Near perfect existence

[Chriliman]

From the same article you provided:

If the discovery announced this morning holds up, it will allow us to peer back to the very beginning of time.....

This supports my hypothesis.

A little research on what CERN is doing reveals they're up to no good.

 

[bhsmte]

A little research on what CERN is doing reveals they're up to no good.

What are they up to?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

When I look at all the data I have, I think my hypothesis is preferable to its alternative i.e. that matter somehow caused itself to come into being.

Even if mindless matter could somehow choose to create something, it seems to me that it would have to exist first.

What I find interesting is that you find that minds are the only thing that can create. Because as far as I know that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[anonymous person]

What I find interesting is that you find that minds are the only thing that can create. Because as far as I know that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you have a hypothesis that you think is worth being considered, then bring it to the table.

What do you propose could exist timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to bringing it (the universe) into existence?

What do you propose could account for our awareness of moral values and duties?

What do you propose could account for what seems to be the fine-tuning found in certain cosmological constants and quantities?

What do you propose could account for the rise and spread of Christianity which was founded by a Jewish carpenter who was crucified under Pontius Pilate in a pagan Roman Empire to become the religion with the largest number of adherents, numbering in the billions?

These and many more pieces of data are what our worldviews must account for and make sense of. I am persuaded that my view is the best at accounting for the data at my disposal. Preferable at least over its alternatives/competitors.

 

[quatona]

Take a step back for a second and think about this. Imagine we present the argument/reasoning that anonymous person has presented to an intelligent teenager who has no preconceived notions about God or creation. If we were able to get this teenager to fully understand what we're saying, wouldn't it be most likely for him to accept anonymous person's argument as true since it does make sense?

No. Teenagers may be a little unexperienced, but they aren´t, on average, that stupid.
Not to mention that anonymous himself has already conceded that he holds these ideas because he personally finds them preferable. (So chances are that some teenagers will also find them preferable, but that is something completely different than finding them reasonable, convincing, conclusive or even true.

The other arguments against it have less explanatory power so why believe them?

Anoymous´ hypothesis doesn´t explain anything. It has zero explanatory power.

 

[quatona]

If you have a hypothesis that you think is worth being considered, then bring it to the table.

All hypotheses concerning this question are as unfounded as the others. As soon as epistomological naturalism is declared an inappropriate tool, we are at our wit´s end. All reasoning, all intuitions are toothless.

It may be unfathomable to you, but there´s always the option to give an honest "I don´t know, I have no clue whatsoever.".

These and many more pieces of data are what our worldviews must account for and make sense of.

Data?? What data do you have regarding the origin/creation/coming into being of the universe? So far you haven´t presented any. You clearly said your arguments were intended to be philosophical.

I am persuaded that my view is the best at accounting for the data at my disposal. Preferable at least over its alternatives/competitors.

Well, your personal preferences are none of my business, but "an anonymous person is persuaded to be right" doesn´t make for a good argument.

 

[anonymous person]

All hypotheses concerning this question are as unfounded as the others. As soon as epistomological naturalism is declared an inappropriate tool, we are at our wit´s end. All reasoning, all intuitions are toothless.

It may be unfathomable to you, but there´s always the option to give an honest "I don´t know, I have no clue whatsoever.".






Data?? What data do you have regarding the origin/creation/coming into being of the universe? So far you haven´t presented any. You clearly said your arguments were intended to be philosophical.

Well, your personal preferences are none of my business, but "an anonymous person is persuaded to be right" doesn´t make for a good argument.

I have given reasons for why I believe what I do.

Of course I do not expect any atheists here to renounce their atheism just because of the things I write here.

It seems to me that there are other factors at play when it comes to people and the formulation of their particular worldview.

I see these pieces of information as clues of sorts. Pointing to or leading to a reality beyond the natural world. Those who come to the table with certain presuppositions or beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality will find them unconvincing. Some will be encouraged to look deeper into my worldview after reading what I have written. Some will mock and ridicule what I have written, some will cast it aside as foolishness. Some will be encouraged to compare my view with its alternatives.

