Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-18-2018, 02:39 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,084
We can demonstrate mathematically that the universe wasn't 'created' at all. I would be happy to walk you through it, it is surprisingly uncomplicated. But I don't want to waste time beating my head against the wall with a zealous apologist.

Let me know if you want to hear it.
  #52  
Old 02-18-2018, 02:49 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you've ever read a novel, or seen a movie, or played a narrative-style video game, you've experienced a world that does have a creator. Could you tell from the nature of that world whether its creator was good or evil?
Those worlds are created with deliberate intent. There seems to be a dearth of evidence that this reality was created with intent. (I tend to be skeptical of the idea that this universe was in fact created at all, that the question of the beginning and end is formed in our minds which are unable to conceive of things that do not begin or end at some point.)
  #53  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:36 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I look at this world from the viewpoint of wisdom; I see all the death, predation, pain, disease, filth, untold amounts of completely pointless suffering and so on.
So very true.

Gather up all thy worldly goods (of value) and send them to me at the address I will PM you. They are just weighing down your spiritual progression, and you'll be better off without them.
  #54  
Old 02-18-2018, 07:42 PM
Marcus Flavius Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
So very true.

Gather up all thy worldly goods (of value) and send them to me at the address I will PM you. They are just weighing down your spiritual progression, and you'll be better off without them.
You're absolutely right about this.
  #55  
Old 02-19-2018, 08:24 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
You're absolutely right about this.
So when are you going to dispose all your worldly assets and move to a cave?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #56  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:02 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,036
I'm sure that whatever creator being is responsible for this universe, it has made us with benevolent intent and for a higher purpose.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to put in some more time on my gooble box.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #57  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:07 PM
drivekiller drivekiller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sicks Ate View Post
It's our fault, it's a fallen world!! Goddammit Eve!

Just wanted to beat the holyrollers to that.

Carry on.

No need to refer to an origin story, or all powerful authority.

In human cultures, it's all human beings acting in their own perceived short term best interest, with incomplete knowledge, inapt beliefs and limited compassion. Yeah, that includes the crazy -- just different kinds of self interest and deficits than you or I may have.

As for the natural world, there may be aspects that aren't to our liking, but ascribing a moral value is just an anthropocentric fallacy.
  #58  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:17 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
And I'd like to think that even plain biological human minds, uploaded or not, would want more than an eternity of bliss. I'd still want to solve challenges, like performing violent sidequests to expand my virtual harem or deciding if I want to declare war on the Orcs or not.
If thats what you want to do, go ahead. But given a choice between doing this and living inside a brain that doesn't care about harems, or living inside a brain that is 1,000 better at declaring war on the orcs to the point where playing against the best human who ever lived is like playing against a 2 year old, most people will choose the latter.

Our imagination is extremely limited. We have 3 lbs of matter in our brains that was designed by natural selection using limited resources, and there is virtually infinite matter in the universe that can be organized and engineered intelligently. It can be organized into an endless number of ways to act as a substrate for conscious experience (or whatever else is possible).

Its like cavement from 10,000 years ago talking about what life will be like in 10,000 years and all they can talk about is how the sticks they carry would be extra sharp, and the fire in the cave would never go out, and there'd always be mammoth meat to eat. They wouldn't imagine quantum computers, or gene therapy, or large hadron colliders.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-19-2018 at 03:18 PM.
  #59  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:18 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 14,987
OP is assuming the universe is created for a purpose knowable within this universe. It could just as easily be an extradimensional teaching aide for all or some of those spending a lesson/lifetime within it. You get born into it, you experience the joys and horrors available, you emerge from it with new insight. Neither good nor evil.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here....
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 02-19-2018 at 03:20 PM.
  #60  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:25 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
We can demonstrate mathematically that the universe wasn't 'created' at all. I would be happy to walk you through it, it is surprisingly uncomplicated. But I don't want to waste time beating my head against the wall with a zealous apologist.

