Jesus said, let there be the earth and there was an earth and the Jesus said let there be a son and he was the son of god so therefore Jesus exists. We all love Jesus. Don't burn in hell forever in hell or if yes then do but Jesus is the light of love and lives not in a zoo but in all of us and in you and me
@CrubbDaTubb My, aren't you a Good Christian™. When confronted with the fact that you didn't even get statements about the faith you profess to believe in correct, you immediately resort to wishing eternal torture upon the one who pointed out your error. Truly a paragon of the community.
@CrubbDaTubb You do realize that calling someone gay is only really an insult for homophobes and children, right? Also, threatening someone with the idea of hell loses much of its oomph to someone who doesn't believe it even exists, and all it does is show you to be a petty, vile person who enjoys thinking of those they disagree with being tortured forever.
Silly Carrier... The universe was created for life. It just took a while for God to realize that you can't create life if your equation requires you to divide by zero. It appears that he is a slow learner...
I don't understand how the existence of say, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 black holes, would in any way change the staggering achievement that is even one solar system to organically produce a living organism that would eventually evolved into the some 100 million species that exist today, including us. How ISN'T the entire process of evolution "fine-tuned" in the sense that things are progressing WITH PURPOSE?
The point is the "fine-tuned" argument doesn't work because evidence suggest life is merely a by-product of a universe that appears optimized for black holes, and If the universe was "created" for life we would expect it to be the other way around. Yes, this universe is capable of sustaining life, but there isn't any reason to presume it was "finely tuned" for that purpose. In other words, this universe doesn't appear as though it was specifically intended to support life. Sorry.
@MaddPuppet his entire argument rests on this notion he's picked up from somewhere that the universe is optimally created to produce black holes. how does he know that ? it's not his field. he does not know enough of about real cosmology to be able to defend or even explain this notion that he's picked up.
@MaddPuppet : according to whom ? I have not heard any real physicists make the pitch that the universe is "maximally designed to produce black holes ". I find it interesting that atheists like this one just can't seem to get away from using the word "designed" -- if it was "designed" , then there is a Designer.
@celal777 That god isn't real. He said that if at least 2 people gather in his name to pray, then their prayers will be granted. That is demonstrably false.
@MaddPuppet : for one thing the fact that you haven't understood that verse (and perhaps don't even know where it is found in the Bible) is evident from what your claiming it says. first go, find the verse then read it carefully understand what it says and after you've done your homework tell me again what is "demonstrably false" about it.
@celal777 I've obviously read the verse already. If I'm missing out on some knowledge, why don't you just fill me in. I'm not going to keep guessing at it until I have your interpretation.
@benthemiester There are actually explanations for behavior such as your dog's, though it depends on the actual animal in question. One such explanation is derived from the fact that dogs are pack animals (it sees you as part of its pack and so will protect you the same as if you were another dog).
The fact that 99.999999% of the universe is lethal to life (yet we live on a planet that is perfect and thriving with life, from protozoa to man) doesn't seem to help his argument.
Black holes dont affect our fitness. By the time one did we would no longer exist due to what John Sanford calls genetic entropy. I also think he's wrong when he says, it wasn't designed to make life for us. The proof is in the pudding, but I admit he may have a point with the SETI people and their search for ET's.
@benthemiester Are you kidding? That's like saying that "This apple juice is 99.9999999% cyanide, so obviously it was conconcted to give me vitamin C!" It is neither coincidence NOR design that we "ended up" on one of the few spaces capable of "sustaining life". Life developed here and adapted to what we have. It's not as if without God, we could have possibly come to the present inside of a blackhole, then said "Gee, if we had a loving God, he would have made us where we could survive."
@deathtris I dont think you quite understand my statement, or even your own. If the universe is as it appears to be, and that is, to be created for intelligent human life, as many cosmologist agree on, then its methodology is unimportant compared to its ultimate purpose. Salt is necessary to life but to much can kill you. This does not make salt or even cyanide a bad thing, especially since we will never be exposed to the 99.999999%. We are protected from 99.99999% of the harmful stuff.
@benthemiester What methodology? Spoiler alert: EVERYONE DIES. We are not "protected" in any way. It's only through modern advances (the last 200 years) that we are even able to survive, on average, past 50. And that is only until the sun goes supernova, or we're struck by a cataclysmic asteroid. Other than the atmosphere, the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own.
@deathtris What makes you think a finite life invalidates the anthropic nature of the universe?
I think life is pretty great. Even people who have suffered in tragedy still enjoy life. If you want to worry about astroids hitting you, then you can live your life in worry, but I think out human history is pretty awesome. The good bad and the ugly.
"the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own"
The stament above is a logical & tautological fallacy.
@deathtris "the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own"
The universes itself is finely tuned to exponentially low probability factors, & we understand the fundamental laws of probabilities. You can ignore them, or try to use a philosophical argument to refute an observable & empirical fact, but the proof is in the pudding. Einstein & Hoyle were not religious men, but they conceded in a need for a higher power in order to explain the universe.
If you don't understand the argument or the principle, then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. The anthropic principle was not formulated by a bunch of religious zealots, it is an observed fact. We do understand the probability factors involved. If you cant keep the discussion grown up then I have no interest in temperature tantrums.
@benthemiester I understand perfectly, and I can't say that I'm interested in having a "grown up" discussion about your fairy tales or be patronized by someone as willfully ignorant as yourself. And the anthropic principle is NOT an observed fact. You've stated no empirical evidence supporting it. I also understand the "probability", but I don't see how those statistics apply. For all anyone knows, it took eons for Earth to finally procure life.
@deathtris The Privileged planet or the godi locks planet both of which are valid terms are the out come of the anthropic principle which I have said before is a separate ext.
"I also understand the "probability", but I don't see how those statistics apply"
Then you do not understand whats referred to as the "fine tuning problem" or cosmological. Are you aware of Multiverse theory and how it applies to this field? Another words, if MT is true, how will this resolve the issue?
@benthemiester Alright, I've obviously gotten everything I can from this exchange, which is a headache.
1). You have now fallen to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy (several times even). Just because one person of learning holds an opinion, doesn't mean he's right or that he speaks for any number of people.
2). For the "fine-tuned" argument to work, a designer is needed to fine-tune the universe, which is impossible to verify, therefore the argument cannot be verified. That is all.
@deathtris No its a fact and most are aware of it.
"For the "fine-tuned" argument to work, a designer is needed to fine-tune the universe, which is impossible to verify, therefore the argument cannot be verified. That is all"
That means we cant verify many of the complex stone structures we find, especially in Central America because we can never know the names of the specific people who built them. This also means that the fields of paleontology & forensics are also unscientific.
@deathtris If I was only relying on the opinion of one person, then I wouldn't even be mentioning this subject. The fact that you believe this arguments is only being proposed by one person, further demonstrates to me how little you understand the subject. I have already explained the probability factors involved. If you wish to hand waive them away, then that is your right, however most honest scholars find this intellectually dissatisfying.
@benthemiester Obviously more than one person believes in a fine-tuned universe. I was saying that quoting one person does not lend you credence and how common a belief is does not affect its veracity (see heliocentricity). And I can hand wave the probability factors because any possibility (like abiogenesis) can occur if given an eternity and an entire universe to occur. I don't see how the multiverse indicates a fine-tuned universe, and as for cause and effect, what caused the "designer"?
cont.... that if you can prove that there is an infinite number of universes out there then the fine tuning problem can be resolved, but there is no evidence for this, and even if they did exist, the exponentially low chances of it occurring are still so close to zero that they are virtually zero. The question of infinite regression concerning a designer is a fair question but another topic all together. Lets deal with the question at hand before trying to tackle that one.
@benthemiester Multiverse theory: So you are now refuting arguments that I am not making. Congratulations.
The question of infinite regress IS relevant, since the fine-tuned universe requrires a creator, which infinite regress makes a strong case against. If anything, your statement that the universe is finite is irrelevant, since it does not make a case for a creator specifically, just that there was an effect with no cause (the start of the universe).
@deathtris "Multiverse theory: So you are now refuting arguments that I am not making. Congratulations"
No, It was I who who first mentioned the Multiverse theory. I thought you understood the subject, and I even asked if you understood the implications of the Multiverse theory and you did not. You thought I was offering the Multiverse theory as evidence for design when in fact proponents of the MU use it as the exact opposite. So I technically refuted your argument before you made it.
@deathtris "just that there was an effect with no cause"
This statement is not based on science but based more on metaphysics. No one in cosmology that I know of claims to ignore cause. This is called giving up and just saying the universe did it. Or that's just the way it is.
@deathtris cont..... who these people were? Deal with that first question and then we can deal with infinite regression question. If your argument is, that we have to know who the intelligent agent is, or else we cannot infer intelligent causation, then this is a logical fallacy, and the study of anthro paleontology, forensics and all the other science dealing with intelligent causation should be regarded as non scientific
@deathtris cont....This is faith not science. In fact, when the big bang theory was first proposed, many cosmologist who up until that time believed in an infinite universe, hated the idea of a beginning because it came to close to theology for comfort, as "In the beginning". You have also not addresses any of my questions. Should we pretend that stone structures were not created by intelligent agents because we can never know..
"If anything, your statement that the universe is finite is irrelevant, since it does not make a case for a creator specifically, just that there was an effect with no cause (the start of the universe)"
This is historically false. And your also leaving out the fine tuning argument and just relying on the big bang scenario. Your basically saying something came from nothing.........
@benthemiester "Please cite empirical evidence?" Why? YOU haven't. But search abiogenesis. The presence of life is NOT indicative of some "intent" of the universe.
@deathtris As for abiogenesis Pasteur and Redi proved through empirical science that living things only come from other living things, but I am open minded. If you have any empirical evidence that life has ever been created through any other process, then please cite the work. Show me where life can come from anything that isn't already living.
@benthemiester "So technically, I refuted your argument before you made it." I DID NOT MAKE IT. I have not said one word supporting a multiverse, nor did I bring it up. Are you completely insane?
"This is called giving up and just saying the universe did it." Change "universe" to "God", and that's YOUR argument. I'm saying we don't know, not that "X did it" without evidence.
And the stone structures have a history to them. There is no constellation that says "From God, To Humanity".
Yes you did. You just didn't realize it. "And I can hand wave the probability factors because any possibility (like abiogenesis) can occur if given an eternity and an entire universe to occur"
These are your words above.
The Multivers is also based on this unscientific and unobserved notion that relies on an eternity. whether it be an eternity of universes, or & as in your case, an eternity of time. Maybe you should do a little more research about this.
@deathtris "And the stone structures have a history to them"
Everything has a history to them. Why cant you answer the question with a little more intellectual integrity? Would you like me to explain the premise of logic that the question is based on? In my analogy there is nothing on these stone buildings that says "From Nature, To Humanity" either. I mean really, is this your standard of evidence and logical assessment. If it is, maybe we should end this discussion.
