Author Topic: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?  (Read 48895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
  • Darwins +52/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #493 on: June 04, 2013, 02:02:29 AM »
Quote from: Greenandwhite
Ockham's razor only rejects gratuitous appeals to greater complexity - if a more complex theory is required to explain an effect then it is legitimate.
Not whilst a simpler one exists. Thus it would be discarded.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #494 on: June 04, 2013, 02:04:55 AM »
     That you find a logically inescapable conclusion absurd means you have not given it enough consideration. IMO, the notion that a singular human consciousness will exist forever is what is absurd. Can you please explain what you think you'll be doing for eternity?

     Saying that 'on an endless timeline everything that can happen will happen' is not a logically inescapable conclusion because you have not specified the conditions under which those things will be happening.  If for all eternity someone is flipping a coin then it is relatively trivial to see that at some point the coin will land heads up a hundred consecutive times, but if there is no coin and no coin flipper then an eternal timeline makes no difference at all.  Some things require more than just time to become actualized, and I would say that changing the essence of who you or I am as humans is one of those things (e.g. time plus knowledge will not endow me with the same power or ability that God purportedly has).  It would also require more than the mere passage of time to turn you from an atheist into a Christian which was the point of my example. 
     Why do you think that a singular human consciousness existing forever is absurd; do you think a soul is going to 'wear out' over time like a physical body? And what does the possibility that boredom might be the result of existing for an eternity have to do with the question of whether or not a disembodied soul could actually exist for eternity?

Offline Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #495 on: June 04, 2013, 02:11:26 AM »
Quote from: Greenandwhite
Ockham's razor only rejects gratuitous appeals to greater complexity - if a more complex theory is required to explain an effect then it is legitimate.
Not whilst a simpler one exists. Thus it would be discarded.

     Correct, if self-causation or metaphysical necessity of the universe is simpler and explanatorily adequate, then Ockham's razor would prohibit moving causation back one level.  A theist would simply maintain that self causation or metaphysical necessity as applying to the universe itself do not have the required explanatory power - the theist's beef is not with Ockham's razor.

Offline Greenandwhite

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
  • Darwins +5/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #496 on: June 04, 2013, 02:25:53 AM »
     A supernatural being would be able alter the eternal laws of the universe to suit one person who prayed, thus, on the macro- and micro-level we would see numerous diversions from the predicted: we do not.  In fact, we would have two distinct patterns, one where current laws were obeyed and another where clear evidence of the supernatural could be seen. We do not see the latter.

     You talk about two distinct possible patterns: obedience to the laws of nature and occurrences where clear evidence of the supernatural could be seen.  Is this the same as saying that if God existed we would have two patterns: (1) the laws of nature hold giving us confidence that God is not working in those situations and (2) the laws of nature are 'disobeyed' giving us clear evidence that a supernatural being is at work?

     The conclusion of the following statement is so deceptive as to be false: " the observational experience of homo erectus has been that nature is characterized by predictable patterns, but this does not in any way imply metaphysical necessity[nb]for the sake of the record, I would ask you to define your term "metaphysical necessity" in the light of the Higgs Boson."


     The Higgs Boson has no bearing whatsoever on the definition of metaphysical necessity.  Metaphysical necessity always means that the entity that possesses it as a property could not have failed to exist. 

     Once a law has been established, variance from it is not possible. If there is an exception then it is incumbent upon use to find out why, rather than introduce the infinitely more complicated "supernatural". Once the exception is shown, then the law is amended. This is distinct from the infantile explanation "God did it."

     Why is variance not possible?  Referring to a natural law being 'established' is a reference to the inductive process that was used to establish the law in the first place (e.g. observation gives us future expectations).  It seems illegitimate to me to say that variance is not possible simply because of the observations that I have made. 


Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #497 on: June 04, 2013, 02:40:05 AM »
     When you look at a Rube Goldberg machine (e.g. his flyswatter); they always seem more complex than the everyday item that they replace - perhaps they exhibit unnecessary complexity, but it seems to be complexity nonetheless.  If the number of parts is what determines complexity, then surely it is theoretically possible for a creator to create something more complex than herself - how easy it would be to do so would depend upon how one divides the brain up into integral parts - how many 'parts' are there?  How many parts would comprise a disembodied spiritual being which, presumably, is what a 'prime mover' of the universe would be.
The Goldberg flyswatter may clearly be more complex than the simple flyswatter it is meant to replace, but is it more complex than Goldberg himself? That is the question we seek to answer here.
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Online bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1444
  • Darwins +52/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #498 on: June 04, 2013, 03:00:44 AM »
Quote from: Greenandwhite
Ockham's razor only rejects gratuitous appeals to greater complexity - if a more complex theory is required to explain an effect then it is legitimate.
Not whilst a simpler one exists. Thus it would be discarded.