Let me know if you want to hear it.
I am curious but skeptical. For one thing, how could you possibly tell the difference between a universe that wasn't created and one that was created to look as though it wasn't created?
  #61  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:30 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Well, if the creator was that good, he could just wire the brains of seemingly rational people to perceive the world as either being created or as being not created, which ever is more suitable for the divine strategy.
  #62  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:40 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 14,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I am curious but skeptical. For one thing, how could you possibly tell the difference between a universe that wasn't created and one that was created to look as though it wasn't created?
The point of origin tag is sewn on the outside, but if you look in just the right spot you can see the stitching from inside.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #63  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:03 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,593
Well, I'm an atheist who hopes he's wrong (I want an afterlife), but I do agree think Testament God was a complete psychopath. I also do not believe, if they should they exist, the Old Testament God and Jesus are the same person, at all, in any way. No way that guy came down here and decided to chillax.

I tend to take the deist approach if God exists. He made it, and then backed off, intervening rarely if at all, leaving men to their own devices. That would completely reconcile why earth is sh_tty. If earth was supposed to be like heaven with no problems, then what's the point of the distinction.

Last edited by Ashtura; 02-20-2018 at 10:08 AM.
  #64  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:29 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I look at this world from the viewpoint of wisdom; I see all the death, predation, pain, disease, filth, untold amounts of completely pointless suffering and so on. I do not believe that all this is the product of blind evolution and random chance...
Why not? Natural processes explain all of it far better than the alternative of supernatural creation. How did you come to eliminate natural selection, et al, as an explanation for what you're observing?
  #65  
Old 02-20-2018, 02:40 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
death, predation, pain, disease, filth, untold amounts of completely pointless suffering
Why on earth would a natural process preclude these? Why would a natural process "create" something utopian by human standards?
  #66  
Old 02-20-2018, 04:55 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Well, I'm an atheist who hopes he's wrong (I want an afterlife) …
I had this acid trip. I became aware of the fact that the smallest entities in the universe each entirely contain the whole, and the passage of time is the paradoxical imbalance of the universe trying to resolve itself. The entity of you emerged out of the decay of a pi meson, merged with the entity of a free neutron that bound to an atom of fluorine, gradually progressing into what inhabits your present transient form.

Your metaphysique is a composite unity that will continue to progress as each of its host forms fail to support it. The end of the line is the entire universe itself, after which the greater being which you have joined will emerge from the decay of a tau lepton to continue its sojourn toward universal wholeness. Creation is not a moment but an eternity, always happening.

The downside to this view is that saving lives is not necessarily a good thing, because fighting off the inevitable might be restraining the progress of of metaphysical being toward reaching wholeness.

The other downside is that I have not been able to find the guy that made that acid. That was a fucking good recipe.
  #67  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:13 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I had this acid trip. I became aware of the fact that the smallest entities in the universe each entirely contain the whole, and the passage of time is the paradoxical imbalance of the universe trying to resolve itself. The entity of you emerged out of the decay of a pi meson, merged with the entity of a free neutron that bound to an atom of fluorine, gradually progressing into what inhabits your present transient form.

Your metaphysique is a composite unity that will continue to progress as each of its host forms fail to support it. The end of the line is the entire universe itself, after which the greater being which you have joined will emerge from the decay of a tau lepton to continue its sojourn toward universal wholeness. Creation is not a moment but an eternity, always happening.

The downside to this view is that saving lives is not necessarily a good thing, because fighting off the inevitable might be restraining the progress of of metaphysical being toward reaching wholeness.

The other downside is that I have not been able to find the guy that made that acid. That was a fucking good recipe.
Cool trip man. My hope is that life is a video game, and after I die I can just put in another quarter. But only if I can buy a DLC with a million dollar bonus pack first.

Last edited by Ashtura; 02-20-2018 at 05:16 PM.
  #68  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:18 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Cool trip man. My hope is that life is a video game, and after I die I can just put in another quarter. But only if I can buy a DLC with a million dollar bonus pack first.
my other cheat code is JESUS.
  #69  
Old 02-20-2018, 05:21 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
If you've ever read a novel, or seen a movie, or played a narrative-style video game, you've experienced a world that does have a creator. Could you tell from the nature of that world whether its creator was good or evil?
Why does he have to be either (or not both)? There are any number of open world games that let collections of players do pretty much do whatever they want. What many seem to want to do is troll, grief, hack and otherwise create a shitty experience for everyone else.

