon agrumentum ad populum or concede that the bible is fiction because 68.9 percent of the world population believe it is fiction.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Not at all. See: deterministic chaos.

What it comes down to is that one can always assume design, if one is so inclined, no matter what the universe, or any system within it, looks like. Why does a rock roll down a hill? Because Jesus designed it that way!

But in fact, without a standard of UNdesign, it is impossible to tell what is designed and what is not. If everything can be said to look designed, then by parity of reasoning one can just as well say that nothing looks designed, because it is impossible to tell the difference between the two.

So the actual standard we use for design is HUMAN design, because we know humans design things and why they do so. Hume discussed this centuries ago, about why we cannot make inferences about a designed universe just from examples of human design.

Animals and snowflakes looks designed, by human design standards. But are they? This now becomes an empirical matter, not a matter of design inference. And via empiricism we discovered that animals and snowflakes may look designed according to the human standard of design, the only standard that we have, but in fact are not designed.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,427
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

Lul. How do I do it? How am I so badass?


Doesn’t your bible say something about “Pride goeth before a fall?” :unsure:
I think he fell.
That would be usual form for a creo. They like to make these little forays into the world of the rational, then retreat to their youtube channels to gloat about how they sent the atheists to perdition.

you can either abandon agrumentum ad populum or concede that the bible is fiction because 68.9 percent of the world population believe it is fiction

Since when are superstitious believers supposed to adhere to those satanic "rules of logic", or indulge in actual discussion?
God gave them permission to be hypocrites in His name, and hypocrites they will proudly be!
Eternal damnation be yours - SO THERE!
Seriously... the brain rot is impressive. Let it serve as a warning.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Not at all. See: deterministic chaos.

What it comes down to is that one can always assume design, if one is so inclined, no matter what the universe, or any system within it, looks like. Why does a rock roll down a hill? Because Jesus designed it that way!

But in fact, without a standard of UNdesign, it is impossible to tell what is designed and what is not. If everything can be said to look designed, then by parity of reasoning one can just as well say that nothing looks designed, because it is impossible to tell the difference between the two.

So the actual standard we use for design is HUMAN design, because we know humans design things and why they do so. Hume discussed this centuries ago, about why we cannot make inferences about a designed universe just from examples of human design.

Animals and snowflakes looks designed, by human design standards. But are they? This now becomes an empirical matter, not a matter of design inference. And via empiricism we discovered that animals and snowflakes may look designed according to the human standard of design, the only standard that we have, but in fact are not designed.
You tell me that there is no way to tell between the designed and undesigned, then tell me you are confident that all is undesigned.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,898
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
You tell me that there is no way to tell between the designed and undesigned, then tell me you are confident that all is undesigned.
That sounds like the argument for a designer from whataboutism.

Speaking personally the clincher against design is that it requires an undesigned designer. That means all the design we allegedly see ultimately comes from no design at all. So why include something as contradictory as an undesigned designer to account for design?
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Not at all. See: deterministic chaos.

What it comes down to is that one can always assume design, if one is so inclined, no matter what the universe, or any system within it, looks like. Why does a rock roll down a hill? Because Jesus designed it that way!

But in fact, without a standard of UNdesign, it is impossible to tell what is designed and what is not. If everything can be said to look designed, then by parity of reasoning one can just as well say that nothing looks designed, because it is impossible to tell the difference between the two.

So the actual standard we use for design is HUMAN design, because we know humans design things and why they do so. Hume discussed this centuries ago, about why we cannot make inferences about a designed universe just from examples of human design.

Animals and snowflakes looks designed, by human design standards. But are they? This now becomes an empirical matter, not a matter of design inference. And via empiricism we discovered that animals and snowflakes may look designed according to the human standard of design, the only standard that we have, but in fact are not designed.
You tell me that there is no way to tell between the designed and undesigned, then tell me you are confident that all is undesigned.

