Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wesley on January 10, 2012 at 12:21am

Why do you keep assuming a decision from a non-sentient thing?    The Universimigator doesn't decide anything it just is and has as its fuction or byproduct the making of  big bangs'.. and we are a by-product of that.

  Of course there's no reason to believe in the Universimigator.. but it IS a possible 'creation' scenario (of this universe) that doesn't include a sentient creator god.  I'm sure that MANY folks could come up with much better ideas than this.  This was just a quick example off the top of my head.

There is no real creation out of 'nothing'...for the universimigator exists in all the other dimensions and the big bang and time etc... comes out from that source.

But as I've already said this is just off the top of my head and I'm sure folks could come up with much better ideas that don't include an ever existant divine sentient being.

" and how do you imagine it finely tuned the expansion rate of the Big Bang ?"

Out of the billions upon billions of big bangs produced by the Universimigator the conditions were right for the production and evolution of life leading to Human life...  But there may also be other sentient forms based upon other things than carbon that exist in other big bang universes with different expansion rates.  We just happen to be a product of this one.

You gotta start trying to think outside the box.

 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 5:26pm

Angelo,

 

Still irrelevant. Let me dispatch this.

 

Adherents have a predictable pattern of appealing to cognitive modes of fantasy. This creates fundamental logical problems in their arguments which the deconverter can readily exploit. We can frame this formally as a problem having to do with what is called the “necessary and sufficient” clause of empirical reality. To wit, a thing is necessary and sufficient provided:

1.)   A set of values for independent variables are operationally observed to have been necessary and sufficient for an hypothesized value of a dependent variable to obtain AND

2.)   All independent and dependent variables are sufficiently well defined.

Something is sufficiently well defined iff there can be found some causal link in which it can be entrained consisting of at least one antecedent and one descendent such that the effect of the causes entrained can be, in principle, reliably predicted in advance. That is, the causal train must be, in principle, algorithmic and deterministic.

An excellent hands-on example of the Second Axiom regards the so-called First Causes argument used by apologists of various faiths. Popular and oft-accepted without any critical thought whatsoever, even some of the most educated members of society repeat this fallacy ad nausea. Let us dispatch it by contradiction to illustrate:

First please allow me to introduce some basic logical terminology to describe what one might call the No Evil Genius’ Proof:

"Something" (think an event) is possible in a system Q (think universe) "in principle" if Q admits of "Something" that is sufficiently well defined relative to Q.

The word "admit" here is taken to mean "allows"; in the sense that the "laws" governing all behaviors in Q "allows" an event to occur. Those laws are simply the essence of what Q is; it is what defines Q as Q.

"Sufficiently well defined" relative to Q here means the set of properties (to include possibly laws) in Q minimally sufficient to causally entrain an arbitrary event, call it k₁, occurring in Q into the causal history of Q. The causal history of Q is the set of events that did, are and will (think all conjugations of “to be”) occur in Q “since” its creation. Think of it like a proton. a proton in free space has what is called a Hilbert Space that describes all its possible states (degrees of freedom). All those allowed states are allowed because of the properties of the spatial system in which it is defined; that is, Q. So, a particle can have mass, for example. That is “allowed” because that is how Q (the universe) works.

Now, we can formalize our statement supra to a first-order approximation of where we’re going with this:

Let an event k₁ be sufficiently well defined relative to a spatial system Q. An event k₁ is possible in a spatial system Q in principle if Q admits of k₁.

Now, consider two spatial systems R and S. Let an event k₁ be sufficiently well defined relative to R.

In order for causality between R and S to exist, a special condition must be met. Let an arbitrary event k₂ ∈ S.

Let the subset of all properties A ∈ R necessary and sufficient to define k₁ relative to R be denoted, r, and the subset of all properties B ∈ S necessary and sufficient to define k₂ relative to S, denoted s.

Now, the required condition is trivial,

r ∈ S, R and s ∈ S, R ∵ s ≡  r.

must hold.

But this is just the same as if r ∈ R and s ∈ R where R is the natural world exposed to empiricism and s contains all the properties necessary and sufficient to define a cause that is super natural. But that means that s can be fully predicted and understood using empiricism alone, which is not allowed under the presumptive definition of a god.  Q.E.D.

This is just how easy it is to disprove “gods”. Unfortunately, few understand it. Therefore, other approaches should be put before the adherent. This proof is provided primarily for the deconverter to better understand both the problem and opportunity outlined by the Second Axiom of Deconversion.

Scholium:

Due to the somewhat obtuse manner in which a formal topic such as the above can be introduced, and appreciating how important it is for adherents to understand all Axioms if at all possible, we will attempt to expand on what this implies in a real world scenario.

Recall the key lemma:

Something is sufficiently well defined iff there can be found some causal link in which it can be entrained consisting of at least one antecedent and one descendent such that the effect of the causes entrained can be, in principle, reliably predicted in advance. That is, the causal train must be algorithmic and deterministic.