Last edited by msmith537; 02-20-2018 at 05:21 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:04 PM
Not Carlson Not Carlson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Also if it helps, pain is pretty rare in life (not human life, I mean all Life on earth). The vast, vast majority of life on this planet is single celled organisms. They are not capable of pain. Plants aren't capable of pain, and most animals aren't capable of pain (supposedly only vertebraes can feel any pain, and 97% of animals aren't vertebraes). Only a small % of life forms on this planet are capable of pain, and an even smaller % of them are capable of emotional pain.

Also the universe at large is pretty much devoid of pain and suffering too. most of the universe is just rocks and atoms, feeling pain requires an advanced nervous system in a biological organism. That seems to be pretty rare in the universe.
That was beautiful.
I feel like I was just serenaded with the universe song.

To the OP: Chin up, lad. It can't be all that bad.
  #71  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:13 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I recall encountering one person whose theology defined the creator as a different entity from the ruler. It could be that 5he universe was created by a being in the last throes of dementia and the deity we know is a different being who was called in by the council of Gallifreyan SuperGods to deal with the creator's infinite fuckup.
"The Bird is cruel!"
  #72  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:17 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
If God were evil, the cruelest thing he could have done would be to refrain from creating us.
"What? Out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
of everlasting penalties, if broke?"
  #73  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:46 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Its like cavemen from 10,000 years ago talking about what life will be like in 10,000 years and all they can talk about is how the sticks they carry would be extra sharp, and the fire in the cave would never go out, and there'd always be mammoth meat to eat. They wouldn't imagine quantum computers, or gene therapy, or large hadron colliders.
Who needs 10 Kyears? I once did a fun talk on prediction in science fiction based on Star Trek (TOS).

You know - turbolift doors that are at almost every supermarket, Yeoman Rand having Kirk sign orders on her tablet, Uhura and her Bluetooth headset, away teams calling on their cellphones, Sulu inserting a USB memory into the nav console, McCoy using a pressure injector, etc., etc., et cetera.
  #74  
Old 02-20-2018, 06:51 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I am curious but skeptical. For one thing, how could you possibly tell the difference between a universe that wasn't created and one that was created to look as though it wasn't created?
I have heard an argument based on the concept that a created universe would be discontinuous and have pixels.

By the way, the Universe is discontinuous (quantum theory) and has a pixel size (Planck length)
  #75  
Old 02-20-2018, 07:44 PM
Marcus Flavius Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
Why not? Natural processes explain all of it far better than the alternative of supernatural creation. How did you come to eliminate natural selection, et al, as an explanation for what you're observing?
I haven't eliminated natural processes or natural selection. I just disagree with the idea that they are "blind."

I would argue that life on Earth serves a cosmic "plan," and is modified at the macro level in order to fulfill this function.
  #76  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:21 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I haven't eliminated natural processes or natural selection. I just disagree with the idea that they are "blind."

I would argue that life on Earth serves a cosmic "plan," and is modified at the macro level in order to fulfill this function.
how would you argue this ?

what is the plan?

What evidence that we are fullfilling a 'function' within it?
  #77  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:40 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
how would you argue this ?

what is the plan?

What evidence that we are fullfilling a 'function' within it?
The plan is beyond our comprehension. The superbeing is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, yet somehow it has wants, it can take action (something that would seem impossible for an omnipotent entity) and it gets angry. If you cannot make sense of those contradictory properties, any “plan” is going to be impossible to ken.
  #78  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:41 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Our imagination is extremely limited. We have 3 lbs of matter in our brains that was designed by natural selection using limited resources, and there is virtually infinite matter in the universe that can be organized and engineered intelligently. It can be organized into an endless number of ways to act as a substrate for conscious experience (or whatever else is possible).