     Correct, if self-causation or metaphysical necessity of the universe is simpler and explanatorily adequate, then Ockham's razor would prohibit moving causation back one level.  A theist would simply maintain that self causation or metaphysical necessity as applying to the universe itself do not have the required explanatory power - the theist's beef is not with Ockham's razor.
Yet! What you have stated, says it is. (My emphasis)
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #499 on: June 04, 2013, 04:25:18 AM »
     So when it comes to an ultimate being - a being who sits on the very, very furthest point of the curve - unpredictability all of a sudden can NOT be an issue.  That being would have to react the same every time - because if it didn't, we would rightly say "well, clearly its not the ultimate then".  An ultimate god's behaviour should be absolutely, 100% predictable.  If it is not, then either that being is not truly god; or we are ascribing wrong characteristics to that being (i.e. it is not really good); or that being does not exist.  For god to exist, be perfect, AND be unpredictable, is not a logically tenable position.

     For a couple of reasons I do not agree that a perfect being must be 100% predictable:

First, perceived unpredictability does not necessarily indicate actual unpredictability.  A predictable being is one who acts in similar ways in similar situations - all other things being equal.  I am just wondering how, if you see unpredictable behaviour, you know that all other things actually are equal.  In other words, unpredictable behaviour seems to say more about the person perceiving it rather than the person demonstrating it - how much more so with a supernatural being?

Second, in my case I don't think that unpredictability is necessarily what makes me imperfect.  If I wear a red shirt on Monday and a white shirt on Tuesday, that doesn’t seem to indicate any imperfection in my character – why would I be more perfect if I wore a white shirt both days?  In the case of a perfectly good, supernatural being it sounds to me like you are focusing more on questions of justice (e.g. a perfectly just being would be completely predictable in rendering judgements – at least to an observer who also has a grasp of perfect justice).  This seems to be rather far removed from the original criticism that a miracle would demonstrate unpredictability on God’s part – why should a being perfectly predictable on matters of justice have to be perfectly predictable on matters of communication?

Because a perfect being would know - and utilise - the perfect response in each situation.  It may not wear red or white every day, but on the days it did it would be the perfect choice.

And that perfection DOES lead to predictability.  If the perfect choice in greeting me in the morning is "hello" (rather than "hi", "hotcha", or "s'up?"), then "hello" WILL be the predictable greeting to me every morning.

Of course, an all-knowing being that can predict the paths of the future might indeed show some variation - one day he may say "hi", knowing that this will annoy me and make me walk away sooner and thus avoid the falling ceiling tile.....as you say, determining predictability relies on knowledge of all the circumstances.

But, given that the response will ALWAYS be the "best for the circumstances", we should at the very least be able to detect strong patterns of response.  Extremely similar situations should lead to extremely similar responses - but of course they do not.  There is no pattern that can be detected, and so we get back to the "mysterious ways" argument.

Which is similar to my point about the afterlife.  If god is SO utterly unpredictable, then there is no way I can evaluate what response there will be to particular action on my part (to say nothing of the point that an unpredictable god is indistinguishable from no god at all).  I might pray tonight, and immediately get a full and frank response - or I might pray for the rest of my life, and experience nothing.  Again, where is the incentive for me to do anything?

There might not be one, of course - but underlying ALL of this is the general assertions that (a) god loves me, and (b) god wants me to be saved.  And if one holds that those two tenets are true, then - if this god IS perfect and good also - then there should be a heck of a lot more consistency in its alleged interactions with the world.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1781
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #500 on: June 04, 2013, 07:10:09 AM »
In following the more recent posts in this thread, it occurs to me that there should be more of a distinction between the terms "creator" and "god" as they have been used here.

The argument seems to be the old one of complexity necessitating a creator, but why should this creator be termed "god" ?

For the agnostic atheist who rejects the god models of all actual religions out there as impossible yet still does not go so far as to say that there is no possibility of there being some intelligence which put everything in motion, it seems that calling this intelligence a god muddles it all up with the concept of some (generally) benevolent force which continues to watch with interest, and occasionally interact with his creation.

