Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

 

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

I never said it was improbable? I said that if you say a creator does not exist, then the universe cannot have been created anything but randomly.

 

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

See above.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here we go again. Random is not the same damn thing as improbable. If I have 100 different pennies in my pocket, all the same except for one, what is the chance that I will pick one of the 99 pennies? It is 99%. This is random. But, the fact that it is random doesn't mean that all other events are equally probable...I just don't understand the correlation that is being made between random and improbable.

 

I never said it was improbable? I said that if you say a creator does not exist, then the universe cannot have been created anything but randomly.

 

 

Again, even if they came about randomly, this doesn't mean our universe was improbable. Some think that there are billions, trillions, or an even larger number of other universes that might exist outside of ours. If this is true, then yes, the chances of any particular universe being randomly selected would be small. BUT the chances of our universe existing at all approaches 1 as the number of universes approaches infinity.

 

Also, this is assuming that some physical constants, such as speed of light and Planck's constant, can even be altered at all. Would you say "Boy, it sure is lucky that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is 3.14159........"? No. You wouldn't this is simply the only way that a circle could ever exist. Some people are also of the thought that perhaps the only way "a universe" could ever exist is if Planck's constant is 6.62 x 10^-34

See above.

 

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

But it has nothing to do with cancer and all that other crap you mentioned. I have this picture in my mind that you think that evolution suggests that one-legged organisms were walking around, and then were subject to radiation, and gave birth to two-legged freak babies. This isn't the case at all. DNA has random variations that occur during replication, and it has nothing to do with cancer and tumors that needed to be caused by some kind of radiation. It also has nothing to do with people who get exposed to radiation and then give birth to babies with 4 thumbs on one hand.

 

Change just happens.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.

 

Are they? I've yet to see a situation in our present life where true random has been replicated.

 

 

And my point was merely to address the point some people were making saying that the universe was not random.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand...

 

I was saying that YOU seem to be of the misconception that evolution predicts that one species randomly gives birth to freak mutants of other species and they fight to the death.

Let me point out that when you said:

There are many reasons that produce slight variation in organisms, and none of them have anything to do with cancer, carcinogens, radiation, or whatever other crazy ideas you have dreamt up.

I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance.

Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random.

 

I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now.

 

It's true that mutations are random. What does that gain you? Advantageous mutations mean that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation onto it's offspring. This is the heart of evolution.


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then what does the randomness have to do with anything? It is random, so what? Lots of things are random.

 

Are they? I've yet to see a situation in our present life where true random has been replicated.

 

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

And my point was merely to address the point some people were making saying that the universe was not random.

 

Because it depends on how you look at it. If you flip a million coins, and you look at a coin that landed heads up, would you say "Wow how random!". It was almost certain that a coin would land heads up.

 

The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

If you want to use the proper definition of random, then yes, it was random. But this definition of random implies nothing about how likely the event is.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

I'm talking about something that was truly random. You can flip a coin, yes, but the result is directly controlled by things like wind speed, coin weight, and how hard you flick it, so that there's in fact nothing random about the coin flipping. It merely has the appearance of being random.

 

Same goes for pulling paper out of a hat, using a computer to generate a "random" number, etc etc.

 

Yes, I'm using the proper definition.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

No, the term "too random" was used for that. There is no "unlikely" connotation behind the word "random" by itself unless you give it one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

I'm talking about something that was truly random. You can flip a coin, yes, but the result is directly controlled by things like wind speed, coin weight, and how hard you flick it, so that there's in fact nothing random about the coin flipping. It merely has the appearance of being random.

 

Same goes for pulling paper out of a hat, using a computer to generate a "random" number, etc etc.

 

Yes, I'm using the proper definition.

 

Then theres nothing random about physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology, or astronomy. The position and formation of all of the planets could have been predicted if you could calculate what would happen based on like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 events. Random DNA mutations aren't really random in the mathematical sense of the word. Theyre just impossible or very hard to predict. I don't know of anything in the physical world that is actually random.

 

What makes you think that the origins of the universe are random then?