We can only share what we believe and why. This is what I am doing.

 

[anonymous person]

No. Teenagers may be a little unexperienced, but they aren´t, on average, that stupid.
Not to mention that anonymous himself has already conceded that he holds these ideas because he personally finds them preferable. (So chances are that some teenagers will also find them preferable, but that is something completely different than finding them reasonable, convincing, conclusive or even true.

Anoymous´ hypothesis doesn´t explain anything. It has zero explanatory power.

My hypothesis is an explanation of the cause of the universe.

And yes, the evidence is subject to one's interpretation and I use the word "prefer" to signify that it seems to me that in some sense, we are able to choose what we believe the evidence at our disposal implies.

 

[bhsmte]

I have given reasons for why I believe what I do.

Of course I do not expect any atheists here to renounce their atheism just because of the things I write here.

It seems to me that there are other factors at play when it comes to people and the formulation of their particular worldview.

I see these pieces of information as clues of sorts. Pointing to or leading to a reality beyond the natural world. Those who come to the table with certain presuppositions or beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality will find them unconvincing. Some will be encouraged to look deeper into my worldview after reading what I have written. Some will mock and ridicule what I have written, some will cast it aside as foolishness. Some will be encouraged to compare my view with its alternatives.

We can only share what we believe and why. This is what I am doing.

Nothing wrong with that. Others have explained why they don't agree with you, as you have explained why you believe what you do.

 

[quatona]

I have given reasons for why I believe what I do.

...and you find them convincing.

Of course I do not expect any atheists here to renounce there atheism just because of the things I write here.

I wasn´t even aware that this discussion was about theism vs. atheism.
Not until your most recent posts you even started mentioning Gods.
I was merely disputing the validity of shifting the principle of causation (which we have come to postulate in the frame of reference of our universe - i.e. as the postulation of physical causes for physical events) into a situation bare any frame of reference.

It seems to me that there are other factors at play when it comes to people and the formulation of their particular worldview.

That´s certainly true for you - since you are trying to make a case for your worldview.
Whereas my worldview (which you don´t even know, and which has neither been mentioned nor discussed here - isn´t depending on an explanation of the origin of the universe.

I see these pieces of information as clues of sorts. Pointing to or leading to a reality beyond the natural world.

Well, you are the one pretending we can conclude from principles observed within the natural world on occriences that are, by definition, not part of the natural world. I am the one who posits that there is no reason to assume that such principles are still governing a situation that´s, by definition, not the natural world.
Thus, at this point, if one of us is closer to being a naturalist, it´s you.

Those who come to the table with certain presuppositions or beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality will find them unconvincing.

Or at least that´s would we expect you to. But you take comfort in replacing logical arguments by appeals to your personal preferences.

Some will be encouraged to look deeper into my worldview after reading what I have written. Some will mock and ridicule what I have written, some will cast it aside as foolishness. Some will be encouraged to compare my view with its alternatives.

The latter is what I did - and in terms of explanatory power and logicality, yours is on equal footing with those competing with it - which is zero.

We can only share what we believe and why. This is what I am doing.

Well, that´s fine and dandy.
But occasionally you sound like you are intending to present a rational argument. I admit that I tend to fall for that impression time and again, even though you had earlier admitted that you were merely voicing your preferences (which, as you have described above, are heavily determind by your presuppositions).

 

[quatona]

My hypothesis is an explanation of the cause of the universe.

There´s a difference between an assertion and an explanation.

 

[anonymous person]

...and you find them convincing.


I wasn´t even aware that this discussion was about theism vs. atheism.
Not until your most recent posts you even started mentioning Gods.
I was merely disputing the validity of shifting the principle of causation (which we have come to postulate in the frame of reference of our universe - i.e. as the postulation of physical causes for physical events) into a situation bare any frame of reference.


That´s certainly true for you - since you are trying to make a case for your worldview.
Whereas my worldview (which you don´t even know, and which has neither been mentioned nor discussed here - isn´t depending on an explanation of the origin of the universe.