It's in trying to anthropomorphize this being and attributing human motivation & reactions to it that we get bogged down because as soon as you start pinning specifics on something the very existence of which is impossible to prove, you are off in a whole different argument.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #501 on: June 04, 2013, 08:06:40 AM »
My daughter and I did a bit of a Star Wars marathon this weekend.  And I've got to tell you, after packing Episodes 4, 5 and 6 into two days, I'm pretty sure the Force is with me.  I feel it.

I asked my 6 year old why she liked Star Wars so much, and I was actually surprised by her answer.  She said "Because you get to see what aliens might be like and travel to different planets, and when everyone dies, they come back as spirits."

Who wouldn't want to believe?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #502 on: June 04, 2013, 09:15:18 AM »
     Does information have a one-to-one correspondence with real life entities?

Complete information about reality, does.  It is, by definition, all of the information about the real life entity.  An omniscient god has that.

For example, if I were to write out a description of a Rube Goldberg machine, you could perhaps divide my paragraph into phrases and demonstrate a correspondence between each phrase and the component in the machine that it represents.

That would gloss over great swaths of information about the real-life machine.  What temperature are the pieces?  What specific molecular arrangement exists in each bit of plastic?  What % of each metal isotope exists in which places of every metal part?  Etc.  None of these details are likely to be in the design one uses to construct the real-life machine, and yet all of them contribute to the real-life machine's complexity.  This information already existed, for the most part, and is inherited from the components one selects to build the machine, rather than imparted by the human assembler.

But does that kind of correspondence hold when talking about a creator's grasp of informational content pertaining to his creation?  For instance, I could also take a picture of a Rube Goldberg machine (i.e. a picture is worth a thousand words) and then it would seem that I have done away with one-to-one concept-to-information correspondence.

You have not pictured the whole machine.  You've pictured some essential bits of the machine's function.  As human beings, we cannot know everything there is to know about the machine, even when thinking about it hypothetically prior to actually making it.  We gloss over most of its complexity - we can take it for granted, in practical terms.

But then, we're not creating it completely from scratch with full knowledge of its makeup.  That's the analogy breaker - a god supposedly would, because there are no pre-existing parts to assemble that carry their own complexity.  Everything about the creation is poofed into existence directly by the mind of the god.  So where did its details get decided?  Where, if not from the mind of the god, did the information come from?

     I think that when I look at a Rube Goldberg machine the complexity I perceive is that which is due to the relations between the individual parts - the relations between the parts is due to the creator of the machine and not to the creators of the individual parts.

Yes.  Me too.  A Rube Goldberg machine isn't necessarily any more complex than a "simple" machine, when you get down to all its real details.  Only on the level of human assembly and operation is it more complex.

The parts could certainly exist apart from the machine, but the added complexity comes when the creator arranges them into a specific configuration.

Exactly.  The amount of complexity that is added is what we have a copy of in our minds.  We are merely assemblers and operators, and so the complexity of assembly and operation is contained both by the machine and in our minds.  This isn't useful for comparing whether we are more complex than our machines, because most of our complexity has nothing to do with that knowledge, and most of the machine's complexity has nothing to do with it either.  We just tend to focus on that part because we're biased to look at what we've contributed over what we havn't.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2254
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #503 on: June 04, 2013, 11:00:44 AM »
Jdawg I would not suggest the fountain of youth exists.
Never said you would suggest it.  But if someone else were to suggest it (i.e. by asking you "Does the fountain of youth exist?"), I contend that you would give the same answer as you would if someone else were to suggest god exists (i.e. by asking you "Does god exist?").
Quote
There is no need for it to exist.  The universe had to come from somewhere either manufactured or created. 
Not sure that follows actually.  The existence of the universe does not necessitate a point of creation.  While the current form factor of the universe appears to have a distinct 'beginning' (the epoch of the start of the Big Bang event), that doesn't necessarily mean that the totality of existence started at that event.  It could have had a different form for example.  Needless to say our observations are insufficient to do anything but speculate as to the nature of reality at and before the first few femtoseconds after the Big Bang event.
Quote
I am also an atheist leaning agnostic.  I don't know but I lean toward atheism
If you don't want the label of 'agnostic atheist' that is your prerogative.  But by all accounts your viewpoint matches very nicely with that label.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2254
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #504 on: June 04, 2013, 11:05:20 AM »
The word complexity is very vague here.  Do either you or Greenandwhite know of any means of measuring complexity?  Were the machines in The Matrix more complex than the humans?  Was the virtual human society more complex than the sentient machine society?
This is a good question, JD, as I am unaware of an objective "scale of complexity" to utilize here. I think the Matrix example was referring to how, much like in the Terminator series, the machines created by man eventually became the dominant "species" on the planet, but does that necessarily make them more complex than man? I don't know, but again, that's all fiction. The day a machine actually does become self aware and fully independent I guess we'll find out, assuming such a thing is even possible.