 

The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

No, the term "too random" was used for that. There is no "unlikely" connotation behind the word "random" by itself unless you give it one.

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

 

 

The reason we're talking about randomness is quite simple. For something to be truly random, it must have no outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. People such as yourself maintain that the universe we live in was formed without any outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome.

 

If there isn't anything truly random, how could the universe have possibly came from such?


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

 

 

The reason we're talking about randomness is quite simple. For something to be truly random, it must have no outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. People such as yourself maintain that the universe we live in was formed without any outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome.

 

If there isn't anything truly random, how could the universe have possibly came from such?

 

Nobody claims that the universe came from a place of no influence. No scientific claim actually even exists yet for what came before the big bang.

 

Some of the current "hypotheses" say that our universe is only one of many other universes, which exist in a place we have yet to discover. This higher place could have its own set of rules governing how a universe should behave. Again, this would raise a lot more questions, but thats what happens when we don't know something.

 

But yeah...nobody is claiming that the universe all of a sudden just came from absolutely nowhere. It is a thought, a possibility, but nobody is claiming it to be true.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nobody claims that the universe came from a place of no influence. No scientific claim actually even exists yet for what came before the big bang.

 

Some of the current "hypotheses" say that our universe is only one of many other universes, which exist in a place we have yet to discover. This higher place could have its own set of rules governing how a universe should behave. Again, this would raise a lot more questions, but thats what happens when we don't know something.

 

But yeah...nobody is claiming that the universe all of a sudden just came from absolutely nowhere.

 

Would raise a lot more questions, yes...successfully violating Occam's Razor in the process.

 

I also never claimed that the universe suddenly appeared - I imagine it was a process spanning several billion years. It doesn't change the fact that if there is no creator or higher being, it can only have occurred randomly, and since true random doesn't exist in any manner in our universe I find that theory hard to believe.

 

I'm not attempting to show this demonstrates definitive proof of God - but for me this is certainly a question I feel is not sufficiently answered by science and thus makes me wary of ruling out a creator as an origin for our universe.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would raise a lot more questions, yes...successfully violating Occam's Razor in the process.

 

 

Does Occam's Razor say that objects should be made of moluecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which are made of even smaller and smaller stuff? Occam's Razor sure sounds like a pretty concept, but it doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

 

I also never claimed that the universe suddenly appeared - I imagine it was a process spanning several billion years. It doesn't change the fact that if there is no creator or higher being, it can only have occurred randomly, and since true random doesn't exist in any manner in our universe I find that theory hard to believe.

 

False dichotomy, purely and smimply. Mind giving me your evidence that the only possible explanation for where the universe came from is either divine creation or random occurance? We have no idea what was before the universe, or what might be outside of it.

 

I'm not attempting to show this demonstrates definitive proof of God - but for me this is certainly a question I feel is not sufficiently answered by science and thus makes me wary of ruling out a creator as an origin for our universe.

 

You're right, it is a question that is not sufficiently answered by science, because it is NOT answered by science yet.

 

I still don't think that the designer answers any questions. Where did the designer come from? Random occurance? If the designer came about randomly, then why couldnt the universe?

 

Or maybe the designer was "always there"? Well then why can't the universe just be "always there"? An intelligent designer just creates an extra step before you have all of the same questions.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate.

 

Y_Guy. Do you believe in a creative force of some sort? Why? What evidence do you have to support that idea?


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Does Occam's Razor say that objects should be made of moluecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which are made of even smaller and smaller stuff? Occam's Razor sure sounds like a pretty concept, but it doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

 

Of course - Occam's Razor is a philosophical construct most aptly used when scientific constructs do not apply - such as in this situation where you freely admit science has next to no idea where we came from.

 

 

False dichotomy, purely and smimply. Mind giving me your evidence that the only possible explanation for where the universe came from is either divine creation or random occurance? We have no idea what was before the universe, or what might be outside of it.

 

Well, one can reasonably assume that there mere existence of a creator (ignoring other factors) is a fairly straightforward yes or no question. A creator either exists, or he does not.

 

The definition of random, as I've already said, stipulates an occurrence or series of such with no interference from an outside force. If there is no creator, there can be no outside force. Once again, a creator either exists or does not.