Let’s be blunter. Whenever a condition ‘exists’ such that it is not sufficiently well defined we are, in effect saying it in the equivalent way as well:

Whenever a condition ‘exists’ such that it cannot be sufficiently well defined in order to entrain any such event (“condition”) in a causal linkage such that it can be algorithmically and deterministically predicted in advance, the “condition” referenced is logically meaningless and irrational, relative to any observer k_n whose existence is necessarily and sufficiently defined in nature (as opposed to super nature).

Yea, but why?

Whenever a condition ‘exists’ such that it lacks the definition required in order to entrain any such event (“condition”) in a causal linkage such that it can be algorithmically and deterministically predicted in advance, the “condition” constitutes an infinite effects scenario whereby the “condition”, as we attempt to entrain it, can produce any effect and we have no way of knowing which one is the correct one. It is the very concept of “definition” itself that allows us to narrow the infinite list down to something finite and, if sufficient, to a single cause.

The reader may care to note now, as this concept begins to sink in, how philosophical arguments all have the quality of over generalizing in such a manner as to deny logically valid application to the real, tangible, physical universe. And this is why all the philosophical arguments (or the vast majority) are nonsense. In our case we held strictly to nature and required, as we must, that whatever we claim can be causally entrained in nature, even if only in principle.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 27, 2011 at 8:26am

@Angelo

and what evidence do you have on hand, the universe is self existent ? 

We don't need any, since that is a completely separate issue than claiming there is no god.  Maybe the universe is "self existent" maybe it isn't.  But even if it isn't, that doesn't mean god did it.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 6, 2012 at 5:14am

So, its not self existent, what alternative to God as its cause to you suggest ?

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 5:28pm

Hey Angelo,

 

Read my previous response. All of your queries are meaningless.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Alexander Miner on January 9, 2012 at 1:33pm

He can't read that much, bro.

Permalink Reply by Rob Lippmann on December 26, 2011 at 3:13pm

I'll try to play this game.

1.  There exists a way of gathering knowledge through empirical observation, known as science, that is unparalleled in it's ability to construct a picture of the cosmos, verify the accuracy of this picture, and to suggest verifiable possible explanations for the existence of this cosmos.

2. No other means of acquiring knowledge has shown itself to be the equal of science, including divine revelation.

3. Various theories using science have been put forth to  explain the existence of the cosmos--the Big Bang is the runaway favorite.  Other explanations are being studied currently, some referred to above, that may eventually explain the reason for the Big Bang.  Some might solve the problem of infinite regression.

4.  None of these theories requires the existence of a first cause that also has a personality--some don't even posit a traditional Aristotelian first cause at all (see quantum fluctuations).

5. Therefore, without a need to invoke the existence of some sort of divine creator (or personal creator of any sort, such as Lovecraftian transdimensional entities), one can positively affirm a case for strong atheism as the conclusion that best fits the evidence gathered by the most reliable means.  No need to bash religion to affirm this, as much fun as that can be!     

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 26, 2011 at 3:43pm

  Some might solve the problem of infinite regression.

your answer is very superficial and vague.....to bring up a convincing argument, i guess going a little deeper would be apropriate. What does in your view solve the problem of infinite regression ?

Permalink Reply by Rob Lippmann on December 26, 2011 at 5:16pm

Without a definite answer that settles the question once and for all, I must leave it at superficial and vague.  The possibilities alone (quantum fluctuation, or a variation of the Casimir effect on a cosmic scale), however, are enough to make a positive case for atheism, and even if there is infinite regression (such as with colliding branes or a cyclical collapse/bang cycle), there is no need for a deity to explain the existence of everything, and atheism still stands.  I don't know what kind of answer will satisfy the court in the Hall of the Mountain King, but this works for me--much better than faith does, or Bronze Age scriptures cribbed from ancient empires by desert savages.   

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 5:28pm

Hey Angelo,

 

What does in your view solve the problem of infinite regression ?

 

It doesn't have to because "infinite regression" is utterly meaningless.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 26, 2011 at 7:35pm

There exists a way of gathering knowledge through empirical observation, known as science, that is unparalleled in it's ability to construct a picture of the cosmos, verify the accuracy of this picture, and to suggest verifiable possible explanations for the existence of this cosmos.

You cannot observe historical facts.  And so not verify them . The more science discovers, the more the signature of a creator becomes evident.......

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on December 27, 2011 at 10:00pm

Let me ask this.. what exactly is this 'signature of a creator' you mention? If you've never directly met them or talked them them directly then just how exactly do you presume to see any type of 'signature' you think they've left? ... I ask this because for me the more science discovers, the more there's proof that a higher being doesn't exist.

Also, though you can not observe historical facts, you can acquire more information about particular periods in which these facts happened. Take for instance Christmas. To you and me it's always been there and always been observed. Now did you know that it wasn't until the middle of the 4th century that Christmas began to be observed, let alone being observed on Dec 25th. ? How do we know this? Historical documents from the time tell us this. They also tell us that the date was chosen in an attempt to convert those who had observed the Roman Holiday Saturnalia. ... We also know that if we take the clues from the Bible in relation to Christ's birth it gets put in the Spring.. not to far from when some currently Easter (which, too, was another pagan Holiday Christians took over in an attempt to convert-- bet you wondered what eggs and rabbits had to do with Easter didn't you..? )

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page