Doing away with fiction then, can you (or anyone else reading this) give an example of a creation that became more complex than its creator?
I sadly do not have a useful metric for objectively measuring complexity.  Internally, I am bogged down by the informal concept of 'complex', which unfortunately has a significant subjective bias component - complexity in that case is a function of the entity/entities in question and my ability to comprehend it/them.  One possible metric may be possible future states of a system; system A could be said to be more complex than system B if the number of realizable future-states (atomic spin, position of subwidgets, temperature, etc.) of system A is greater than that of system B.

Even disregarding the practical difficulties of making such measurements, I'm uncertain if that metric would, at a fundamental level, make sense as a measure of complexity.

Thoughts?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2254
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #505 on: June 04, 2013, 11:07:46 AM »
My daughter and I did a bit of a Star Wars marathon this weekend.  And I've got to tell you, after packing Episodes 4, 5 and 6 into two days, I'm pretty sure the Force is with me.  I feel it.

I asked my 6 year old why she liked Star Wars so much, and I was actually surprised by her answer.  She said "Because you get to see what aliens might be like and travel to different planets, and when everyone dies, they come back as spirits."

Who wouldn't want to believe?
Do the same thing with episodes I, II, and III and see if the Force is still with you.  I suspect your 'feeling' of the Force will change to a 'feeling' that believable dialog is important :)
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #506 on: June 04, 2013, 11:41:12 AM »
Thoughts?

The idea of complexity may be a cockamamie, wholly subjective human label.  It only seems to apply to how difficult it is for us to understand a thing or to predict the outcome of a thing.  And that says more about our brains than the thing.  Nature does not seem to have any more difficulty producing an outcome for a "complex" thing than it does a "non-complex" thing. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #507 on: June 04, 2013, 12:30:48 PM »
If you don't want the label of 'agnostic atheist' that is your prerogative.  But by all accounts your viewpoint matches very nicely with that label.

I don't know where we crossed wires.   I have always considered myself agnostic atheist.    I didn't think I varied from that.

as stated several times I don't know if the universe was natural or created but I lean toward natural with no central intelligence.. 

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #508 on: June 04, 2013, 12:55:46 PM »
The idea of complexity may be a cockamamie, wholly subjective human label.  It only seems to apply to how difficult it is for us to understand a thing or to predict the outcome of a thing.  And that says more about our brains than the thing.  Nature does not seem to have any more difficulty producing an outcome for a "complex" thing than it does a "non-complex" thing.

It's not a bogus concept.  It's one valid way of looking at the 2nd Law of Thermlodynamics:  Complexity of a closed system never increases.  Evident complexity might, but that's a function of human bias.  Taking our solar system as an example of a mostly-closed system, the sun is incredibly complex (ie. it has a lot more joules within it, and a lot less entropy per joule, than the rest of the solar system).  Its complexity is transferred to the Earth in the form of (relatively) short-wave, high-information light, then emitted by the Earth in the form of long-wave, low-information light.  A lot of light of both types escapes into deep space, since our solar system isn't a closed system, but we can neglect that for the sake of the example, eh?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #509 on: June 04, 2013, 02:43:03 PM »
It's not a bogus concept.  It's one valid way of looking at the 2nd Law of Thermlodynamics:  Complexity of a closed system never increases. 

I don't find that to generally correlate with what people are talking about when they say "complexity" though.  They are not thinking about "unuseable heat energy".  They are thinking about how many components a thing has and how all those components interact.  A 400 GHz processor being more complex than a 100 GHz processor.  A human being more complex than a moth.  Kind of like when creationists talk about how evolution is just a theory.