@deathtris "Change "universe" to "God", and that's YOUR argument. I'm saying we don't know, not that "X did it" without evidence"
There are trillions x trillions x trillions of coincidences involved in this fine tuning argument, yet u have made no attempt to explain the degree of accuracy among even 1 cosmo constant much less the many out there.
Not only do we find evidence for design in cosmology but in biology also. Even Dawkins admits that biology gives an appearance of purposeful design.
The "stone structures" you refer are remnants of civilizations that have ancestors and were built with obvious intention and documentation. The universe, in general, has none of these things.
"an eternity of universes" Utter nonsense. You're making a non-existent connection between totally different sciences. Eternity= time, universe=space. And abiogenesis is not only possible, but it's been replicated.
@deathtris cont..... Are you willing to concede that you don't need to identify the designer to establish design?
"and were built with obvious intention"
You are not answering the question as I worded it, or its premise. You keep trying to change the question to make your point, which still does not answer it. This says a lot to me. I have tried to answer all your hard questions. You seem to not to want to grab the bull by the horns.
@benthemiester "There are trillions x trillions x trillions of coincidences involved in this fine tuning argument, yet u have made no attempt to explain the degree of accuracy among even 1 cosmo constant much less the many out there."
Maybe you could elaborate, or make an actual argument instead of vague assertions and the occasional ad hominem. And once again, you make an appeal to authority by using Dawkins.
@deathtris "Maybe you could elaborate, or make an actual argument instead of vague assertions and the occasional ad hominem" I regard Dawkins more as an a hard head than an authority. As for attacks, I believe you started that. I only suggest that you research a little more. I am not going to give you a crash course on the fine tuning argument. If you want to understand whats meant by trillions etc of coincidences, then u have to research the subject.
I'm giving you an e.g. of a structure without documentation, only the the appearance of design. If u cant even identify the builder or builders, then why would the existence of their ancestors have anything to do with the premise or the question?
@deathtris "The "stone structures" you refer are remnants of civilizations that have ancestors and were built with obvious intention and documentation"
And how do you come to this conclusion? If you don't know or have any documentation to who the builder is in the first place?...........
@benthemiester So you're saying, that if there were a structure with design, and no obvious builders, it would, by "my" logic, be considered natural? No, we would assume that there is a human builder, simply because precedent tells us to. There is no precedent for a creator of the universe, so we could not identify any design by one since we know nothing about a creator. And no, I won't "research the subject". Unlike you, I argue with a person and not with what I think they might say.
@deathtris cont.....Precedents mean little in science. In fact new precedents are established all the time in science, and this is how science progresses. So to rule out a theory based on the fact that it hasn't had a precedence established yet, is a science stopper in itself. You don't have a scientific established precedents in abiogeneisis studies, yet you believe that life arose naturally and unguided. This is called faith.
@benthemiester You're asking me to write refutations of every percieved "coincidence" in an elaborate delusion. Pretty tasking of a 500 character post. Name your "signs of design" and "coincidences" if you want them argued. And rudely telling someone that they "dont understand what they're talking about" is, imo, ad hominem, since you did not even point out what you thought I misunderstood, you just stated that I did not know what I was talking about.
@deathtris "No, we would assume that there is a human builder, simply because precedent tells us to"
I still don't think you fully understand the question. In fact your assumption that it was a human being is very logical, but we know that it actually took a little more than being human. It took what human beings posses, which is intelligence. The question was one of intelligence, not who the intelligent agent is or was, and this is the premise of the question......
@deathtris And, oh yeah, Pasteur discredited spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, which is not only possible but is replicable.
Abiogenesis is based on the same premise, and that is, that inert organic material can become living. There has to be spontaneous generation at some point. Spontaneous does not mean sudden, It refers to animation of life at any given point. If you believe abiogenesis is empirically documented, then please cite source. I would love to see this.
@benthemiester And, oh yeah, Pasteur discredited spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, which is not only possible but is replicable. YOU do some research.
@deathtris There is no need to write a paper on trillions upon countless trillions of what can only be called cosmic coincidences, & in several orders of magnitudes. You sounded like there was nothing to it that a little philosophical maneuvering couldn't explain. The hand waiving that goes on by some is taken very seriously for other. U can if you want, but there are many scientist spending a lot of research money on this refutation of the "fine tuning problem" called multiverse theory.
@benthemiester No. Belief in abiogenesis is not faith. As I said, it has been replicated. Search the "Miller-Urey Experiment". Spontaneous generation means an organism (viruses, insects) from inorganic material, unlike abiogenesis, which is simply the formation of lifes building blocks.
And no, precedents are everything in science. That is why "(establishing) new precedents", as you say, "is how science progresses".
And I have seen some of these coincidences, and found them uncompelling.
@deathtris So you believe Miller created life in his famous experiment? Is this what you regard as evidence.
If so then you have been mislead. Miller was never able to produce anything close to a living molecule. He was only able to produce amino acids. Unfortunately he only produce a toxic racemic mixture of AA unfit for life. These amino acids are still inert today and never produced one single protein. It is impossible for racemic AA to produce proteins on there own. This well known.
@deathtris Pasture proved that living things come from only other living things. This is a fundamental principle of biology. Again you provide no evidence to refute it. You can look as deep & hard as you like, but no one has ever been able to produce life through OOL/ origen of life simulations experiments, in controlled conditions, or even through purposeful design, without preexisting genetic information or a living cell to start with.
If you believe in abiogenesis then yes this is faith.
@benthemiester Obviously, you can't even pay attention to what is on your screen so I will spell it out for you: Miller produced ORGANIC MATERIAL, not life. The fact that he could not produce life is because the experiment was extremely simple, and different in several ways from pre-life Earth. And stop "accusing" me of having faith when YOUR beliefs are based around the idea of a magical invisible wizard in the sky who loves all of humanity.
@deathtris "Miller produced ORGANIC MATERIAL, not life"
Yes this exactly my point. I can make organic clothing, does this have anything to do with OOL? "unlike abiogenesis, which is simply the formation of life's building blocks"
Below is actual definition.
In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.
@deathtris I also had to correct you on your notion that the universe is considered infinite. Although there are many hypothesis out there in academia, The current synthesis and theory is big bang cosmology, which estimates the age of the universe at about 13 billion years old.
@benthemiester Wow, okay. An organic gas. You really don't listen to yourself, do you? ORGANIC means of organisms. Know of any gaseous organisms? No? Because there are none. That is a contradiction. And it doesn't matter that the conditions are not the same, because the purpose of the experiment showed the feasibility of abiogenesis. And it was only the begining of life, simple single-celled organisms which arose from the material. And STILL on this tangent. I'm not a hardcore...
@deathtris "Wow, okay. An organic gas. You really don't listen to yourself, do you? ORGANIC means of organisms"
Lets break down the logic of your stament. So if organic, by your definition means "organism" (which is a contiguous living system) then your changing your answer by now saying he was able to produce a living system after all. I should be the one saying wow. Wait I know, it was just a figure of speech right?
@benthemiester ...advocate of abiogenesis, it's just the most prevalent theory of the time (certainly more believable than "GOD DID IT"). If a more suitable one arises, I will gladly forget about abiogenesis (how faithful of me, eh?).
And when I said eternity, its called "figure of speach". BUT you do bring up an interesting point. If the universe was MADE for life (let alone human life), why did it exist for so long before life came about? Care to explain that?
@deathtris As for a humans perception of time as it compares to the universe, this seems to be irrelevant. Is there some kind of time line that you would prefer?
@benthemiester "So if organic, by your definition means "organism"."
No, not what I said. ORGANIC = OF organisms. As in "organic material = the material organisms are comprised of". And the timeline is fine. It just DOESN'T SUPPORT THE FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE IDEA. If the universe were "made" for life, life would be an integral part of it, not a by-product billions of years after it's inception.
SO, anything supporting the fine-tuned idiocy, or do you want to continue arguing everything but?
@deathtris "If the universe were "made" for life, life would be an integral part of it, not a by-product billions of years after it's inception"
And you base this on what?....Your own personel opinion? Have you ever entertained the proposition that life started at the time it was supposed to happen. Please show me your precedent on how an anthropic universe should be according to you. And please tell me the mathematical calculations you used to to quantify this assumption of yours.
@benthemiester So nothing. You have nothing to support your theory, just more and more desperate arguments on any little tangent you can find. So I have learned one thing from this exchange: you are an idiot. Other than that, this entire back-and-forth has been pointless. The fine-tuned idiocy is just a moronic attempt at justifying the existence of God scientifically. But hey, you won. I've given up on penetrating that rock-hard skull of yours. Post what you want, I don't care. Goodbye.
@deathtris CONT... A primary causation is more consistent with cause and effect science. The information for all of this had to come from somewhere, not from nothing with no cause.
I don't believe you have actually taken the time to research this on an in depth level. If you had, you would not be accusing me of producing no evidence, If we are to use true logic, reasoning and just a fundamental understanding of the laws of probabilities as they relate to the cosmological & Hubble constants.
@deathtris CONT..... into trying to refute the FTP? You have buried your head in the sand. I add the Privileged Planet or Rare Earth Principle, as well as the appearance of design in biological systems as seen in the specified information within the genetic code, as well as built in redundancy within the genome. You believe nothing produce the universe. I believe in a primary cause able to exist outside of space and time, as well as in space and time.
I have many e.g. to support my theory, but you choose to close your ears and pretend they don't exist.
I have shown that scientist are working hard to refute this known universal dynamic called the "fine tuning problem" Why do you think it is called a "problem" & why have millions of dollars gone.....
@deathtris Its not that I win, its more like you have let your emotion cloud your understanding of subject.
If you think the scientist who are working on these question and research money spent are also stupid, well then maybe you think everything that doesn't go your way is stupid. I hope that you at least learned that methane gas is organic, & that abiogensis is not replicable. As for gaseous organism I would say the Portuguese Man o' War is a good candidate.
@deathtris I agree on point one. On point two you did bring up abiogensis and were in error, & have made no detailed attempt to trying to explain the well known exponential probability factors involved concerning these ratios and perimeters involved. The best that scientific naturalism can do is propose or invent MT which they are willing to take seriously, in spite of lack of any evidence, but again you dont care. This is called letting your personel dogmas get in the way of observable data.
@benthemiester Okay, one, STOP WITH THE MULTIVERSE THEORY. I DON"T FUCKING CARE. Thank you.
And your "ratios and perimeters" (perameters, maybe?), saying that life could not exist if they were different is both wrong and pointless. Wrong because we could easily survive in conditions less harsh than the ones we're in, and it's just a hypothetical, it doesn't indicate any intent. If biology were different, I'd have two heads and shit gold, it doesn't mean the one-headed design has any import.
@deathtris "Wrong because we could easily survive in conditions less harsh than the ones we're in"
You dont understand the fine tuning argument. It says nothing of harsher conditions. It speaks to the fact that if these many ratios were a little bit off the universe itself would not exist, & these deal with exponential #''s. If the universe expanded billions of billions of billions of a second slower or faster, the universe would not exist & this is just a tiny fraction of the #s involved.