 

Therefore, if a creator does not exists, then the universe must have created itself - and therefore the only way this can possibly happen is to have been randomly.

 

 

You're right, it is a question that is not sufficiently answered by science, because it is NOT answered by science yet.

 

I still don't think that the designer answers any questions. Where did the designer come from? Random occurance? If the designer came about randomly, then why couldnt the universe?

 

Or maybe the designer was "always there"? Well then why can't the universe just be "always there"? An intelligent designer just creates an extra step before you have all of the same questions.

 

So once again we reach the great divide - you choose to believe that science will one day answer the question in favour of no creator. I choose the other path. Neither is right nor wrong.

 

A corollary to that is your "multiple universe" theory. While you may not think of another universe as a God - if it is a "higher universe" and it created the universe we currently inhabit, then it fulfills the creator role nonetheless.

 

I agree that believing in a designer merely serves to add more questions, or at very least reiterate the questions already posed by other theories. I think theists and athiests can share common ground in this regard - we can both agree that our current knowledge of the laws of our universe make it difficult to see how exactly creation could have taken place - hence the theist theory of God and the (some)atheist theory of a higher universe.

 

 

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate.

 

 

Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

 

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?


IRKAa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

 

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?

Read my responses to wep - I find it hard to believe that universe could have been created by random chance since random chance does not exist in our universe.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

But anyway, I don't really understand what you actually mean by "random chance". We don't know if there was some causality (with or without a creator) behind the beginning of the universe, and it's pretty inane to assign probabilities to this universe having the constants it has, or to life arising in a planet, since we don't know whether there are more universes or lifeforms out there.

 

Then, just because it would be too improbable, it does not follow that a creator (whose existence and complexity is yet to be explained without cop-outs) must have then created the universe.

 

And what if we assumed that the beginning of the universe was too improbable and it must have been created by (a/several) god(s)?

 

It's still a gigantic leap to say he created it did with humans as the pinnacle, no, as the very purpose of all creation. Or that these curious meat beings were endowed with an immortal, immaterial soul that is to be judged by their actions, and rewarded or punished for an eternity by a an all-loving God. Or that he'd care at all about us -we might just be a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he created for his own delight-.


This signature is intentionally left blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

Atomic radioactive decay merely creates an illusion of randomness, as have the other examples. It is easily predictable precisely because it follows a definitive pattern - just because we haven't fully analyzed the specifics of the causation doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

But anyway, I don't really understand what you actually mean by "random chance". We don't know if there was some causality (with or without a creator) behind the beginning of the universe, and it's pretty inane to assign probabilities to this universe having the constants it has, or to life arising in a planet, since we don't know whether there are more universes or lifeforms out there.

 

This is precisely my point. If there is some causality in our origins, that fulfills the creator role. If you argue there is no creator and the universe was created without causality, it cannot have been anything but random.

 

Then, just because it would be too improbable, it does not follow that a creator (whose existence and complexity is yet to be explained without cop-outs) must have then created the universe.

 

Of course, but then all you're left with is a battle of probabilities, which is exactly where we started. Is it more probable the universe began without or with causation?

 

And what if we assumed that the beginning of the universe was too improbable and it must have been created by (a/several) god(s)?

 

It's still a gigantic leap to say he created it did with humans as the pinnacle, no, as the very purpose of all creation. Or that these curious meat beings were endowed with an immortal, immaterial soul that is to be judged by their actions, and rewarded or punished for an eternity by a an all-loving God. Or that he'd care at all about us -we might just be a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he created for his own delight-.

 

If we were to assume that it would at least merit thought - I don't believe we can know very much at all about the creator or creators of the universe. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the universe dictates that some sort of creative force (the specifics are up for grabs) is not unlikely.

 

I agree that it is a gigantic leap forward, as we know next to nothing about other species that may exist, where they exist, and what they are like.