Its like cavement from 10,000 years ago talking about what life will be like in 10,000 years and all they can talk about is how the sticks they carry would be extra sharp, and the fire in the cave would never go out, and there'd always be mammoth meat to eat. They wouldn't imagine quantum computers, or gene therapy, or large hadron colliders.
Fair enough. I suppose this outcome would be "and then the cavemen found the fountain of youth and a respawning device that will restore then sans recent memories whenever they die". 10,000 years later, these same cavemen would still be basically cavemen. They wouldn't have created what we have created.
  #79  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:32 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,836
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
The plan is beyond our comprehension. The superbeing is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, yet somehow it has wants, it can take action (something that would seem impossible for an omnipotent entity) and it gets angry. If you cannot make sense of those contradictory properties, any “plan” is going to be impossible to ken.
thats complete gobbledygook.
  #80  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:38 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
thats complete gobbledygook.
well spotted
  #81  
Old 02-21-2018, 10:30 AM
Marcus Flavius Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
how would you argue this ?

what is the plan?

What evidence that we are fullfilling a 'function' within it?
I just think it makes infinitely more sense that such a complex and apparently consequential system had a design and serves some cosmic plan, rather than it being a " Big Accident."
Ordinary men cannot know any of what this 'plan' is because of the limitations in his perception. It's like microbes in a drop of water- poke around with a needle, apply an electric current, inject chemicals, and they won't have even the faintest inkling that anything is being manipulated.
  #82  
Old 02-21-2018, 11:20 AM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I just think it makes infinitely more sense that such a complex and apparently consequential system had a design and serves some cosmic plan, rather than it being a " Big Accident."
Ordinary men cannot know any of what this 'plan' is because of the limitations in his perception. It's like microbes in a drop of water- poke around with a needle, apply an electric current, inject chemicals, and they won't have even the faintest inkling that anything is being manipulated.
That's more of an assertion than an argument. What's the evidence for the design, the designer, the cosmic plan?
  #83  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:11 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I just think it makes infinitely more sense that such a complex and apparently consequential system had a design and serves some cosmic plan, rather than it being a " Big Accident."
Well, at least this is the right forum for proselyting.

So what's the point? Does the above article of faith affect your life in any measurable way?
  #84  
Old 02-21-2018, 12:28 PM
storyteller0910 storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
The plan is beyond our comprehension. The superbeing is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, yet somehow it has wants, it can take action (something that would seem impossible for an omnipotent entity) and it gets angry. If you cannot make sense of those contradictory properties, any “plan” is going to be impossible to ken.
Disclaimer: I am not religious; I don't really believe in a higher anything.

When I was a pre-teen, I spent a lot of time playing a board game called Strat-O-Matic Baseball. The details aren't important, but the essence of the game was that you had a bunch of cards representing real life players, and you rolled dice to determine the outcomes of each at bat based on the real-life statistics of the players. I guess you could play with other people, but I mostly played it as a kind of nerdy solitaire. I'd "manage" both teams lineups, keep score, and track every player's statistics over time in a little spiral notebook.

(God, I was a nerd)

Now, I made a strict effort to follow the rules. Whatever the dice said, that's what happened. But of course I had preferred outcomes. I wanted the Mets to win. I wanted my favorite players to do well. And of course, sometimes the dice rolls didn't align with my preferences. Nine times out of ten, I lived with it. But every once in a while, it'd be Darryl Strawberry with the bases loaded and I'd roll a six and the card would say Darryl struck out. And I'd just say, "well, it's my fake world, so no, Darryl hit a double."

So: in the "world" I had created, I was effectively omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. But because I self-imposed limits on my power, I had unfulfilled wants, and I occasionally took action and/or got frustrated or angry.

Like I said, I don't think there is a god. But if there is, the Strat-O-Matic Baseball model is the one that makes the most sense to me.
  #85  
Old 02-21-2018, 01:18 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I just think it makes infinitely more sense that such a complex and apparently consequential system had a design and serves some cosmic plan, rather than it being a " Big Accident."
Ordinary men cannot know any of what this 'plan' is because of the limitations in his perception. It's like microbes in a drop of water- poke around with a needle, apply an electric current, inject chemicals, and they won't have even the faintest inkling that anything is being manipulated.
If the Universe couldn't have been created except by some conscious plan, what about the entity that planned the Universe? Did it come about by some even greater plan? Or what?