Well, you are the one pretending we can conclude from principles observed within the natural world on occriences that are, by definition, not part of the natural world. I am the one who posits that there is no reason to assume that such principles are still governing a situation that´s, by definition, not the natural world.
Thus, at this point, if one of us is closer to being a naturalist, it´s you.

Or at least that´s would we expect you to. But you take comfort in replacing logical arguments by appeals to your personal preferences.

The latter is what I did - and in terms of explanatory power and logicality, yours is on equal footing with those competing with it - which is zero.


Well, that´s fine and dandy.
But occasionally you sound like you are intending to present a rational argument. I admit that I tend to fall for that impression time and again, even though you had earlier admitted that you were merely voicing your preferences (which, as you have described above, are heavily determind by your presuppositions).

We are talking about the various hypotheses that people have posited which attempt to account for the different pieces of information we have observed and discovered in the natural world.

I have a hypothesis regarding the cause of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. I have a hypothesis about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and quantities of the universe. I have a hypothesis about our awareness of certain moral values and moral obligations.

I argue that my hypotheses have more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, and are more plausible than the alternative/competing hypotheses that have been formulated.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What are they up to?

According to Hawkings they are trying to destroy the universe. You know how down hill the neighborhood has been going ever sense they built that cern thing. They also have Neil Degrasse Tyson quoted out of context on cern. So with two heavy hitters like that passing ammo to the conspiracy theory crowd they are having a field day. Then you add in the Jubilee that only comes around every 50 years and the the blood moons that go along with that and the end of the world people are on fire with lots of warning to go around for everyone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-destroy-universe-warns-Stephen-Hawking.html

I am a prophet although I have not written any books so I am not making a profit. I predict that the stock market will see a huge loss, there will be martial law, there will be civil unrest, there will be flooding and there will be typhoons and tropical storms that will do huge amounts of damage. Esp New York City and all of the State of Flordia will see disaster this year as well as the whole East Coast for good measure. That way no matter what city actually gets hit I can say I predicted it so you should give me more of your hard earned money. I will not even begin to get into what the Muslims are going to be doing this year but we pretty much all know the direction that is going in.

 

[bhsmte]

According to Hawkings they are trying to destroy the universe. You know how down hill the neighborhood has been going ever sense they built that cern thing. They also have Neil Degrasse Tyson quoted out of context on cern. So with two heavy hitters like that passing ammo to the conspiracy theory crowd they are having a field day. Then you add in the Jubilee that only comes around every 50 years and the the blood moons that go along with that and the end of the world people are on fire with lots of warning to go around for everyone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-destroy-universe-warns-Stephen-Hawking.html

I am a prophet although I have not written any books so I am not making a profit. I predict that the stock market will see a huge loss, there will be martial law, there will be civil unrest, there will be flooding and there will be typhoons and tropical storms that will do huge amounts of damage. Esp New York City and all of the State of Flordia will see disaster this year as well as the whole East Coast for good measure. That way no matter what city actually gets hit I can say I predicted it so you should give me more of your hard earned money. I will not even begin to get into what the Muslims are going to be doing this year but we pretty much all know the direction that is going in.

Destroy the universe?

Sounds serious.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Destroy the universe?

Sounds serious.

Tyson says if you want to destroy the universe then all you need is more energy then what is currently holding it together.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When it comes to issues like this, I take all the data I have at my disposal and formulate a hypothesis that seems to me the best among its alternatives. So it's more about what the preponderance of evidence seems to point to as opposed to attempting to come to some sort of certainty.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the preponderance of evidence points to the expansion of the universe beginning 13.8 billion years ago and continuing still.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We are talking about the various hypotheses that people have posited which attempt to account for the different pieces of information we have observed and discovered in the natural world.

I have a hypothesis regarding the cause of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. I have a hypothesis about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and quantities of the universe. I have a hypothesis about our awareness of certain moral values and moral obligations.

I argue that my hypotheses have more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, and are more plausible than the alternative/competing hypotheses that have been formulated.

Now all you have to do is to show that it actually does explain what it purports to explain.

 

[quatona]

We are talking about the various hypotheses that people have posited which attempt to account for the different pieces of information we have observed and discovered in the natural world.