No, I did not say that. I said something very close to the opposite. We KNOW that some things ARE designed: buildings, watches, airplanes, factories, houses, and on and on. But the reason we know these things are designed is because humans design and build them. We know that. What I am saying is that in order to detect design, we must have some standard of design. The only standard we have is human creation, and to a lesser extent the creations of non-human animals. Using this standard of design — the only one we have — we can see that some things in nature look AS IF they were designed, such as the examples I cited: animals and snowflakes. The problem now is we have never seen anyone or anything design or build a snowflake or an animal. So while we know priori that houses are designed (by humans), we must investigate, through empiricism, whether animals and snowflakes are also designed by some kind of designer. Our knowledge of this, if we can obtain it, will be a posteriori. And we have obtained that knowledge. It turns out that animals and snowflakes are not designed. They arise through purely natural, undirected processes.

Of course, it remains metaphysically possible that the universe was designed. Again, this becomes an empirical matter. What evidence do we have that the universe was designed? None.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
You tell me that there is no way to tell between the designed and undesigned, then tell me you are confident that all is undesigned.
That sounds like the argument for a designer from whataboutism.
No, it was definitely an argument against design, that much was made quite clear.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Our knowledge of this, if we can obtain it, will be a posteriori. And we have obtained that knowledge. It turns out that animals and snowflakes are not designed. They arise through purely natural, undirected processes.
Demonstrate this, and your argument will hold water.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Our knowledge of this, if we can obtain it, will be a posteriori. And we have obtained that knowledge. It turns out that animals and snowflakes are not designed. They arise through purely natural, undirected processes.
Demonstrate this, and your argument will hold water.

Demonstrate what? That animals and snowflakes are not designed?

Evolution

How snowflakes form
Not going to read a vague link, describe the empirical evidence that no designer was involved in the creation of the natural processes you refer to.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, and everything else. You’ve got the burden or proof exactly backward. It is not my burden to provide empirical evidence that a hidden designer does NOT exist. One cannot prove a universal negative proposition. If you believe Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong designed the universe, then YOU have the burden to provide the empirical evidence that this is, in fact, the case.

Evidence so far: Zero.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Our knowledge of this, if we can obtain it, will be a posteriori. And we have obtained that knowledge. It turns out that animals and snowflakes are not designed. They arise through purely natural, undirected processes.
Demonstrate this, and your argument will hold water.

Demonstrate what? That animals and snowflakes are not designed?

Evolution

How snowflakes form
Not going to read a vague link, describe the empirical evidence that no designer was involved in the creation of the natural processes you refer to.
The process of evolution, and the process of snowflake creation appear to products of the undirected interaction of matter/energy following certain patterns which we call the laws of nature. There is no evidence to suggest that the laws of nature were put in place by a sentient creator. We don't know why the laws of nature are what they are, but given the conspicuous absence of evidence for sentient creators, it would be premature to hypothesize that sentient creators are needed to explain anything. It theists could provide evidence to support their claims, a discussion might be had, but theists don't deal with evidence. Or logic.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.
If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.
Why do you believe the universe appears to be designed? What criteria did you use to discriminate between a universe that has been designed and one that hasn't? How many universes have you studied, and can you please share your data with us? Thanks.

And welcome to the forum. Pull up a chair and hope you stay a while.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,129
Basic Beliefs
naturalism, ecocentrism
Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.
If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.
A door's off balance and that's why it "opens itself". It's fully demonstrable. Yet imagine someone comes along and keeps insisting "Ah, but you don't KNOW that it wasn't a ghost. It's not a question we can produce an answer to. Don't be closed to the possibility of a thing I can't demonstrate!"

That's a non-point. It's a waste of time to go on about that.

The answer is, without compelling evidence of a designer there's not only no good reason to believe it, there's also no good reason to keep entertaining the idea.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.
But there's no reason to presume evolution isn't designed. You keep missing that point. In fact, it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.
Why does the process of evolution look designed? How does one distinguish between a designed process and an undesigned one? The processes which drive the evolution of living things are well understood and completely natural. No supernatural intervention is required to explain any aspect of the processes.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.
If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.

You only quoted part of what I wrote.