 

I find it further hard to believe that we could merely be "just a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he create for his own delight". We could be just a curiosity, yes - but the fact that we've been given intelligence enough to understand and question our origins would make it nonsensical to not care.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

Atomic radioactive decay merely creates an illusion of randomness, as have the other examples. It is easily predictable precisely because it follows a definitive pattern - just because we haven't fully analyzed the specifics of the causation doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'm not sure. But you raised my curiosity. I'm going to talk with a professor about this.

This is precisely my point. If there is some causality in our origins, that fulfills the creator role. If you argue there is no creator and the universe was created without causality, it cannot have been anything but random.

Of course, but then all you're left with is a battle of probabilities, which is exactly where we started. Is it more probable the universe began without or with causation?

Even if chance is ruled out (which I'm not convinced of, since the anthropic principle gives us a huge "luck boost"), you are still jumping to a sentient creator. What if the cause is somehow naturalistic? Unless you would call that God.

 

If we were to assume that it would at least merit thought - I don't believe we can know very much at all about the creator or creators of the universe. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the universe dictates that some sort of creative force (the specifics are up for grabs) is not unlikely.

 

I agree that it is a gigantic leap forward, as we know next to nothing about other species that may exist, where they exist, and what they are like.

 

I find it further hard to believe that we could merely be "just a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he create for his own delight". We could be just a curiosity, yes - but the fact that we've been given intelligence enough to understand and question our origins would make it nonsensical to not care.

I mean a a god "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings". The creator of the Universe needs not care for us, or have created us, or have created the universe for our sake. This hypothetical god that created the physical constants and set the universe in place needs not have created consciousness and "given us" intelligence. To see the world around you and marvel is only natural, but to think it was made all for you is not only arrogant but also illogical. Even assuming there was such a creator in the first place.

 

Are there any religions that do not believe in a soul?


This signature is intentionally left blank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even if chance is ruled out (which I'm not convinced of, since the anthropic principle gives us a huge "luck boost"), you are still jumping to a sentient creator. What if the cause is somehow naturalistic? Unless you would call that God.

 

I wouldn't call that God, perhaps...but I would at least say the role of creator had been fulfilled. The anthropic principle applies indeed, but at the same time it's simply demonstrative of the consequences of many completely random chances.

 

I mean a a god "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings". The creator of the Universe needs not care for us, or have created us, or have created the universe for our sake. This hypothetical god that created the physical constants and set the universe in place needs not have created consciousness and "given us" intelligence. To see the world around you and marvel is only natural, but to think it was made all for you is not only arrogant but also illogical. Even assuming there was such a creator in the first place.

 

Are there any religions that do not believe in a soul?

 

Once again, the question arises that, if there is a creator, why would he have given us intelligence if not to attempt to discover him? He clearly created an enormous variety of other life forms with various degrees of sentience - why make humans the (so far) only exception?

 

To my knowledge, all religions believe in some sort of soul-like object. Of course, the specifics vary tremendously.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course - Occam's Razor is a philosophical construct most aptly used when scientific constructs do not apply - such as in this situation where you freely admit science has next to no idea where we came from.

 

This is still a scientific question though. This is like saying since we cant answer "What is the AIDs vaccine?" we should try to answer this question philosophically....

 

Well, one can reasonably assume that there mere existence of a creator (ignoring other factors) is a fairly straightforward yes or no question. A creator either exists, or he does not.

The definition of random, as I've already said, stipulates an occurrence or series of such with no interference from an outside force. If there is no creator, there can be no outside force. Once again, a creator either exists or does not.

Therefore, if a creator does not exists, then the universe must have created itself - and therefore the only way this can possibly happen is to have been randomly.

 

These are not the only two options! There could be many many more degrees of complexity outside of the universe! We have no idea what the options are for universal creation. You are assuming that you know nothing came before the universe, and nothing exists outside of it. We dont know this!

 

 

So once again we reach the great divide - you choose to believe that science will one day answer the question in favour of no creator. I choose the other path. Neither is right nor wrong.

No, I choose to believe nothing about the origins of the universe. You choose to believe something that has no evidence. In no other aspect of life do we just say "If we don't know, anyone can believe whatever the hell they want!" If we don't know, then we don't know. And anyone is a fool to think that they have any understanding of how the universe came to be...cause we don't know!