Yes. This necessarily means the assumption that certain principles observed within the universe must be transcended into a situation beyond the universe, while at the same time exceptional claims are inevitable.
This (positing a "non-natural" situation and at the same time appealing to "naturalistic" principles) is a problem all these hypotheses are suffering from. Yours including.
I notice that you point it out when it comes to competing hypotheses but you are doing the same.

I have a hypothesis regarding the cause of the expansion of the universe from a singularity. I have a hypothesis about the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants and quantities of the universe. I have a hypothesis about our awareness of certain moral values and moral obligations.

IOW you have your preconceived God concept and try to build hypotheses that "make sense" to you in that they leave your God concept intact. Speaking of fine-tuning, your hypotheses are fine-tuned to confirm your God concept. That´s your starting point, not vice versa. Because otherwise there would be no reason to mention cosmology and morality in the same breath, to begin with.
Now, everyone is entitled to hold onto their preferred hypotheses. Nothing wrong with that, especially in light of the fact that there isn´t and can´t be a valid methodology and epistemology for a state of affairs that escapes our conceptual framework.
We all have heard that you prefer the hypotheses you prefer - but apparently making yourself heard isn´t enough for you. You keep claiming you have arguments to present. It looks like you would like to convince us. However, whenever it is shown to you that your hypothesis suffers from the same shortcomings that the competing hypotheses suffer from, you return to "but this is the hypothesis I prefer".

As far as I am concerned - you mentioned my "worldview", without even knowing it. The difference between you and me is: My worldview is actually a worldview (regarding the world as it is). You, however, are positing a certain beyond-worldview (regarding a state of affairs beyond this world), in the absence of any solid basis for evaluating the validity of different beyond-worldviews (apart from personal preferences and preconceived metaphysical concepts).

I argue that my hypotheses have more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, and are more plausible than the alternative/competing hypotheses that have been formulated.

To be precise, that´s what you are claiming. Whereas there is a singnificant shortage of actual arguments.
On another note, you aren´t very demanding when accepting a mere hypothesis as having "explanatory power" - at least when it comes to your own hypothesis.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

If you have a hypothesis that you think is worth being considered, then bring it to the table.

Mindless beings evolved into us. And before that I'm pretty sure what ever chemical processes that were going on to form the first simple lifeforms was also mindless. Other Chemical actions and physical actions can create without a "mind" so I think you're attributing a tad too much to the concept of a mind.

What do you propose could exist timelessly sans the universe and in time subsequent to bringing it (the universe) into existence?

I'm the odd duck on this forum that doesn't actually believe in time existing outside of human concept.

And timeless? Outside the universe? How?

What do you propose could account for our awareness of moral values and duties?

Humans. Is there something I missed? The only way to simplify this answer as far as I can is instinct based on survival within a social species.

What do you propose could account for what seems to be the fine-tuning found in certain cosmological constants and quantities?

Is the glass fine tuned to the water within? Or is the water fine tuned to the glass?

Moreover do you find yourself able to relate to a universe that isn't inhabitable? I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find yourself living in an unlivable universe.

The fine tuning argument ala Craig fails to mention that the universe is incredibly hostile and mostly dead to our knowledge. And that Earth is just within a livable range of conditions. And there are many planets that may be in the exact same conditions as our own.

We're not special enough to have a universe created for us, that makes no sense. We're just water in the glass. Shaping ourselves to the mold.

What do you propose could account for the rise and spread of Christianity which was founded by a Jewish carpenter who was crucified under Pontius Pilate in a pagan Roman Empire to become the religion with the largest number of adherents, numbering in the billions?

Do you really want me to answer this obvious question? You and I both know and it can be summed up in one word.

Conquest.

These and many more pieces of data are what our worldviews must account for and make sense of. I am persuaded that my view is the best at accounting for the data at my disposal. Preferable at least over its alternatives/competitors.

Compare yours to mine again and see

 

[quatona]

Now all you have to do is to show that it actually does explain what it purports to explain.

Well, first of all I would like to hear what exactly it is that it´s supposed to explain.