How do you know no such evidence can exist? Remember, it’s your burden to provide it. How about if Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong rearranged all the stars in the sky to spell out, “Universe Made by Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong”? That would be pretty compelling.

If, OTOH, it really were true that no evidence at all can be adduced for this hidden creator, it would mean that said creator has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.
How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.
How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,
The universe neither is nor is not itself evidence for the means of its own existence.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.
How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,
The universe neither is nor is not itself evidence for the means of its own existence.
Let's even take this a step further, to the proof of this true statement:

Let's say I run a DF game on powerPC.

Then I run that same DF game on a Mac.

Then I run that same DF game on an x86.

Each of these will create a universe, from the same seed, containing and obeying the same laws of physics and making pseudorandom decisions on the same RNG seed.

None of them will have visibility over the fact that their platform is different because what they can see from the inside is the logical description of the behavior of the system, not it's physical function. It's physical dance in the host universe is immaterial to existence within the context of the constrained logical system dancing on the semiconductors..

As long as it is the same seed and the same rules and the same I/O, even if on different platforms, it is the same universe.
 

pood

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2021
Messages
875
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

Expect you have no reason to expect chaos because entropy does not mean chaos. Entropy means that in a closed system disorder will tend to increase. The earth is not a closed system, hence it is full of order. The universe itself is a closed system and, sure enough, entropy is always rising universally. Local negative entropy, such as occurs on earth, is compensated for by an even greater increase in entropy in the universe at large. This is all well understood and perfectly natural. There is no mystery here.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Traditional Atheist
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,898
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.
So "the problem" is that there can never be evidence. How convenient, don't you think? That kind of nonsense can be applied to any claim and any bit of evidence offered in support of any claim.

Your creator should be obvious and evidenced like the doorstop behind me. If it isn't, if it isn't subject to empirical validation as you claim then it isn't real. It's just an argument.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Entropyis not philosophical, it is a numerical variable that is calculated.

Order and disorder is often misunderstood and misquoted.

Chaos also has definition. In systems theory chaotic is the top level category, detrmistic and probabistic are special cased of chaotic.

Chaotic systems, like climate, can be modeled over the short term but over time prediction diveges from rerality. Samll chnages in iniyial conditions cause long term deviations.

Here in Seattle weather forecasts run out about a week with good accuracy, and less so out longer.

If the universe is infinite as I think it is or bounded, entropy does not apply, there is no thermodynamic boundary.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?
I am saying you cannot have a reasonable expectation in this matter because you are limited to a sample size of one. Again, expectations are based on prior experiences, and you are not in a position to observe any universes other than the one you inhabit.

We also know that order is fleeting, and that the overall entropy of the universe is increasing continuously and relentlessly. Life is simply one mechanism by which this happens.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.
You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,397
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I am saying you cannot have a reasonable expectation in this matter because you are limited to a sample size of one. Again, expectations are based on prior experiences, and you are not in a position to observe any universes other than the one you inhabit.
Agreed. I am therefore cautious about what I'm willing to assert about it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.
You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.
An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.
Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.
You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.
An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.
You might be interested in some of Roger Penrose's ideas on conformal cyclic cosmology.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?
Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?
Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.
Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?
Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.
You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.
An interesting idea is that at some point, everything in our universe will decay and there will only be one solid state, where everything is never going to touch anything ever again.

It will be as "nothing", infinite and empty and unchanging.

Then it will contain something, on account of everything expanding too fast for the vacuum fluctuations to come back together even in an instant of time. A bunch of stuff will come to exist, very quickly. It could be expanding like that for an eternity or no time at all depending on how one graphs a static thing with a single meaningful property.

If the expansion ever stops or slows down, or something changes at all about this geometry, when it "comes back" and stops inflating, a single particle will exist at the nexus of every infinitely expanded virtual particle collection, and then all that will give rise to the same damn thing, as mutated by infinite turbulence at every point.

Or something?