@benthemiester "On point two you did bring up abiogenesis and were in error". That has nothing to do with point two. Point two was that I objected to only one theory, and anyways if you look back, I only first mention abiogenesis as a POSSIBLE explanation. I've never once said that it is the one truth or even that I believe it, I've just defended it's points. And what figure of speech was false?
BTW, when I said "there was an effect with no cause", that applies to your "designer" as well.
@deathtris BTW, when I said "there was an effect with no cause", that applies to your "designer" as well.
Ill deal with the designer question again, in case you missed it before, etc.
Then u made another error or lied when you said "Finally, I don't believe "nothing" made the universe". Am I correct. or will you spin this also? How would you also hold your "cause & no effect" argument to something you dont believe in? If your saying God exist even if without any cause, then he still exist.
@benthemiester Oh, it says nothing of "harsher conditions"? True, just that, (what did it say? oh yeah) the universe is fine-tuned FOR LIFE. And no, I mean less harsh, because if they were more harsh (stronger gravity, stronger sunlight, less air) we'd be dead. And it's still moot, because there is still no intent.
"If your saying God exist even if without any cause, then he still exist." No, just saying that God not needing a creator is just as feasible as the universe not needing a creator.
@deathtris" it's just a hypothetical, it doesn't indicate any intent"
False, we know enough about the atomic, electrical, gravitational force, and the many others constance involved to understand that these units and subunits and exponential variables are real. We also use probability factors all the time in science to measure how viable something can come into its own. Would you like to know what the chances of this is all coming together on its own is? The numbers have already been crunched.
@benthemiester HAHA! I expected this! You have used this argument before, with your "STONE STRUCTURES" argument. And you were in error to say that "design=designer". The fact is, "design" is rather vague for this idea, meaning both "shape" and "intent". The shape of things is inarguable, but the intent is where it becomes cloudy. A structure with an entrance, three complete walls, and a ceiling? A house, made for habitation! NOPE. I described a naturally occuring cave...
@benthemiester ...NO DESIGNER (unless you have imagined a magical cave-making god). Unique, symmetrical, straght-edged crystal equals design, right? What about snowflakes? Magical snow god, perhaps? And this is where your whole argument fails: it isn't based in science. If we followed your logic, we'd still be in the stoneage, worshipping volcanoes and the sky. Just because something fits together, doesn't mean it couldn't happen on it's own, Mr. Head-In-The-Sand.
@deathtris "If we followed your logic, we'd still be in the stoneage, worshipping volcanoes and the sky"
Hate to tell you this but but most superstitious people are atheist. Most people in the new age movement are atheist. The wall street journal conducted a gallop poll verifying this. SETI are group of scientist and with full support of the science community who are looking for ET's from outer space. The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians.
@deathtris You have seem to given up on logic or the question of design based on the laws of probabilities & instead have decided to attack past beliefs of Polynesian polytheist. This called a red herring.
"Just because something fits together, doesn't mean it couldn't happen on it's own"
Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?
There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences all we have is evidence.
@benthemiester OKAY STOP RIGHT THERE. You've already lost. GALLOP conducted the Gallop poll, not the Wall Street Journal. Your whole "most superstitious people are atheist" (which you try to twist to mean worshipping things, the opposite of atheism), is not supported. A few superstitious atheist groups are not most atheists. And what superstitions do they practice? Prayer? Sacrement? Christians sound superstitious to me!
@benthemiester "The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians." So these guys, who were born in an era when the only way to recieve formal education was through the church, believed in God, and that means only smart, correct people believe in God? I'm interested in knowing what possible argument you're trying to make and what it has to do with this one, if any. And sure, SETI guys are CRAZY. Thinking that a naturally occuring incident (LIFE) might occur elseware.
@benthemiester "Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?"
I don't know. Do mountains pile themselves? Do continents shape themselves? Why do you only refer to man-made objects when the universe is not man-made? You obviously can't hold it to the same standard.
"There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences all we have is evidence." And we have neither supporting deities.
@deathtris You take something you don't understand, and instead of seeking answers, you say "MUSTA BEEN GAWD!"
I strongly disagree. We do understand the probability factors involved, and as I said before, we use probability factors all the time to make determinations. The fine tuning argument is not based on our ignorance, but is based on what we do know, and have known for a long time. I'm with Davies, Hoyle and Einstein on this one, & its not an appeal to authority. Its just a fact.
@benthemiester And no, it's not a red herring. If you can't see the comparison, I'm happy to explain.
What you are doing is the same as what they did. You take something you don't understand, and instead of seeking answers, you say "MUSTA BEEN GAWD!" I don't know about you, but the scientific method (as I understand it) doesn't have a "worship" step.
You can subscribe to anything you want. The real question is, does the average geologist, or even a person with reasonable intelligent able to distinguish between a complex stone structure like the Ancient Zapotec stone structure in Monte Alban, or a cave.
I dont think you even have to be a scholar to make this determination, but if your having trouble making the distinction, then my advise is to stay out of the earth sciences.
@benthemiester And again, you miss the point by a good mile, benny. Here I am, trying to drill into that thick lil skull of yours that FUNCTION DOESN"T EQUAL DESIGN. And you want to make it about how "I don't understand". Interesting how you say I don't understand things not having to do with this argument, while displaying that you don't understand anything that does.
@deathtris "The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians." So these guys, who were born in an era when the only way to recieve formal education was through the church, believed in God,
Not exactly, in fact the only way they could make these universities work financially was to stay away from Church dogma in the universities and even recruited some secular instructors as well. The point is that many of these theologians ushered in the modern science.
@deathtris "Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?"
I don't know"
If you cant distinguish between specified information and naturalizing occurring geological forces, then again, maybe you should work on this logic before trying to figure how mountains and continents are formed.
It may or may not in a very simplistic terms, but "fine tuning" does = design. Even the speaker on video says thing were perfectly arranged. Although he may believe that they were perfectly designed for black hole generators, he still does not exclude designe. If the premise is, that nature perfectly arranged this, then how does precise order, & in orders of magnitude come out of chaos? Give me an example of a chaotic event producing order.
@benthemiester Amazing. All of your posts, and you still avoid your own absurd belief. (BTW thats a nice textbook case of "Appeal to Authority" you've got there). Your arguments are to remove the context of my statements and berate me on every other kind of science. Your only "point" is "if things were different we might not exist, therefore God". As I said before, thats a meaningless hypothetical. Are the settings for the universe precise? Yes. Does that mean "fine tuning"? No.
@deathtris "I only first mention abiogenesis as a POSSIBLE explanation I never once said that it is the one truth or even that I believe it, I've just defended it's points"
Not true, you even said that it was replicable. You have a hard time admitting that you didn't fully understand the subject and that your definition of abiogenesis was wrong, but hey, great point on Gallop poll.
@benthemiester And now you're going back to, what, every single fucking post I've ever made and arguing points that were made days ago? You don't seem desperate at all. A font of wisdom is you.
@deathtris cont...... If the univers is chaotic, then how do we know where the solar position were thousand of years ago? Why do we know exactly were every planetary body will be in ten thousand years? Why do comets, solar and lunar eclipses show up when predicted without error? Why aren't the planets flying apart in a chaotic fashion, but instead are in such sync and interdependent to each other?
@deathtris "The universe itself is chaotic. Order is a human construct"
Well then why isn't the chaos that your willing to subscribe to also a human construct? Are we resorting to abstract logic were everything is safe and relevant?......
@benthemiester "Are we resorting to abstract logic were everything is safe and relevant?" While you simply try to make everything relevant. And now you're saying that the random things we, as humans, have chosen to measure somehow imbue order upon the universe. HUMAN CONSTRUCT. But you're right in thinking that chaos and order are abstracts, which is why I'm confused: you're complaining about it, yet YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
@benthemiester The fact is neither one exists. There is no order to the universe, our language was designed to make sense of it. Please tell me, at least that you can recognize that, at least: that language was made to simplify complex concepts?
@deathtris "But you're right in thinking that chaos and order are abstracts"
I said you were resorting to philosophical abstract. Please read thread more carefully. Philosophy is fine. It is very important in determining logic, but using it to run in circles and avoid a logical premise is called rhetoric.
@benthemiester Your denial knows no bounds. All of your "evidence" is simply a series of coincidences (you even refer to them as such) that have no overt connection to each other. The "planetary precision questions" fall in with the rest of them. "According to you we live in chaos" I just said that chaos is an abstract. You moron.
Computers and buildings came from ordered information. Ordered BY US, not the universe. And I've turned to abstract? I say again, YOU BROUGHT UP ORDER AND CHAOS.
@benthemiester "At some point chaos and hydrogen and the first heavy elements had to turn to order" So it was a concious decision on their part? Interesting. This adds new dimensions to your insanity.
And I have addressed your points. I can concede that if things were different the universe, as it is, would not exist. But that is not what I disagree with this theory about. THE DESIGNER. Remember him? For a guy who worships him, you sure don't talk about him much. (OOPS I mean Him).
@deathtris "Computers and buildings came from ordered information. Ordered BY US, not the universe" At one point there was chaos then hydrogen and then the heavier elements. So were did we come from? Or are you saying we just ordered ourselves into existence? Please clarify Kimosabe.
@benthemiester "Physics behavior so unpredictable as to appear random" Notice how it says "appear random"? It only appears random, but there is no true chaos. Deep down, chaos and order are indistuinguishable, so you definining words, once again, fail to make any point. The universe seems chaotic on the surface, but there is an order to it that is beyond common perception (a large chain of cause and effect). The universe never "turned" to order, chaos as you see it never existed.
@deathtris "It only appears random, but there is no true chaos. Deep down, chaos and order are indistuinguishable, so you definining words, once again, fail to make any point"
So now were back to everything is relative. Tell me why are you the only person I've met that believes that chaos and order are indistinguishable. What dictionary or encyclopedia can I find this interpretation of your in? Kid I have heard a lot of bullshit, but I put your on a whole different level.
@benthemiester How about the definition you gave, jackass. It says, right inside of it "owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions." True chaos (which doesn't exist) would HAVE no source. It would be random and incalculable. "Tell me why are you the only person I've met that believes that chaos and order are indistuinguishable" Because you never leave your moms basement? I don't know, why don't you get out more?
@deathtris "At some point chaos became ordered all by itself according to the theory". I'm not the one ascribing intelligence to the universes inception"
This is not intelligent design theory. This is big bang theory. Cosmologist tell us that in the beginning there was a chaotic explosion that brought everything/ all space and time into existence. You are very confused and your own words have contradicted you many times over. The more you try, the more you contradict yourself.
@benthemiester What defenition of chaos are you using now? Complete disorder and confusion? An explosion is neither of those, it is easily measured and planned. We don't have the means to track everything down to the particle, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. And I like how you are now arguing from a position of neither faith or science, but purely out of your ass.