Maybe I just don't understand.  I've never really understood how to make the jump from thermodynamics as I know it (Joules/Kelvin) to "disorder".  I've read the wiki page and I understand all the words.  They just don't mean much to me in that combination.  I hate how much smarter I was when I was in college.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #510 on: June 04, 2013, 02:55:14 PM »
I am not sure I understand Occam's razor.

Why is it impossible for the most complicated solution to be the answer?

there is a dead guy in a locked room and a woman covered in blood.

Police say look this woman killed that guy.

She says there was a fake wall that opened up and three guys with purple hair came out and beat him to death with poodles.

Upon investigation they find poodle hair and saliva all over the victim and it  turns out the simple solution was wrong.  the woman apparently was not lying and it was death by poodle.




A big bang happened from nothing, all matter eventually coalests into planets and stars and life came from random combination of chemicals creating something with thousands of chemical bonds in specific order and a cell wall formed to create life.  VS There was a being who wanted the universe and he created it in his desired manner.  Occams razor has no simple solution.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #511 on: June 04, 2013, 02:59:52 PM »
Occam's Razor is a guideline, not a law. And it does not say the most complicated answer must be wrong.  It says "do not multiply entities unnecessarily".  So if there is a pie on the counter, and you have two hypothesis as to how it got - one is your mom made it for me, the other is your mom and the holy spirit made it for me - the one most likely to be true is the most parsimonious.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11129
  • Darwins +293/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #512 on: June 04, 2013, 03:02:36 PM »
A big bang happened from nothing, all matter eventually coalests into planets and stars and life came from random combination of chemicals creating something with thousands of chemical bonds in specific order and a cell wall formed to create life.  VS There was a being who wanted the universe and he created it in his desired manner.  Occams razor has no simple solution.

I'm not in the mood for a long explanation, but suffice it to say that you have no clue what you're talking about. Another member should come by and give you the usual explanation, which you'll likely ignore.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Karl

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #513 on: June 04, 2013, 03:04:42 PM »
Sorry, lots of posts but in reply to epidemic.

A big bang happened from nothing.

Now that is entire bollocks. Saying I do not know goes fine with me. But something coming from nothing. Crap. Easy, I am not a theist.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12432
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #514 on: June 04, 2013, 09:16:19 PM »
I don't find that to generally correlate with what people are talking about when they say "complexity" though.  They are not thinking about "unuseable heat energy".  They are thinking about how many components a thing has and how all those components interact.  A 400 GHz processor being more complex than a 100 GHz processor.  A human being more complex than a moth.  Kind of like when creationists talk about how evolution is just a theory.

That may be so.  But in the lax, every-day sense of "complexity" that you're talking about, "complexity" is not quantified.  It is totally subjective.  That people attribute a bogus concept to "complexity" doesn't mean that the term has no real scientific meaning - again, like "theory".

Maybe I just don't understand.  I've never really understood how to make the jump from thermodynamics as I know it (Joules/Kelvin) to "disorder".  I've read the wiki page and I understand all the words.  They just don't mean much to me in that combination.  I hate how much smarter I was when I was in college.

Maybe instead of "disorder", call it "stability".  As in, unlikely to be able to change to another form.  Microwave background radiation is very stable.  It's going to stay being microwave background radiation.  A gamma burst of equal energy is much less stable.  It's going to stop being a gamma burst as soon as it hits matter.

Any more helpful?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12554
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #515 on: June 05, 2013, 07:42:07 AM »
But in the lax, every-day sense of "complexity" that you're talking about, "complexity" is not quantified.  It is totally subjective.  That people attribute a bogus concept to "complexity" doesn't mean that the term has no real scientific meaning - again, like "theory".

I think we agree, then.

Any more helpful?

No, but thanks for the try.  I think the first paragraph was what I was looking for. What we are calling entropy, and religious goons are trying to call "disorder" is energy than cannot possibly be pulled back out of the background.  Background radiation, as you put it.



edit - fixed quote
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 01:21:17 PM by screwtape »
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 908
  • Darwins +61/-14
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #516 on: June 05, 2013, 12:46:55 PM »
A big bang happened from nothing, all matter eventually coalests into planets and stars and life came from random combination of chemicals creating something with thousands of chemical bonds in specific order and a cell wall formed to create life.  VS There was a being who wanted the universe and he created it in his desired manner.  Occams razor has no simple solution.

I'm not in the mood for a long explanation, but suffice it to say that you have no clue what you're talking about. Another member should come by and give you the usual explanation, which you'll likely ignore.