I just know that when you're ripping apart the quantum vacuum fluctuations as they always happen everywhere as they must, something weird is bound to happen. You're going to get a LOT of something from nothing, and it won't disappear in a puff of instant annihilation the way it did before the epoch when time and space at every point are ripping apart faster than C. It conjurors images of "white holes" albeit at every point in the universe, hot and dense, and damn near symmetrical assuming the rip ever ends.
You might be interested in some of Roger Penrose's ideas on conformal cyclic cosmology.
I might be, if I were interested in knowing that quite yet.

For me this stuff is kind of like solving a puzzle: If I look at all the answers, I don't get to figure them out myself, and we get good at what we practice.

I'm kind of doing a min/max this run, with JUST barely enough "looking it up" to do an otherwise full dump on "figuring it out" (plus, I suppose, a little bit here and there in 'actually staying alive').

I know I'm going to have to balance a few more points towards "looking it up" and I do know I'm almost out of expendable skill points coming on 40 as I am, but I'm keeping an eye on that.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.
Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.
Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.
Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.
Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.
Except I'm not arguing unprovable.

If we can demonstrate mathematically that this is what happens at the rip boundary, that in these conditions time becomes unimportant and things become inflationary, and everything gets spun back up to a state of low entropy, that isn't unprovable. Unprovable would be to say that all is a result of some critter hitting a reset button after the MMO season is over to start the next season.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
The idea of the universe running down, thermal death, implies there was a finite beginning. The BB Theory does not start at time zero, it does not explain the origins of the intial conditions.
Except it doesn't. It can extend 'infinitely'* in each direction.

*What happens "before" and after the infinite spinlock does not matter especially if it can be shown that these states are identical, at which point the whole thing is a waveform behavior.
Arguing unprovable cosmology is like arguing unprovable theology. To me it all comes down to causation and something from nothing. Dispense with causation and conservatin of mass then you can argue anything, including creationism.



Paraphrasing Descartes,leave the woo to the astrologers and apply yourself to peoblems that are solvable.
Except I'm not arguing unprovable.

If we can demonstrate mathematically that this is what happens at the rip boundary, that in these conditions time becomes unimportant and things become inflationary, and everything gets spun back up to a state of low entropy, that isn't unprovable. Unprovable would be to say that all is a result of some critter hitting a reset button after the MMO season is over to start the next season.
That is why I posted an electrical circuit that will mathematically oscillate forever. Cosmology at best is an extreme mathematical extrapolation, none of it provable. The BB is a good theory based on scince we can demonstrte, but to me that is as far as it goes. In pop cilture it has become a modern creation myth. People say 'the universe began with the BB', which the theory does not say. It says givem a thoertecal initial condition the unverse we see today follows from an event. The theory works because it is designed to wok, not berciase it is physically true.

I will category reject any theory that negates causation and conservation of matter. Hawking claiming he coud prove the unverse cretes itself shows that being grounded in scince does not mean one is always scintific.

There is no poosible way to test any cosmolgy like the BB. I deffer to Popper, to be objective science it must be testable. The same kind of tesabilty we demand from theists. Because a theory like the BB can result in what we see today does not man the theory is correct.

A cosmology can and was crafted with the Earth as the center of the universe. The model accuracy predicted astronomical motions in the day, but we now know it was wrong. Theory is not reality or the map is not the countryside.
 

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
9,801
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Adding as a general principle I am equaly sketical of all things human.

I am equally skeptical at what comes form politics, media, region, philosophy, and science.

I am equally skeptical of both creationism and cosmology as it pertains to origins and a genesis.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,017
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.
There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

You didn't say anything in your post. You just posted a link to a video that we had discussed previously, and I pointed out that the video did not support the claim you were making at that (earlier) time.

Why don't you explain what your point was, and how the video supports whatever claim you want to make, so we can discuss it. Post the timestamp for the part of the video we should be looking at, because I am not going to spend another half hour viewing a video I have already watched once. I can't read your mind - I need to know what your specific position is, and how the video supports this position. This is not an unreasonable request. Several people have asked you to do this, but so far you have declined to clarify.

Learner, are you going to explain what your point was, and how the video you posted supports your position?
 
Top Bottom