"...on something that doesn't exist." Abstraction isn't the same as nonexistence, you fucking moron.
@benthemiester "I'm sorry, this is just getting ridicules." Well I think it got ridiculous when you brought deities into the matter, but then I'm not retarded.
And it's not big bang theory. The universe is not intelligent even by that theory (still more intelligent than you, though).
And yes I'm confused. How did someone as dumb as you make it this long without licking an electrical socket?
@benthemiester So chaos, by your logic, is merely defined by the intent behind it. And how is this NOT abstract? Whats more, there is still an order to the chaos. In your example, what caused the exposion (I'm guessing since I don't know what specific incident you are referring to) could be pressure on the pipe or sudden kinetic force on the pipe. Nothing unpredictable or random about it, therfore not chaos.
@deathtris "I'm sorry, this is just getting ridicules." Well I think it got ridiculous when you brought deities into the matter, but then I'm not retarded.
And it's not big bang theory. The universe is not intelligent even by that theory (still more intelligent than you, though).
And yes I'm confused. How did someone as dumb as you make it this long without licking an electrical socket?
Very sad RE and very telling. Foolishness is always the last resort and is so predictable, touche.
@benthemiester "Very sad RE and very telling. Foolishness is always the last resort and is so predicable, touche."
...Are you still speaking english? The last resort of what? Predictable how? And "touche"?! Are you seriously admitting that I made a good point in that quote? And don't say it's sarcasm, since its one word in an otherwise straight statement. And still you have given no evidence that the universe was made specifically for humans.
@deathtris "Nothing unpredictable or random about it, therfore not chaos"
So are you saying the gas company predicted this explosion and did nothing about it? Why were those people still in the area when it exploded? If the gas line was predicted to blow up and you did not move, wouldn't that be suicide?
I hate to tell you this but chaos can also be predicted.
Explosions, hurricane & I include tornados all cause chaos & disorder.
You may not realize this, but I really trying to help you.
@benthemiester You are confusing "predictable" and "predicted". The fact is, there were factors leading up to the explosion (this should be fairly obvious). You defining chaos as being "unknown to humans" shows how subjective the term is, therfore it has to be abstract and not a physical property.
"Explosions, hurricane & I include tornados all cause chaos & disorder." Once again, the chaos only applies to humans, not nature or the universe. Just look at your own definition. It's subjective.
@deathtris cont.... evil, frustration, jealousy,love, accuracy. Go stand at the edge of a cliff and I bet being careful will really matter. Your philosophy & sense of logic is adolescent, and that is putting it kindly. Try this. Go and hit someone over the head with a 2/4, and then tell the judge that pain he or she feels is subjective, and what looks like chaos in the form of a bleeding head and cracked skull is really not part of nature, its all subjective. Then tell me how it goes.
@benthemiester Speaking of adolescent. And yes, right, wrong, good, evil, frustration, jealousy, love, all abstracts (accuracy maybe depending on the context).
"so unpredictable as to appear random" Notice how it says "appear", right in the definition? That is subjectivity, right there.
Stand at the edge of a cliff? Now you want me to reason with emotions instead of, oh i dunno, reason? Sounds like your forte, not mine.
So your saying that if it appears random then by definition it is really illusory. OK, Ill entertain that proposition. I have given you away to test it in real world conditions. I gave you the means, and if you go to jail, just say to yourself, it appears I am locked up in jail, but that is based only on my just own subjectivity......
@benthemiester WOW. Thats quite a stretch you've made there! With a skull that thick, a 2x4 shouldn't be a threat to you!
No, appearing random does not equal illusory, the CONCEPT of randomness is illusory. And how does this equate to jail? Not being rhetorical, I want you to explain how me defining things as abstracts equates to me thinking my physical location is subjective, in your mind.
@deathtris Why is it that I have responded to every point you have tried to make, yet you continue to ignore my questions. The last question I asked you was, aren't emotions and reason also subjective. How do you make this distinction and why are your thoughts some how special and use dual standards?
@benthemiester Uh, I DID answer that. They are. We feel and reason from a personal standpoint. There is no such thing as "objective emotions", but objective reasoning is conceptually feasible, though rather uncommon.
My thoughts are special subjectively because they are my own, but they have no objective uniqueness. Many people see reality as totally subjective (though I don't go THAT far). What dual standards are you referring to?
@benthemiester Yes. My thoughts are subjective. Now YOU have made the false assumption that subjective = immaterial. I actually am annoyed.
True and false aren't subjective. True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect. Notice how my definitions don't contain "feel" or "appear".
"Now using the same BS you tried to feed me, thats what you call annoying." Except you fail on both counts. Actually I find it amusing, like a monkey wearing clothing.
@deathtris True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect.
And I guess you get to decide what is true and what isn't? Tell me wise one, should we go by what Jesus thought was true, or what Hitler thought was true. How about Stalin truth compared to Gandi's truth. Many claim that America has a great true and patriotic history, yet 30 million of my ancestor were wiped out. So who decides what is true, the people who owned slaves, the Taliban or the majority?
@benthemiester Except none of them had truth as I defined. Do you not see that? Their "truths" were all made from subjective reasoning. "What Hitler THOUGHT was true." Your own words betray you again.
None of them DECIDE what is true. That is an appeal to the masses, and the truth is not based on people's opinions. How do you claim to use "my logic" and make conclusions in total opposition to what I'm saying?
Maybe you should stop this. Reason isn't your strong suit.
@deathtris "Except none of them had truth as I defined. Do you not see that? Their "truths" were all made from subjective reasoning. "What Hitler THOUGHT was true." Your own words betray you again"
As I define, As I define, As I define.
Sounds pretty subjective to me. So I guess when all else fails you are the judge of what is and isn't truth.
When did I ever speak of appealing to the masses? & are you inferring that the German populace were clinically insane? Strong suit, very funny.
@benthemiester "Sounds pretty subjective to me." Subjective doesn't mean false. Stop being dense (if you can). And where do I say I'm the "judge of truth"? I define my own subjective truths, but nothing else.
"When did I ever speak of appealing to the masses?" The appeal to the masses FALLACY, you idiot. A lot of people believing something does not make it the truth. You saying "Who defines truth" is idiotic since no one "decides" on objective truths, you dolt. They just are.
@benthemiester And I hope you appreciate that I am now entertaining YOUR philosophical meanderings, which you complained about so much. Gonna say anything about our loving designer (who has no source) creating a universe for us (most of which is inhospitable), or are we well past that subject? If so, I guess it's an unqualified win for non-believers. Praise Satan! Fine-tuning is shit.
@deathtris True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect. Notice how my definitions don't contain "feel" or "appear
It doesn't matter what you feel what matters is that you are arbitrarily trying to define truth and or at best, you can write a sentence that doesn't use the word "appear" or "feel" Remember, you said this is your definition of truth. Well guess what Hitler had his own definition.
Might as well say.....Yeah dude mine is better bro.
@benthemiester Again with Hitler. You really want to use the deaths of millions to your benefit somehow, don't you? First the gas explosion, than slavery, now this.
"Well guess what Hitler had his own definition." SO? Just by your wording you admit that it is different from my definition. Good for him, bad for humanity. What is your point?
And how is my definition of truth arbitrary? Whats yours? "WUTEVR GAWD SAYS IS TRUTH!" Stupid motherfucker.
@benthemiester Objective truth, as far as we can tell, are things that all sane people can agree on. There is nothing else we can do to say what is and is not truth, since we are all chained to our singular perspective. We don't have a perfect sense of truth but it's the best we can do as humans.
@deathtris "Objective truth, as far as we can tell, are things that all sane people can agree on"
All the people mentioned were sane people.
You say truth exist objectively.
Well guess what? This is a very Christian & spiritual belief. Most atheist deny that truth exist objectively. I also happen to believe truth exist objectively. The only problem you have is trying to define truth objectively from an atheist perspective and your "sanity" argument also fails as a logical fallacy..
@benthemiester I said "as far as we can tell". I also said that it may be impossible to say. And your idea of sanity is willingness to commit mass murder? And incorrect doesn't mean logical fallacy.
And are you trying to convince me that I'm a christian? If so, so what? How does this apply to objectivity or (God help us) the fine-tuned universe theory?
@deathtris "And your idea of sanity is willingness to commit mass murder"
My idea of sanity is someone who is clinically insane. My idea of mass murder is someone who is heartless and cruel like our American history. Hitler believed in survival of the fittest. He believed as Darwin did, that the Nordic and Germanic male were more superior than the lowly races. What does the atheist have to counter this except with the "truth" which you have yet to make a case for from an atheist perspective?
@benthemiester Ohhhh I see. I have to "make a case" for "atheist truth". There is only one way to say this: You, sir, are one stupid motherfucker. So "SANITY" = "CLINICALLY INSANE". Fascinating, and telling! Kidding aside, I refuse to participate in your argument, just for how wrong you are. Hitler did not believe as Darwin did, Darwin was against Eugenics, you fucking retard. Plus, you know, you're making a case for Hitler. If you need me to explain why he is bad, this argument is above you.
@deathtris cont.... No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9; first page numbers to the 1st ed., second to the 2nd ed.)
a by product of black hole production. I was looking for an example of the Sagan principle of mediocrity and your concept sounds like it.
craigz06 1 week ago
Jesus said, let there be the earth and there was an earth and the Jesus said let there be a son and he was the son of god so therefore Jesus exists. We all love Jesus. Don't burn in hell forever in hell or if yes then do but Jesus is the light of love and lives not in a zoo but in all of us and in you and me
CrubbDaTubb 1 month ago
@CrubbDaTubb That's not even right according to christian mythology, let alone what's factually true.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Burn in Hell
CrubbDaTubb 1 month ago
@CrubbDaTubb My, aren't you a Good Christian™. When confronted with the fact that you didn't even get statements about the faith you profess to believe in correct, you immediately resort to wishing eternal torture upon the one who pointed out your error. Truly a paragon of the community.
ArcanaKnight 1 month ago
@ArcanaKnight Let me pray for you. I will pray that you stop being a homersexule so that you don't burn in Hell
CrubbDaTubb 1 month ago
Comment removed
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight you must repent your gay ways or you will burn in Hell, forever in Hell
CrubbDaTubb 3 weeks ago
@CrubbDaTubb You do realize that calling someone gay is only really an insult for homophobes and children, right? Also, threatening someone with the idea of hell loses much of its oomph to someone who doesn't believe it even exists, and all it does is show you to be a petty, vile person who enjoys thinking of those they disagree with being tortured forever.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrubbDaTubb "...homersexule..." Would that be someone who is sexually attracted to ancient greek poets?
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
Very nice video, straight to the point.
TheEyesOfSelassie 4 months ago
Silly Carrier... The universe was created for life. It just took a while for God to realize that you can't create life if your equation requires you to divide by zero. It appears that he is a slow learner...