Well I don't know if I can clarify.  All I am saying is that people frequenly cite occams razor with regard to the universe's origin.   I see very little difference between god existing and creating a universe and the energy that makes up the universe having always existed.

They both seem impossibly complex. 

I also was trying to make a reference to the formation of life which again seems like an impossibly complex leap to the most basic form of life from raw chemical soup.  I don't say that god did it but it is way way way beyond my ability to reason for a universe to poof with no prime mover,  I see it impossibly complex that nothing could spawn a creator, and somewhat on the less complex side of things but still incredibly difficult to understand is the transition from inannimate matter to living matter.  The simplest life form seems too complex to have randomly formed.

For me it is a paradox  a universe with god or without god are both not possible, therefore none of us really exist.

Perhaps the Bob theory is right.  There is actually nothing but for an entity (lets call it bob) who for entertainment imagines the universe but in reality we are all just thoughts in his mind. :o ;D

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6866
  • Darwins +925/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #517 on: June 05, 2013, 02:36:08 PM »
I am not a physicist, but is seems to me that matter and energy could just exist, floating around and following whatever laws matter and energy follow. That could end up making the universe with planets and everything, just like sand gets swept into interesting shapes, dunes and hills by water, wind and gravity without any sentience.

But to posit that an unimaginably powerful sentient being, coming from nowhere, is somehow separate from matter and energy, and created matter and energy and the universe, along with all the laws of matter and energy, well, that seems way more complicated. And adds nothing useful to the explanation of how everything was made.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Karl

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #518 on: June 05, 2013, 03:47:17 PM »
For me it is a paradox  a universe with god or without god are both not possible, therefore none of us really exist.
The universe obviously exists and until now god never showed up. So I do not see the paradox. Last time I checked I was definitely real. So I do exist. There is evidence for that. There is no evidence that god exists.

Offline DT

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +1/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #519 on: June 05, 2013, 04:08:18 PM »
FOR THEISTS:

What would it take for you to give up believing in Jesus and/or God? Please be as specific as you can.

An interesting question that I do not think I can adequately answer, only because I did not quite believe in God at one point in my life. I never grew up in a church when I was younger, didn't know anything about God, I made up my own rules and did what I felt best in my heart at that moment, with no care. With interest in science I did not believe what I was being taught about evolution and was quick to tell myself that evolution is not science just another religion, theology that ask you to believe. Tried a bible study or two and was like whatever, but not after hearing about prayer. So I did, in my room so no one could see me I sincerely told God He had one month, if he wanted me, to show up in my life some kind of way. So randomly no matter where I went I had people asking me if I knew God and if I believed he was real for nearly three weeks straight. Graduating and continuing my studies at another institution the first person I met later became my bible study teacher.

I think the issue with atheist believing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that  the theist community wants you to swallow the same pill they have swallowed and believe on the level they believe. The truth of the matter is God is welling to meet you exactly where you are , questions, doubts, frustrations, angry and the like. The question is if you are open to it.
Again I know I did not answer your question because I can not, God is just that real to me and because I wasn't taught this at a young age, it's a little deeper for me.

Offline Karl

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #520 on: June 05, 2013, 04:20:22 PM »
FOR THEISTS:
I think the issue with atheist believing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that  the theist community wants you to swallow the same pill they have swallowed and believe on the level they believe. The truth of the matter is God is welling to meet you exactly where you are , questions, doubts, frustrations, angry and the like. The question is if you are open to it.
Again I know I did not answer your question because I can not, God is just that real to me and because I wasn't taught this at a young age, it's a little deeper for me.
There is no such thing as Atheist believe.

Obviously I am not admitted to the club. He might be welling to meet me but he has obviously forgotten his roadmap.

Very open but he still did not show up.

Insight by not learning, that's a new approach to me.

Offline DT

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +1/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #521 on: June 05, 2013, 04:20:33 PM »
For me it is a paradox  a universe with god or without god are both not possible, therefore none of us really exist.
The universe obviously exists and until now god never showed up. So I do not see the paradox. Last time I checked I was definitely real. So I do exist. There is evidence for that. There is no evidence that god exists.

There is evidence of God's existence, humanity has just taken it to disprove Him, the Bible gives some clues into his existence, and wants you to choose.

Psalm 19:1
19 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

Romans 2:15
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

Genesis 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
(NKJV)