 

A corollary to that is your "multiple universe" theory. While you may not think of another universe as a God - if it is a "higher universe" and it created the universe we currently inhabit, then it fulfills the creator role nonetheless.

 

So are you saying that the universe either came from somewhere, or came from nowhere? And you want to lump all of the "came from somewhere" theories together into a "God" theory? There still is no reason to believe in either case, other than philosophical reasons, which have absolutely no bearing on what actually exists in the physical world. We didn't use philosophy to discover Pluto, and we can't use philosophy to determine where the universe came from.

 

I agree that believing in a designer merely serves to add more questions, or at very least reiterate the questions already posed by other theories. I think theists and athiests can share common ground in this regard - we can both agree that our current knowledge of the laws of our universe make it difficult to see how exactly creation could have taken place - hence the theist theory of God and the (some)atheist theory of a higher universe.

 

The difference being that theists claim belief of their theory, and atheists leave their hypotheses as what they are: guesses that aren't based on evidence. Its not like cosmologists would say "I believe XXX theory of universal creation." It just simply isn't part of scientific knowledge, and we accept that. Theists don't do that.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is still a scientific question though. This is like saying since we cant answer "What is the AIDs vaccine?" we should try to answer this question philosophically....

 

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots.

 

 

These are not the only two options! There could be many many more degrees of complexity outside of the universe! We have no idea what the options are for universal creation. You are assuming that you know nothing came before the universe, and nothing exists outside of it. We dont know this!

 

You're missing my point. My point deals with the creation of the universe as well know it, as well as anything outside of that. My point holds true no matter how many layers of alternate universe there are - if there is no creator it must still have been created randomly.

 

No, I choose to believe nothing about the origins of the universe. You choose to believe something that has no evidence. In no other aspect of life do we just say "If we don't know, anyone can believe whatever the hell they want!" If we don't know, then we don't know. And anyone is a fool to think that they have any understanding of how the universe came to be...cause we don't know!

This is where I disagree - a fervent disbelief in God is as much of a belief as the opposite.

 

So are you saying that the universe either came from somewhere, or came from nowhere? And you want to lump all of the "came from somewhere" theories together into a "God" theory? There still is no reason to believe in either case, other than philosophical reasons, which have absolutely no bearing on what actually exists in the physical world. We didn't use philosophy to discover Pluto, and we can't use philosophy to determine where the universe came from.

 

Yes, that is the logical conclusion (to your first sentence). I never said you should lump all the "came from somewhere" theories into a "God" theory - but you can lump them all into a "creator" theory, or at least some kind of higher guiding power.

 

 

The difference being that theists claim belief of their theory, and atheists leave their hypotheses as what they are: guesses that aren't based on evidence. Its not like cosmologists would say "I believe XXX theory of universal creation." It just simply isn't part of scientific knowledge, and we accept that. Theists don't do that.

 

I hold philosophical belief in God. I accept that by strict scientific definition there is no direct evidence for God. Evidence for God (from science's perspective) boils down to theories and hypotheses.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots.

 

So why does this ONE issue of the physical world get to be answered by philosophy instead of science?

 

You're missing my point. My point deals with the creation of the universe as well know it, as well as anything outside of that. My point holds true no matter how many layers of alternate universe there are - if there is no creator it must still have been created randomly.

 

If by "creator" you mean "any causal mechanism" then okay.

 

This is where I disagree - a fervent disbelief in God is as much of a belief as the opposite.

 

 

If I tell you that a teapot is in orbit around Jupiter, does it take more faith to believe me or to disbelieve me?

 

Also, nobody has any bones to pick with God. If you make any claims that are based on zero evidence I would be just as little convinced.

 

If I claim that I have an invisible pet unicorn, does it take just as much faith to believe me as to not believe me?

 

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

 

I hold philosophical belief in God. I accept that by strict scientific definition there is no direct evidence for God.

Do you hold other beliefs about the physical world that have zero evidence?

 

Evidence for God (from science's perspective) boils down to theories and hypotheses.

What? A theory is not evidence. Not sure what youre saying here.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.