ShrodingerFu 5 months ago
I don't understand how the existence of say, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 black holes, would in any way change the staggering achievement that is even one solar system to organically produce a living organism that would eventually evolved into the some 100 million species that exist today, including us. How ISN'T the entire process of evolution "fine-tuned" in the sense that things are progressing WITH PURPOSE?
seanstrnad 7 months ago
@seanstrnad
The point is the "fine-tuned" argument doesn't work because evidence suggest life is merely a by-product of a universe that appears optimized for black holes, and If the universe was "created" for life we would expect it to be the other way around. Yes, this universe is capable of sustaining life, but there isn't any reason to presume it was "finely tuned" for that purpose. In other words, this universe doesn't appear as though it was specifically intended to support life. Sorry.
penn919 7 months ago
You're a bullshit history teacher . What would you know about physics or a fine tuned universe ?
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 what would you know?
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet more than this clown.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 what is your objection? He is a history teacher and so he knows nothing about physics?
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet his entire argument rests on this notion he's picked up from somewhere that the universe is optimally created to produce black holes. how does he know that ? it's not his field. he does not know enough of about real cosmology to be able to defend or even explain this notion that he's picked up.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 That is the commonly known theory.
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet : according to whom ? I have not heard any real physicists make the pitch that the universe is "maximally designed to produce black holes ". I find it interesting that atheists like this one just can't seem to get away from using the word "designed" -- if it was "designed" , then there is a Designer.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 Thor?
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet the only true God : the God of the Bible Jesus Christ.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 That god isn't real. He said that if at least 2 people gather in his name to pray, then their prayers will be granted. That is demonstrably false.
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet : for one thing the fact that you haven't understood that verse (and perhaps don't even know where it is found in the Bible) is evident from what your claiming it says. first go, find the verse then read it carefully understand what it says and after you've done your homework tell me again what is "demonstrably false" about it.
celal777 7 months ago
@celal777 I've obviously read the verse already. If I'm missing out on some knowledge, why don't you just fill me in. I'm not going to keep guessing at it until I have your interpretation.
MaddPuppet 7 months ago
@MaddPuppet weak.
seanstrnad 7 months ago
@benthemiester There are actually explanations for behavior such as your dog's, though it depends on the actual animal in question. One such explanation is derived from the fact that dogs are pack animals (it sees you as part of its pack and so will protect you the same as if you were another dog).
ArcanaKnight 8 months ago
The end is cut off.
SSJ3Ulcer 8 months ago
The fact that 99.999999% of the universe is lethal to life (yet we live on a planet that is perfect and thriving with life, from protozoa to man) doesn't seem to help his argument.
Black holes dont affect our fitness. By the time one did we would no longer exist due to what John Sanford calls genetic entropy. I also think he's wrong when he says, it wasn't designed to make life for us. The proof is in the pudding, but I admit he may have a point with the SETI people and their search for ET's.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Are you kidding? That's like saying that "This apple juice is 99.9999999% cyanide, so obviously it was conconcted to give me vitamin C!" It is neither coincidence NOR design that we "ended up" on one of the few spaces capable of "sustaining life". Life developed here and adapted to what we have. It's not as if without God, we could have possibly come to the present inside of a blackhole, then said "Gee, if we had a loving God, he would have made us where we could survive."
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris I dont think you quite understand my statement, or even your own. If the universe is as it appears to be, and that is, to be created for intelligent human life, as many cosmologist agree on, then its methodology is unimportant compared to its ultimate purpose. Salt is necessary to life but to much can kill you. This does not make salt or even cyanide a bad thing, especially since we will never be exposed to the 99.999999%. We are protected from 99.99999% of the harmful stuff.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester What methodology? Spoiler alert: EVERYONE DIES. We are not "protected" in any way. It's only through modern advances (the last 200 years) that we are even able to survive, on average, past 50. And that is only until the sun goes supernova, or we're struck by a cataclysmic asteroid. Other than the atmosphere, the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris What makes you think a finite life invalidates the anthropic nature of the universe?
I think life is pretty great. Even people who have suffered in tragedy still enjoy life. If you want to worry about astroids hitting you, then you can live your life in worry, but I think out human history is pretty awesome. The good bad and the ugly.
"the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own"
The stament above is a logical & tautological fallacy.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "the universe has provided us with very little that we didn't have to make use of on our own"
The universes itself is finely tuned to exponentially low probability factors, & we understand the fundamental laws of probabilities. You can ignore them, or try to use a philosophical argument to refute an observable & empirical fact, but the proof is in the pudding. Einstein & Hoyle were not religious men, but they conceded in a need for a higher power in order to explain the universe.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtrisOkay,
If you don't understand the argument or the principle, then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. The anthropic principle was not formulated by a bunch of religious zealots, it is an observed fact. We do understand the probability factors involved. If you cant keep the discussion grown up then I have no interest in temperature tantrums.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I understand perfectly, and I can't say that I'm interested in having a "grown up" discussion about your fairy tales or be patronized by someone as willfully ignorant as yourself. And the anthropic principle is NOT an observed fact. You've stated no empirical evidence supporting it. I also understand the "probability", but I don't see how those statistics apply. For all anyone knows, it took eons for Earth to finally procure life.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris The Privileged planet or the godi locks planet both of which are valid terms are the out come of the anthropic principle which I have said before is a separate ext.
"I also understand the "probability", but I don't see how those statistics apply"
Then you do not understand whats referred to as the "fine tuning problem" or cosmological. Are you aware of Multiverse theory and how it applies to this field? Another words, if MT is true, how will this resolve the issue?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris
Paul Davies "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life"
" International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Alright, I've obviously gotten everything I can from this exchange, which is a headache.
1). You have now fallen to the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy (several times even). Just because one person of learning holds an opinion, doesn't mean he's right or that he speaks for any number of people.
2). For the "fine-tuned" argument to work, a designer is needed to fine-tune the universe, which is impossible to verify, therefore the argument cannot be verified. That is all.
deathtris 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathtris No its a fact and most are aware of it.
"For the "fine-tuned" argument to work, a designer is needed to fine-tune the universe, which is impossible to verify, therefore the argument cannot be verified. That is all"
That means we cant verify many of the complex stone structures we find, especially in Central America because we can never know the names of the specific people who built them. This also means that the fields of paleontology & forensics are also unscientific.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris If I was only relying on the opinion of one person, then I wouldn't even be mentioning this subject. The fact that you believe this arguments is only being proposed by one person, further demonstrates to me how little you understand the subject. I have already explained the probability factors involved. If you wish to hand waive them away, then that is your right, however most honest scholars find this intellectually dissatisfying.
What ever happened to cause & effect reasoning?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris This why you stood clear of the Multiverse question and its implications.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Obviously more than one person believes in a fine-tuned universe. I was saying that quoting one person does not lend you credence and how common a belief is does not affect its veracity (see heliocentricity). And I can hand wave the probability factors because any possibility (like abiogenesis) can occur if given an eternity and an entire universe to occur. I don't see how the multiverse indicates a fine-tuned universe, and as for cause and effect, what caused the "designer"?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris
cont.... that if you can prove that there is an infinite number of universes out there then the fine tuning problem can be resolved, but there is no evidence for this, and even if they did exist, the exponentially low chances of it occurring are still so close to zero that they are virtually zero. The question of infinite regression concerning a designer is a fair question but another topic all together. Lets deal with the question at hand before trying to tackle that one.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Multiverse theory: So you are now refuting arguments that I am not making. Congratulations.
The question of infinite regress IS relevant, since the fine-tuned universe requrires a creator, which infinite regress makes a strong case against. If anything, your statement that the universe is finite is irrelevant, since it does not make a case for a creator specifically, just that there was an effect with no cause (the start of the universe).
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Multiverse theory: So you are now refuting arguments that I am not making. Congratulations"
No, It was I who who first mentioned the Multiverse theory. I thought you understood the subject, and I even asked if you understood the implications of the Multiverse theory and you did not. You thought I was offering the Multiverse theory as evidence for design when in fact proponents of the MU use it as the exact opposite. So I technically refuted your argument before you made it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathtris "just that there was an effect with no cause"
This statement is not based on science but based more on metaphysics. No one in cosmology that I know of claims to ignore cause. This is called giving up and just saying the universe did it. Or that's just the way it is.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris cont..... who these people were? Deal with that first question and then we can deal with infinite regression question. If your argument is, that we have to know who the intelligent agent is, or else we cannot infer intelligent causation, then this is a logical fallacy, and the study of anthro paleontology, forensics and all the other science dealing with intelligent causation should be regarded as non scientific
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris cont....This is faith not science. In fact, when the big bang theory was first proposed, many cosmologist who up until that time believed in an infinite universe, hated the idea of a beginning because it came to close to theology for comfort, as "In the beginning". You have also not addresses any of my questions. Should we pretend that stone structures were not created by intelligent agents because we can never know..
benthemiester 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathtris
"If anything, your statement that the universe is finite is irrelevant, since it does not make a case for a creator specifically, just that there was an effect with no cause (the start of the universe)"
This is historically false. And your also leaving out the fine tuning argument and just relying on the big bang scenario. Your basically saying something came from nothing.........
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Please cite empirical evidence?" Why? YOU haven't. But search abiogenesis. The presence of life is NOT indicative of some "intent" of the universe.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris As for abiogenesis Pasteur and Redi proved through empirical science that living things only come from other living things, but I am open minded. If you have any empirical evidence that life has ever been created through any other process, then please cite the work. Show me where life can come from anything that isn't already living.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "So technically, I refuted your argument before you made it." I DID NOT MAKE IT. I have not said one word supporting a multiverse, nor did I bring it up. Are you completely insane?
"This is called giving up and just saying the universe did it." Change "universe" to "God", and that's YOUR argument. I'm saying we don't know, not that "X did it" without evidence.
And the stone structures have a history to them. There is no constellation that says "From God, To Humanity".
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris
"I DID NOT MAKE IT"
Yes you did. You just didn't realize it. "And I can hand wave the probability factors because any possibility (like abiogenesis) can occur if given an eternity and an entire universe to occur"
These are your words above.
The Multivers is also based on this unscientific and unobserved notion that relies on an eternity. whether it be an eternity of universes, or & as in your case, an eternity of time. Maybe you should do a little more research about this.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "And the stone structures have a history to them"
Everything has a history to them. Why cant you answer the question with a little more intellectual integrity? Would you like me to explain the premise of logic that the question is based on? In my analogy there is nothing on these stone buildings that says "From Nature, To Humanity" either. I mean really, is this your standard of evidence and logical assessment. If it is, maybe we should end this discussion.
benthemiester 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deathtris "Change "universe" to "God", and that's YOUR argument. I'm saying we don't know, not that "X did it" without evidence"
There are trillions x trillions x trillions of coincidences involved in this fine tuning argument, yet u have made no attempt to explain the degree of accuracy among even 1 cosmo constant much less the many out there.
Not only do we find evidence for design in cosmology but in biology also. Even Dawkins admits that biology gives an appearance of purposeful design.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Christ, let me spoon feed this to you.