The point is, either there's an infinite regress of causes, or there was an uncaused first cause. Either choice seems ridiculous. Every effect has a cause, right? Yeah, it does...in our Universe, with our laws of physics and causality. Everything in the Universe obeys the physical laws of the Universe. But our Universe didn't come into being from our Universe. The laws that govern everything in our Universe don't necessarily apply to the Universe itself. Or maybe they do. But how could we know? We're part of the Universe, and know nothing about any larger context--if any--our Universe exists in.

Or if you're not talking about the creation of the Universe, but rather life on Earth? Abiogenesis, or evolution, or whatever? Dude, come on. Maybe life on Earth didn't arise "naturally", or maybe it did. But what does that have to do with God? Because however life on Earth arose, it's been bacteria and pond scum for billions of years, and then multicellular life for 650 million years, and then the age of Mammals for 65 million years. Humans are just a particular species of ape with a particularly large brain, and apes are just a particular type of primate, and primates are just a particular type of mammal.

The idea that God set up this planet and seeded it with life 4 billion years ago, all so that life would evolve into human beings so that God would get amusement from torturing us is just bonkers. Like, seriously bonkers.

Last edited by Lemur866; 02-21-2018 at 01:20 PM.
  #86  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:05 PM
Marcus Flavius Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
That's more of an assertion than an argument. What's the evidence for the design, the designer, the cosmic plan?
What about the simple fact that there is something here? This implies a 'creator', at least for those of us who believe that 'something cannot come from nothing' in the absolute meaning of those terms.

More evidence would be cosmic order. This implies 'conscious intent', at least for those of us who don't believe that order can come about solely by accident or randomness

More evidence would be the inherent inefficiency of nature. This suggests a design, as one would expect a mechanical process to be more efficient.

Additional evidence would be the alleged existence of consciousness in the universe and in ourselves. This also implies the existence of a conscious creator, at least for those of us who don't believe that consciousness can somehow 'arise' solely via the interaction of mechanical forces.
  #87  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:13 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,240
So the evidence suggests a creator, for people who believe in a creator. Tautolo-licious!
  #88  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:34 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Wait...so you're saying that the inefficiency of nature proves a creator, because only a creator could be so inefficient? Do I have that right?

And if "something cannot come from nothing" then where did the creator come from? A creator is something, right?
  #89  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:41 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
What about the simple fact that there is something here? This implies a 'creator', at least for those of us who believe that 'something cannot come from nothing' in the absolute meaning of those terms.
The creator itself excepted, I assume.

Quote:
More evidence would be cosmic order. This implies 'conscious intent', at least for those of us who don't believe that order can come about solely by accident or randomness

More evidence would be the inherent inefficiency of nature. This suggests a design, as one would expect a mechanical process to be more efficient.

Additional evidence would be the alleged existence of consciousness in the universe and in ourselves. This also implies the existence of a conscious creator, at least for those of us who don't believe that consciousness can somehow 'arise' solely via the interaction of mechanical forces.
This is all begging the question: assuming that life as we know it can't arise through non-supernatural means, then using that belief as evidence for supernatural creation.

Point being, since your belief in supernatural creation is thus based on nothing but gut feelings and assumptions (nothing external to yourself, no data), don't you think it's very possible for this belief to be influenced by your mood or general disposition? You feel negatively about the world, so you believe in an evil creator.
  #90  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:42 PM
TreacherousCretin's Avatar
TreacherousCretin TreacherousCretin is offline
Horrified Onlooker
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Posts: 5,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
What about the simple fact that there is something here? This implies a 'creator', at least for those of us who believe that 'something cannot come from nothing' in the absolute meaning of those terms.