The "stone structures" you refer are remnants of civilizations that have ancestors and were built with obvious intention and documentation. The universe, in general, has none of these things.
"an eternity of universes" Utter nonsense. You're making a non-existent connection between totally different sciences. Eternity= time, universe=space. And abiogenesis is not only possible, but it's been replicated.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont..... Are you willing to concede that you don't need to identify the designer to establish design?
"and were built with obvious intention"
You are not answering the question as I worded it, or its premise. You keep trying to change the question to make your point, which still does not answer it. This says a lot to me. I have tried to answer all your hard questions. You seem to not to want to grab the bull by the horns.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "There are trillions x trillions x trillions of coincidences involved in this fine tuning argument, yet u have made no attempt to explain the degree of accuracy among even 1 cosmo constant much less the many out there."
Maybe you could elaborate, or make an actual argument instead of vague assertions and the occasional ad hominem. And once again, you make an appeal to authority by using Dawkins.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Maybe you could elaborate, or make an actual argument instead of vague assertions and the occasional ad hominem" I regard Dawkins more as an a hard head than an authority. As for attacks, I believe you started that. I only suggest that you research a little more. I am not going to give you a crash course on the fine tuning argument. If you want to understand whats meant by trillions etc of coincidences, then u have to research the subject.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris cont....
I'm giving you an e.g. of a structure without documentation, only the the appearance of design. If u cant even identify the builder or builders, then why would the existence of their ancestors have anything to do with the premise or the question?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "The "stone structures" you refer are remnants of civilizations that have ancestors and were built with obvious intention and documentation"
And how do you come to this conclusion? If you don't know or have any documentation to who the builder is in the first place?...........
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester So you're saying, that if there were a structure with design, and no obvious builders, it would, by "my" logic, be considered natural? No, we would assume that there is a human builder, simply because precedent tells us to. There is no precedent for a creator of the universe, so we could not identify any design by one since we know nothing about a creator. And no, I won't "research the subject". Unlike you, I argue with a person and not with what I think they might say.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont.....Precedents mean little in science. In fact new precedents are established all the time in science, and this is how science progresses. So to rule out a theory based on the fact that it hasn't had a precedence established yet, is a science stopper in itself. You don't have a scientific established precedents in abiogeneisis studies, yet you believe that life arose naturally and unguided. This is called faith.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester You're asking me to write refutations of every percieved "coincidence" in an elaborate delusion. Pretty tasking of a 500 character post. Name your "signs of design" and "coincidences" if you want them argued. And rudely telling someone that they "dont understand what they're talking about" is, imo, ad hominem, since you did not even point out what you thought I misunderstood, you just stated that I did not know what I was talking about.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "No, we would assume that there is a human builder, simply because precedent tells us to"
I still don't think you fully understand the question. In fact your assumption that it was a human being is very logical, but we know that it actually took a little more than being human. It took what human beings posses, which is intelligence. The question was one of intelligence, not who the intelligent agent is or was, and this is the premise of the question......
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris And, oh yeah, Pasteur discredited spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, which is not only possible but is replicable.
Abiogenesis is based on the same premise, and that is, that inert organic material can become living. There has to be spontaneous generation at some point. Spontaneous does not mean sudden, It refers to animation of life at any given point. If you believe abiogenesis is empirically documented, then please cite source. I would love to see this.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester And, oh yeah, Pasteur discredited spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis, which is not only possible but is replicable. YOU do some research.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris There is no need to write a paper on trillions upon countless trillions of what can only be called cosmic coincidences, & in several orders of magnitudes. You sounded like there was nothing to it that a little philosophical maneuvering couldn't explain. The hand waiving that goes on by some is taken very seriously for other. U can if you want, but there are many scientist spending a lot of research money on this refutation of the "fine tuning problem" called multiverse theory.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester No. Belief in abiogenesis is not faith. As I said, it has been replicated. Search the "Miller-Urey Experiment". Spontaneous generation means an organism (viruses, insects) from inorganic material, unlike abiogenesis, which is simply the formation of lifes building blocks.
And no, precedents are everything in science. That is why "(establishing) new precedents", as you say, "is how science progresses".
And I have seen some of these coincidences, and found them uncompelling.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris So you believe Miller created life in his famous experiment? Is this what you regard as evidence.
If so then you have been mislead. Miller was never able to produce anything close to a living molecule. He was only able to produce amino acids. Unfortunately he only produce a toxic racemic mixture of AA unfit for life. These amino acids are still inert today and never produced one single protein. It is impossible for racemic AA to produce proteins on there own. This well known.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris Pasture proved that living things come from only other living things. This is a fundamental principle of biology. Again you provide no evidence to refute it. You can look as deep & hard as you like, but no one has ever been able to produce life through OOL/ origen of life simulations experiments, in controlled conditions, or even through purposeful design, without preexisting genetic information or a living cell to start with.
If you believe in abiogenesis then yes this is faith.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Obviously, you can't even pay attention to what is on your screen so I will spell it out for you: Miller produced ORGANIC MATERIAL, not life. The fact that he could not produce life is because the experiment was extremely simple, and different in several ways from pre-life Earth. And stop "accusing" me of having faith when YOUR beliefs are based around the idea of a magical invisible wizard in the sky who loves all of humanity.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Miller produced ORGANIC MATERIAL, not life"
Yes this exactly my point. I can make organic clothing, does this have anything to do with OOL? "unlike abiogenesis, which is simply the formation of life's building blocks"
Below is actual definition.
In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris I also had to correct you on your notion that the universe is considered infinite. Although there are many hypothesis out there in academia, The current synthesis and theory is big bang cosmology, which estimates the age of the universe at about 13 billion years old.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Wow, okay. An organic gas. You really don't listen to yourself, do you? ORGANIC means of organisms. Know of any gaseous organisms? No? Because there are none. That is a contradiction. And it doesn't matter that the conditions are not the same, because the purpose of the experiment showed the feasibility of abiogenesis. And it was only the begining of life, simple single-celled organisms which arose from the material. And STILL on this tangent. I'm not a hardcore...
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Wow, okay. An organic gas. You really don't listen to yourself, do you? ORGANIC means of organisms"
Lets break down the logic of your stament. So if organic, by your definition means "organism" (which is a contiguous living system) then your changing your answer by now saying he was able to produce a living system after all. I should be the one saying wow. Wait I know, it was just a figure of speech right?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester ...advocate of abiogenesis, it's just the most prevalent theory of the time (certainly more believable than "GOD DID IT"). If a more suitable one arises, I will gladly forget about abiogenesis (how faithful of me, eh?).
And when I said eternity, its called "figure of speach". BUT you do bring up an interesting point. If the universe was MADE for life (let alone human life), why did it exist for so long before life came about? Care to explain that?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris As for a humans perception of time as it compares to the universe, this seems to be irrelevant. Is there some kind of time line that you would prefer?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris or·gan·ic
cont..
Of or relating to a bodily organ or organs
(of a disease) Affecting the structure of an organ
Denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole
- the organic unity of the integral work of art
Characterized by continuous or natural development
- companies expand as much by acquisition as by organic growth
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "So if organic, by your definition means "organism"."
No, not what I said. ORGANIC = OF organisms. As in "organic material = the material organisms are comprised of". And the timeline is fine. It just DOESN'T SUPPORT THE FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE IDEA. If the universe were "made" for life, life would be an integral part of it, not a by-product billions of years after it's inception.
SO, anything supporting the fine-tuned idiocy, or do you want to continue arguing everything but?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris
"No, not what I said. ORGANIC = OF organisms. As in "organic material = the material organisms are comprised of"
"ORGANIC means of organisms"
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "If the universe were "made" for life, life would be an integral part of it, not a by-product billions of years after it's inception"
And you base this on what?....Your own personel opinion? Have you ever entertained the proposition that life started at the time it was supposed to happen. Please show me your precedent on how an anthropic universe should be according to you. And please tell me the mathematical calculations you used to to quantify this assumption of yours.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester So nothing. You have nothing to support your theory, just more and more desperate arguments on any little tangent you can find. So I have learned one thing from this exchange: you are an idiot. Other than that, this entire back-and-forth has been pointless. The fine-tuned idiocy is just a moronic attempt at justifying the existence of God scientifically. But hey, you won. I've given up on penetrating that rock-hard skull of yours. Post what you want, I don't care. Goodbye.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris CONT... A primary causation is more consistent with cause and effect science. The information for all of this had to come from somewhere, not from nothing with no cause.
I don't believe you have actually taken the time to research this on an in depth level. If you had, you would not be accusing me of producing no evidence, If we are to use true logic, reasoning and just a fundamental understanding of the laws of probabilities as they relate to the cosmological & Hubble constants.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris CONT..... into trying to refute the FTP? You have buried your head in the sand. I add the Privileged Planet or Rare Earth Principle, as well as the appearance of design in biological systems as seen in the specified information within the genetic code, as well as built in redundancy within the genome. You believe nothing produce the universe. I believe in a primary cause able to exist outside of space and time, as well as in space and time.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris
I have many e.g. to support my theory, but you choose to close your ears and pretend they don't exist.
I have shown that scientist are working hard to refute this known universal dynamic called the "fine tuning problem" Why do you think it is called a "problem" & why have millions of dollars gone.....
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris Its not that I win, its more like you have let your emotion cloud your understanding of subject.
If you think the scientist who are working on these question and research money spent are also stupid, well then maybe you think everything that doesn't go your way is stupid. I hope that you at least learned that methane gas is organic, & that abiogensis is not replicable. As for gaseous organism I would say the Portuguese Man o' War is a good candidate.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester You have a way of drawing me in, I'll give you that. Fine, three more things.
1 It doesn't matter how many people believe in something or how much money they spend (or how intelligent they are). It doesn't make them right.
2 The fine-tuned universe argument is the only argument I've expressed objection to here. Is that your idea of having "my head buried in the sand?"
3 Finally, I don't believe "nothing" made the universe. There are more options than just "GOD OR GTFO".
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris I agree on point one. On point two you did bring up abiogensis and were in error, & have made no detailed attempt to trying to explain the well known exponential probability factors involved concerning these ratios and perimeters involved. The best that scientific naturalism can do is propose or invent MT which they are willing to take seriously, in spite of lack of any evidence, but again you dont care. This is called letting your personel dogmas get in the way of observable data.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "Eternity= time, universe=space. And abiogenesis is not only possible, but it's been replicated"
Is this another figure of speech. If it is, its false.
"Finally, I don't believe "nothing" made the universe"
Yet below you say this
"just that there was an effect with no cause" (the start of the universe)"
If according to you, the universe had no cause, then nothing created the universe.
I'm sure you will try to qualify these statements with more double speak.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Okay, one, STOP WITH THE MULTIVERSE THEORY. I DON"T FUCKING CARE. Thank you.
And your "ratios and perimeters" (perameters, maybe?), saying that life could not exist if they were different is both wrong and pointless. Wrong because we could easily survive in conditions less harsh than the ones we're in, and it's just a hypothetical, it doesn't indicate any intent. If biology were different, I'd have two heads and shit gold, it doesn't mean the one-headed design has any import.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Wrong because we could easily survive in conditions less harsh than the ones we're in"
You dont understand the fine tuning argument. It says nothing of harsher conditions. It speaks to the fact that if these many ratios were a little bit off the universe itself would not exist, & these deal with exponential #''s. If the universe expanded billions of billions of billions of a second slower or faster, the universe would not exist & this is just a tiny fraction of the #s involved.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris correction....... effect and no cause.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "Wrong because we could easily survive in conditions less harsh than the ones we're in"
I think you mean more harsh but again the same applies.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "On point two you did bring up abiogenesis and were in error". That has nothing to do with point two. Point two was that I objected to only one theory, and anyways if you look back, I only first mention abiogenesis as a POSSIBLE explanation. I've never once said that it is the one truth or even that I believe it, I've just defended it's points. And what figure of speech was false?
BTW, when I said "there was an effect with no cause", that applies to your "designer" as well.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris BTW, when I said "there was an effect with no cause", that applies to your "designer" as well.
Ill deal with the designer question again, in case you missed it before, etc.
Then u made another error or lied when you said "Finally, I don't believe "nothing" made the universe". Am I correct. or will you spin this also? How would you also hold your "cause & no effect" argument to something you dont believe in? If your saying God exist even if without any cause, then he still exist.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Oh, it says nothing of "harsher conditions"? True, just that, (what did it say? oh yeah) the universe is fine-tuned FOR LIFE. And no, I mean less harsh, because if they were more harsh (stronger gravity, stronger sunlight, less air) we'd be dead. And it's still moot, because there is still no intent.
"If your saying God exist even if without any cause, then he still exist." No, just saying that God not needing a creator is just as feasible as the universe not needing a creator.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris" it's just a hypothetical, it doesn't indicate any intent"
False, we know enough about the atomic, electrical, gravitational force, and the many others constance involved to understand that these units and subunits and exponential variables are real. We also use probability factors all the time in science to measure how viable something can come into its own. Would you like to know what the chances of this is all coming together on its own is? The numbers have already been crunched.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester HAHA! I expected this! You have used this argument before, with your "STONE STRUCTURES" argument. And you were in error to say that "design=designer". The fact is, "design" is rather vague for this idea, meaning both "shape" and "intent". The shape of things is inarguable, but the intent is where it becomes cloudy. A structure with an entrance, three complete walls, and a ceiling? A house, made for habitation! NOPE. I described a naturally occuring cave...
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester ...NO DESIGNER (unless you have imagined a magical cave-making god). Unique, symmetrical, straght-edged crystal equals design, right? What about snowflakes? Magical snow god, perhaps? And this is where your whole argument fails: it isn't based in science. If we followed your logic, we'd still be in the stoneage, worshipping volcanoes and the sky. Just because something fits together, doesn't mean it couldn't happen on it's own, Mr. Head-In-The-Sand.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "If we followed your logic, we'd still be in the stoneage, worshipping volcanoes and the sky"
Hate to tell you this but but most superstitious people are atheist. Most people in the new age movement are atheist. The wall street journal conducted a gallop poll verifying this. SETI are group of scientist and with full support of the science community who are looking for ET's from outer space. The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris You have seem to given up on logic or the question of design based on the laws of probabilities & instead have decided to attack past beliefs of Polynesian polytheist. This called a red herring.
"Just because something fits together, doesn't mean it couldn't happen on it's own"
Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?
There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences all we have is evidence.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester OKAY STOP RIGHT THERE. You've already lost. GALLOP conducted the Gallop poll, not the Wall Street Journal. Your whole "most superstitious people are atheist" (which you try to twist to mean worshipping things, the opposite of atheism), is not supported. A few superstitious atheist groups are not most atheists. And what superstitions do they practice? Prayer? Sacrement? Christians sound superstitious to me!
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris Yes Gallop poll conducted the poll and the Wall street journal published it. So that means everything I said is moot. Great logic man.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians." So these guys, who were born in an era when the only way to recieve formal education was through the church, believed in God, and that means only smart, correct people believe in God? I'm interested in knowing what possible argument you're trying to make and what it has to do with this one, if any. And sure, SETI guys are CRAZY. Thinking that a naturally occuring incident (LIFE) might occur elseware.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?"
I don't know. Do mountains pile themselves? Do continents shape themselves? Why do you only refer to man-made objects when the universe is not man-made? You obviously can't hold it to the same standard.
"There is no such thing as proof in the historical sciences all we have is evidence." And we have neither supporting deities.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris You take something you don't understand, and instead of seeking answers, you say "MUSTA BEEN GAWD!"
I strongly disagree. We do understand the probability factors involved, and as I said before, we use probability factors all the time to make determinations. The fine tuning argument is not based on our ignorance, but is based on what we do know, and have known for a long time. I'm with Davies, Hoyle and Einstein on this one, & its not an appeal to authority. Its just a fact.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester And no, it's not a red herring. If you can't see the comparison, I'm happy to explain.
What you are doing is the same as what they did. You take something you don't understand, and instead of seeking answers, you say "MUSTA BEEN GAWD!" I don't know about you, but the scientific method (as I understand it) doesn't have a "worship" step.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris
"I described a naturally occuring cave"
You can subscribe to anything you want. The real question is, does the average geologist, or even a person with reasonable intelligent able to distinguish between a complex stone structure like the Ancient Zapotec stone structure in Monte Alban, or a cave.
I dont think you even have to be a scholar to make this determination, but if your having trouble making the distinction, then my advise is to stay out of the earth sciences.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester And again, you miss the point by a good mile, benny. Here I am, trying to drill into that thick lil skull of yours that FUNCTION DOESN"T EQUAL DESIGN. And you want to make it about how "I don't understand". Interesting how you say I don't understand things not having to do with this argument, while displaying that you don't understand anything that does.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "The first scientist to usher in the modern sciences were theologians." So these guys, who were born in an era when the only way to recieve formal education was through the church, believed in God,
Not exactly, in fact the only way they could make these universities work financially was to stay away from Church dogma in the universities and even recruited some secular instructors as well. The point is that many of these theologians ushered in the modern science.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "Do you think a space shuttle can happen on its own? Or how about a 5 thousand piece puzzel?"
I don't know"
If you cant distinguish between specified information and naturalizing occurring geological forces, then again, maybe you should work on this logic before trying to figure how mountains and continents are formed.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "FUNCTION DOESN"T EQUAL DESIGN"
It may or may not in a very simplistic terms, but "fine tuning" does = design. Even the speaker on video says thing were perfectly arranged. Although he may believe that they were perfectly designed for black hole generators, he still does not exclude designe. If the premise is, that nature perfectly arranged this, then how does precise order, & in orders of magnitude come out of chaos? Give me an example of a chaotic event producing order.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Amazing. All of your posts, and you still avoid your own absurd belief. (BTW thats a nice textbook case of "Appeal to Authority" you've got there). Your arguments are to remove the context of my statements and berate me on every other kind of science. Your only "point" is "if things were different we might not exist, therefore God". As I said before, thats a meaningless hypothetical. Are the settings for the universe precise? Yes. Does that mean "fine tuning"? No.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "I only first mention abiogenesis as a POSSIBLE explanation I never once said that it is the one truth or even that I believe it, I've just defended it's points"
Not true, you even said that it was replicable. You have a hard time admitting that you didn't fully understand the subject and that your definition of abiogenesis was wrong, but hey, great point on Gallop poll.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester And now you're going back to, what, every single fucking post I've ever made and arguing points that were made days ago? You don't seem desperate at all. A font of wisdom is you.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont...... If the univers is chaotic, then how do we know where the solar position were thousand of years ago? Why do we know exactly were every planetary body will be in ten thousand years? Why do comets, solar and lunar eclipses show up when predicted without error? Why aren't the planets flying apart in a chaotic fashion, but instead are in such sync and interdependent to each other?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "The universe itself is chaotic. Order is a human construct"
Well then why isn't the chaos that your willing to subscribe to also a human construct? Are we resorting to abstract logic were everything is safe and relevant?......
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Are we resorting to abstract logic were everything is safe and relevant?" While you simply try to make everything relevant. And now you're saying that the random things we, as humans, have chosen to measure somehow imbue order upon the universe. HUMAN CONSTRUCT. But you're right in thinking that chaos and order are abstracts, which is why I'm confused: you're complaining about it, yet YOU BROUGHT IT UP.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester The fact is neither one exists. There is no order to the universe, our language was designed to make sense of it. Please tell me, at least that you can recognize that, at least: that language was made to simplify complex concepts?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "But you're right in thinking that chaos and order are abstracts"
I said you were resorting to philosophical abstract. Please read thread more carefully. Philosophy is fine. It is very important in determining logic, but using it to run in circles and avoid a logical premise is called rhetoric.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Your denial knows no bounds. All of your "evidence" is simply a series of coincidences (you even refer to them as such) that have no overt connection to each other. The "planetary precision questions" fall in with the rest of them. "According to you we live in chaos" I just said that chaos is an abstract. You moron.
Computers and buildings came from ordered information. Ordered BY US, not the universe. And I've turned to abstract? I say again, YOU BROUGHT UP ORDER AND CHAOS.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester "At some point chaos and hydrogen and the first heavy elements had to turn to order" So it was a concious decision on their part? Interesting. This adds new dimensions to your insanity.
And I have addressed your points. I can concede that if things were different the universe, as it is, would not exist. But that is not what I disagree with this theory about. THE DESIGNER. Remember him? For a guy who worships him, you sure don't talk about him much. (OOPS I mean Him).
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Computers and buildings came from ordered information. Ordered BY US, not the universe" At one point there was chaos then hydrogen and then the heavier elements. So were did we come from? Or are you saying we just ordered ourselves into existence? Please clarify Kimosabe.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris chaos |ˈkāˌäs|
noun
complete disorder and confusion : snow caused chaos in the region.
• Physics behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions.
• the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.
Where does it say chaos is an abstract?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Physics behavior so unpredictable as to appear random" Notice how it says "appear random"? It only appears random, but there is no true chaos. Deep down, chaos and order are indistuinguishable, so you definining words, once again, fail to make any point. The universe seems chaotic on the surface, but there is an order to it that is beyond common perception (a large chain of cause and effect). The universe never "turned" to order, chaos as you see it never existed.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "It only appears random, but there is no true chaos. Deep down, chaos and order are indistuinguishable, so you definining words, once again, fail to make any point"
So now were back to everything is relative. Tell me why are you the only person I've met that believes that chaos and order are indistinguishable. What dictionary or encyclopedia can I find this interpretation of your in? Kid I have heard a lot of bullshit, but I put your on a whole different level.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester How about the definition you gave, jackass. It says, right inside of it "owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions." True chaos (which doesn't exist) would HAVE no source. It would be random and incalculable. "Tell me why are you the only person I've met that believes that chaos and order are indistuinguishable" Because you never leave your moms basement? I don't know, why don't you get out more?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "It says, right inside of it "owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions." True chaos (which doesn't exist)"
So you are lecturing me on a point I have yet to figure out on something that doesn't exist. Thats sweet logic man. Does your point really exist?