More evidence would be cosmic order. This implies 'conscious intent', at least for those of us who don't believe that order can come about solely by accident or randomness

More evidence would be the inherent inefficiency of nature. This suggests a design, as one would expect a mechanical process to be more efficient.

Additional evidence would be the alleged existence of consciousness in the universe and in ourselves. This also implies the existence of a conscious creator, at least for those of us who don't believe that consciousness can somehow 'arise' solely via the interaction of mechanical forces.
If you're willing to believe that God came from nothing, you have no basis whatsoever for denying that the Universe could just as easily have come from nothing.
  #91  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:46 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Just to expand slightly: attributing human characteristics to aspects of nature is nothing new, it's called the anthropomorphic fallacy. As a human, you interpret events through a human lens, and assign it human motivations.
  #92  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:47 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
What about the simple fact that there is something here? This implies a 'creator', at least for those of us who believe that 'something cannot come from nothing' in the absolute meaning of those terms.
Holding to this assumption would also require a creator for that creator, and so on.

Quote:
More evidence would be cosmic order. This implies 'conscious intent', at least for those of us who don't believe that order can come about solely by accident or randomness
Considering that we can see natural/accidental/random order occurring all around us, this seems nonsensical.

Quote:
More evidence would be the inherent inefficiency of nature. This suggests a design, as one would expect a mechanical process to be more efficient.
I don't get this at all. Why would we expect it to be more efficient? Why would we expect a creator to be less efficient? Nature is as efficient as it needs to be, pretty much by definition.

Quote:
Additional evidence would be the alleged existence of consciousness in the universe and in ourselves. This also implies the existence of a conscious creator, at least for those of us who don't believe that consciousness can somehow 'arise' solely via the interaction of mechanical forces.
This circles back to the first problem -- if consciousness can't arise "naturally", then something created the conscious creator.

IMO, all of these assertions further complicate the universe, rather than simplify it. Adding a creator adds more questions than it answers. If there could be a creator without a creator of its own, then there can be a universe without a creator. If a universe requires a creator, then how can a creator exist without a creator of its own? If a creator can be eternal, then so can the universe (or whatever existence allows things like the Big Bang to occur). If the universe or existence can't be eternal, then why can a creator?
  #93  
Old 02-21-2018, 02:51 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
I just think it makes infinitely more sense that such a complex and apparently consequential system had a design and serves some cosmic plan, rather than it being a " Big Accident."
There was one acacia tree in the trackless Sahara. All by itself. The nearest tree to it was 250 miles away. A drunk semi driver managed to hit and destroy it.

Which is to say that if an accident can happen it will happen. If we are here by accident, it is because we had to happen. I mean, the universe is slightly larger than the Sahara.
  #94  
Old 02-21-2018, 11:20 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I am curious but skeptical. For one thing, how could you possibly tell the difference between a universe that wasn't created and one that was created to look as though it wasn't created?
You should be skeptical- I can't say for sure that this theory adds up. Hopefully the answer to your question is contained in my explanation though.

What do we know (or think we know) about the universe? That it started with the Big Bang. The story there is that there was no universe at all, "then" there was this sort of primordial egg ("then" in quotes because there is no time at this point), then the primordial egg goes kablooey and Big Bangs into the universe we inhabit today. Some people might argue that the primordial egg was always there. I think this theory makes more sense if things start out as just plain nothing, but it doesn't really matter.

What do we know about the primordial egg? Well, "before" the Big Bang (again, there is no time "yet"), the universe exists in a timeless, dimensionless "space" (it is dimensionless, no X, Y, or Z, so "space" isn't quite accurate, but never mind that). Presumably time and space do not even exist until the first instant of the Big Bang. Imagine, the entire universe squeezed into a point!

The universe nowadays, as you can tell just by looking around, especially with telescopes &etc, is composed of perhaps an infinite number of separate objects. Right? But at the start, the whole thing was timeless and without dimension.

Which brings us to the crux of the theory. One of the foundations of mathematics is the Identity Axiom, the notion that A = A. Well, looking at the progression of the universe, it seems that there can be no identity in the primordial egg- pick any one of the infinite number of objects in the universe, and in the original state it is indistinguishable from any other object, or indeed from the entire rest of the universe.

Which means that, if it isn't still true, at least at the start it was the case that A != A, Identity does/did not hold. K? A != A.

So, hang on to this and think about the "pre"-primordial egg phase, the one in which there is no universe at all. There is no time, no space, and also no universe. Well, A != A, so if A = nada, nada != nada. Nonexistence is apparently unstable, it just flips into existence because A != A.

So the universe isn't created, it arises spontaneously because A != A. You could call A =! A "non-duality", but that may be a whole 'nother leap. But there ya go.
  #95  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:01 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
In other words, nothing is a state, but it is stateless, so it cannot be a state. Considering all things, nothing must be classified as a thing, but it is not a thing, being nothing. Nothing is not an “it”, so no description can be given. Nothing is paradoxical – which is ok, because paradoxes do exist. But nothing does not exist. Logically, nothing must become something, in order to resolve the stateless state.

Or something like that.
  #96  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:06 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,084
More 'both at the same time', I think. And quantum physics is actually like that!

Last edited by Try2B Comprehensive; 02-22-2018 at 12:06 AM.
  #97  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:26 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Well, I think that is not quite right. Quantum entities are things, which have a state. They are never stateless, as such. We cannot observe quantum particles without affecting their state, which we perceive as behaving in a particle-like way or a wave-like way, but the quantum duality is merely a side effect of our limited means of observing them and their behavior. I suspect that there could be a gauge field construction that might provide a single definition of quantum entities that satisfactorily resolves the duality.

Nothing, by contrast, cannot be observed or studied, because it does not exist. We can only infer and extrapolate its non-qualities. Rather like what we can guess about the region between an event horizon and a singularity, but with less to go on.
  #98  
Old 02-22-2018, 12:42 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Well, I think that is not quite right. Quantum entities are things, which have a state. They are never stateless, as such. We cannot observe quantum particles without affecting their state, which we perceive as behaving in a particle-like way or a wave-like way, but the quantum duality is merely a side effect of our limited means of observing them and their behavior.
I don't think so. Consider the Qubit:
Quote:
In quantum computing, a qubit (/ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit (sometimes qbit) is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical binary bit. A qubit is a two-state quantum-mechanical system, such as the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other. However, quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property that is fundamental to quantum computing.
Turns out it isn't about "our" observing a thing, but the universe interacting with it, as if everything is the observer. The quantum duality is not a side effect.
Quote:
Nothing, by contrast, cannot be observed or studied, because it does not exist. We can only infer and extrapolate its non-qualities. Rather like what we can guess about the region between an event horizon and a singularity, but with less to go on.
Do you personally think the Universe began as nothing? Or was it always something? And, why wouldn't axioms break down at the surface of the primordial egg?
  #99  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:04 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Do you personally think the Universe began as nothing? Or was it always something? And, why wouldn't axioms break down at the surface of the primordial egg?
I personally believe that the lifespan of the universe is an oversimplification. It neither began nor was it always ever there. Fact is, I do not know. Things coming into existence and later going out of existence are concepts that make sense to us. As far as I can tell, the universe has no obligation to make any kind of sense.

And then there are the layers. When we discover something, we peel back its cloak, and once it is exposed, we see that there is another layer under it, hiding a new thing to discover. I suspect that the layers may be endless, for all intents and purposes. Anyone who claims to have a flat, pat answer to all of it has never had a chance to see the layers.
  #100  
Old 02-22-2018, 01:35 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLir View Post
Who needs 10 Kyears? I once did a fun talk on prediction in science fiction based on Star Trek (TOS).

You know - turbolift doors that are at almost every supermarket, Yeoman Rand having Kirk sign orders on her tablet, Uhura and her Bluetooth headset, away teams calling on their cellphones, Sulu inserting a USB memory into the nav console, McCoy using a pressure injector, etc., etc., et cetera.
Those doors predated Trek. And I hope you got the correct prediction that the rocket making the first moon landing would take off on a Wednesday. Which Apollo 11 did.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017