A piece of dynamite exploding = dynamite is the source of chaotic explosion.
Who am I? Who am I? Do I really exist. Please tell me grandmaster & seer of all. I'm sorry, this is just getting ridicules.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "At some point chaos became ordered all by itself according to the theory". I'm not the one ascribing intelligence to the universes inception"
This is not intelligent design theory. This is big bang theory. Cosmologist tell us that in the beginning there was a chaotic explosion that brought everything/ all space and time into existence. You are very confused and your own words have contradicted you many times over. The more you try, the more you contradict yourself.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester What defenition of chaos are you using now? Complete disorder and confusion? An explosion is neither of those, it is easily measured and planned. We don't have the means to track everything down to the particle, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. And I like how you are now arguing from a position of neither faith or science, but purely out of your ass.
"...on something that doesn't exist." Abstraction isn't the same as nonexistence, you fucking moron.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester "I'm sorry, this is just getting ridicules." Well I think it got ridiculous when you brought deities into the matter, but then I'm not retarded.
And it's not big bang theory. The universe is not intelligent even by that theory (still more intelligent than you, though).
And yes I'm confused. How did someone as dumb as you make it this long without licking an electrical socket?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "An explosion is neither of those, it is easily measured and planned"
A few years a ago a gas line exploded in LA, and It destroyed several houses and killed several people.
Tell me, who planned it? I would really love to hear your answer.
I hate to tell you this but chaos can be measured
Introduction to Scientific Modeling
Dynamical Systems and Chaos
Stephanie Forrest
Dept. of Computer Science
Univ. of New Mexico
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester So chaos, by your logic, is merely defined by the intent behind it. And how is this NOT abstract? Whats more, there is still an order to the chaos. In your example, what caused the exposion (I'm guessing since I don't know what specific incident you are referring to) could be pressure on the pipe or sudden kinetic force on the pipe. Nothing unpredictable or random about it, therfore not chaos.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "I'm sorry, this is just getting ridicules." Well I think it got ridiculous when you brought deities into the matter, but then I'm not retarded.
And it's not big bang theory. The universe is not intelligent even by that theory (still more intelligent than you, though).
And yes I'm confused. How did someone as dumb as you make it this long without licking an electrical socket?
Very sad RE and very telling. Foolishness is always the last resort and is so predictable, touche.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Very sad RE and very telling. Foolishness is always the last resort and is so predicable, touche."
...Are you still speaking english? The last resort of what? Predictable how? And "touche"?! Are you seriously admitting that I made a good point in that quote? And don't say it's sarcasm, since its one word in an otherwise straight statement. And still you have given no evidence that the universe was made specifically for humans.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Nothing unpredictable or random about it, therfore not chaos"
So are you saying the gas company predicted this explosion and did nothing about it? Why were those people still in the area when it exploded? If the gas line was predicted to blow up and you did not move, wouldn't that be suicide?
I hate to tell you this but chaos can also be predicted.
Explosions, hurricane & I include tornados all cause chaos & disorder.
You may not realize this, but I really trying to help you.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester You are confusing "predictable" and "predicted". The fact is, there were factors leading up to the explosion (this should be fairly obvious). You defining chaos as being "unknown to humans" shows how subjective the term is, therfore it has to be abstract and not a physical property.
"Explosions, hurricane & I include tornados all cause chaos & disorder." Once again, the chaos only applies to humans, not nature or the universe. Just look at your own definition. It's subjective.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont.... evil, frustration, jealousy,love, accuracy. Go stand at the edge of a cliff and I bet being careful will really matter. Your philosophy & sense of logic is adolescent, and that is putting it kindly. Try this. Go and hit someone over the head with a 2/4, and then tell the judge that pain he or she feels is subjective, and what looks like chaos in the form of a bleeding head and cracked skull is really not part of nature, its all subjective. Then tell me how it goes.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Speaking of adolescent. And yes, right, wrong, good, evil, frustration, jealousy, love, all abstracts (accuracy maybe depending on the context).
"so unpredictable as to appear random" Notice how it says "appear", right in the definition? That is subjectivity, right there.
Stand at the edge of a cliff? Now you want me to reason with emotions instead of, oh i dunno, reason? Sounds like your forte, not mine.
And pain is also subjective. Your metaphor fails.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont..... "Now you want me to reason with emotions instead of, oh i dunno, reason?"
Aren't emotions & reason subjective?
Your example is called a logical fallacy and a tautology.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@deathtris "so unpredictable as to appear random"
So your saying that if it appears random then by definition it is really illusory. OK, Ill entertain that proposition. I have given you away to test it in real world conditions. I gave you the means, and if you go to jail, just say to yourself, it appears I am locked up in jail, but that is based only on my just own subjectivity......
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester WOW. Thats quite a stretch you've made there! With a skull that thick, a 2x4 shouldn't be a threat to you!
No, appearing random does not equal illusory, the CONCEPT of randomness is illusory. And how does this equate to jail? Not being rhetorical, I want you to explain how me defining things as abstracts equates to me thinking my physical location is subjective, in your mind.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris Why is it that I have responded to every point you have tried to make, yet you continue to ignore my questions. The last question I asked you was, aren't emotions and reason also subjective. How do you make this distinction and why are your thoughts some how special and use dual standards?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Uh, I DID answer that. They are. We feel and reason from a personal standpoint. There is no such thing as "objective emotions", but objective reasoning is conceptually feasible, though rather uncommon.
My thoughts are special subjectively because they are my own, but they have no objective uniqueness. Many people see reality as totally subjective (though I don't go THAT far). What dual standards are you referring to?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris Now using the same BS you tried to feed me, thats what you call annoying.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Yes. My thoughts are subjective. Now YOU have made the false assumption that subjective = immaterial. I actually am annoyed.
True and false aren't subjective. True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect. Notice how my definitions don't contain "feel" or "appear".
"Now using the same BS you tried to feed me, thats what you call annoying." Except you fail on both counts. Actually I find it amusing, like a monkey wearing clothing.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect.
And I guess you get to decide what is true and what isn't? Tell me wise one, should we go by what Jesus thought was true, or what Hitler thought was true. How about Stalin truth compared to Gandi's truth. Many claim that America has a great true and patriotic history, yet 30 million of my ancestor were wiped out. So who decides what is true, the people who owned slaves, the Taliban or the majority?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Except none of them had truth as I defined. Do you not see that? Their "truths" were all made from subjective reasoning. "What Hitler THOUGHT was true." Your own words betray you again.
None of them DECIDE what is true. That is an appeal to the masses, and the truth is not based on people's opinions. How do you claim to use "my logic" and make conclusions in total opposition to what I'm saying?
Maybe you should stop this. Reason isn't your strong suit.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Except none of them had truth as I defined. Do you not see that? Their "truths" were all made from subjective reasoning. "What Hitler THOUGHT was true." Your own words betray you again"
As I define, As I define, As I define.
Sounds pretty subjective to me. So I guess when all else fails you are the judge of what is and isn't truth.
When did I ever speak of appealing to the masses? & are you inferring that the German populace were clinically insane? Strong suit, very funny.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Sounds pretty subjective to me." Subjective doesn't mean false. Stop being dense (if you can). And where do I say I'm the "judge of truth"? I define my own subjective truths, but nothing else.
"When did I ever speak of appealing to the masses?" The appeal to the masses FALLACY, you idiot. A lot of people believing something does not make it the truth. You saying "Who defines truth" is idiotic since no one "decides" on objective truths, you dolt. They just are.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester And I hope you appreciate that I am now entertaining YOUR philosophical meanderings, which you complained about so much. Gonna say anything about our loving designer (who has no source) creating a universe for us (most of which is inhospitable), or are we well past that subject? If so, I guess it's an unqualified win for non-believers. Praise Satan! Fine-tuning is shit.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris True is what is objectively correct, false is what is objectively incorrect. Notice how my definitions don't contain "feel" or "appear
It doesn't matter what you feel what matters is that you are arbitrarily trying to define truth and or at best, you can write a sentence that doesn't use the word "appear" or "feel" Remember, you said this is your definition of truth. Well guess what Hitler had his own definition.
Might as well say.....Yeah dude mine is better bro.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Again with Hitler. You really want to use the deaths of millions to your benefit somehow, don't you? First the gas explosion, than slavery, now this.
"Well guess what Hitler had his own definition." SO? Just by your wording you admit that it is different from my definition. Good for him, bad for humanity. What is your point?
And how is my definition of truth arbitrary? Whats yours? "WUTEVR GAWD SAYS IS TRUTH!" Stupid motherfucker.
deathtris 8 months ago
@benthemiester Objective truth, as far as we can tell, are things that all sane people can agree on. There is nothing else we can do to say what is and is not truth, since we are all chained to our singular perspective. We don't have a perfect sense of truth but it's the best we can do as humans.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "Objective truth, as far as we can tell, are things that all sane people can agree on"
All the people mentioned were sane people.
You say truth exist objectively.
Well guess what? This is a very Christian & spiritual belief. Most atheist deny that truth exist objectively. I also happen to believe truth exist objectively. The only problem you have is trying to define truth objectively from an atheist perspective and your "sanity" argument also fails as a logical fallacy..
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I said "as far as we can tell". I also said that it may be impossible to say. And your idea of sanity is willingness to commit mass murder? And incorrect doesn't mean logical fallacy.
And are you trying to convince me that I'm a christian? If so, so what? How does this apply to objectivity or (God help us) the fine-tuned universe theory?
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris "And your idea of sanity is willingness to commit mass murder"
My idea of sanity is someone who is clinically insane. My idea of mass murder is someone who is heartless and cruel like our American history. Hitler believed in survival of the fittest. He believed as Darwin did, that the Nordic and Germanic male were more superior than the lowly races. What does the atheist have to counter this except with the "truth" which you have yet to make a case for from an atheist perspective?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Ohhhh I see. I have to "make a case" for "atheist truth". There is only one way to say this: You, sir, are one stupid motherfucker. So "SANITY" = "CLINICALLY INSANE". Fascinating, and telling! Kidding aside, I refuse to participate in your argument, just for how wrong you are. Hitler did not believe as Darwin did, Darwin was against Eugenics, you fucking retard. Plus, you know, you're making a case for Hitler. If you need me to explain why he is bad, this argument is above you.
deathtris 8 months ago
@deathtris cont.... No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9; first page numbers to the 1st ed., second to the 2nd ed.)
benthemiester 8 months ago