Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I thought the same thing with you. I didn't appeal to what I don't know by what I do know and applied it to the past.Please learn what is meant by an argument from ignorance.
"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wow. Do I have to go into details here to show parents doesn't create their children. Think about sticking a "Disc" (but not a disc) into the hardware (but not hardware).Call you parents immediately. Ask them to give you the talk about the "birds and the bees". They will know what I mean.
I thought the same thing with you. I didn't appeal to what I don't know by what I do know and applied it to the past.
Wow. Do I have to go into details here to show parents doesn't create their children. Think about sticking a "Disc" (but not a disc) into the hardware (but not hardware).
Hmmm... never had an idea just pop in your head?
What exactly is stuff? I don't have direct contact with "stuff".
The same with God. I agree with the Pope: God is not a magician.
Besides magic requires a being , a code, sometimes "stuff" and done on purpose. Atheist point of view is worst than magic since there is no magician, no stuff , without code (information) nor purpose.
Okay, which physicists say this?
No, but I would like you to back up your claim.
Okay. But why should anyone else believe that?
God doesn't need to give black holes eternal conscious souls in order to be fascinated by them. And if omniscience means he need not observe them or interact with them to know everything about them then wouldn't the same be true of us?
I don't, but other people do. You seem to have taken for granted that your conception of God is not the only one in existence.
I don't think consciousness is immaterial, at least not in the sense in which you imply. I'm not a substance dualist.
Again, you're just shifting the problem further back. But you've already decapitated your own argument with the first premise!
No, nothingness is nothingness. Randomness implies that there is something that varies randomly, not nothingness.
That's a point many of us make. Perhaps you could ask this question of religious apologists?
No, I'm not going to do your work for you. You think that there is some connection there, so it's up to you to show it.
So you don't argue that the universe was created ex nihilo by God?
That's basic Physics. If the distribution of matter was perfectly smooth there wouldn't be any clumps which would gravitate and form stars in galaxies so we need slight irregularities for the distribution of matter in the Universe, if those irregularities were much smaller stars and galaxies wouldn't have formed, if they have been much larger everything would have collapsed to form black holes.
I backed it up, you are just behaving childish because your argument was stupid.
Simple, because we can do what God does, the fact that we have access to information about how the Universe was created and how it will be in the future proves that we are the images of the Creator.
Fascinated God??? LOOL!!! How an Omniscience being will be fascinated by something that He already knows? You atheists are so desperate that you forget even the basics, God is Omniscience, if He is Omniscience he knows how something will be evolved and therefor will take out his fascination. Fascination is for humans.
Because this view is Universal. I mean don't Muslim Scientists discover the Universe? Don't Indian Scientists discover the Universe? That proves that we are His images.
I think it is and i have proof of that, you don't have proof about philosophical zombies. Reductionism was wrong.
No, i just described how something works, i didn't said that this thing existed eternally as a law.
Yes. Randomness implies that something defies space, time, laws, constants, everything and t hat means that you can have Randomness only in a state of Nothingness. Something that determine something Random is a paradox.
It was used by Catholic apologists, i am an Orthodox and i find the ex nihilo argument stupid.
Why do you say this? Decision is part of information. You need information to take a decision, don't you agree with that?
The article states that quantum information has some connection with consciousness.
The Universe wasn't created out of Nothing but out of God because God is Everything. Evolution solve this because it everything wasn't the same before.
From Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
"...evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change."
And from CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
"Microevolution and macroevolution [...] involve mostly the same processes."
The processes behind each are the same.
Yes, I have this funny habit of actually researching stuff instead of just going on what I really wish to be true.
Did you actually read it? It provides 14 counter arguments.
The fine tuning is only real if you can demonstrate that there is some intelligent entity that PURPOSELY set the fundamentals to what they are in order to provide a habitat for humans. Can you do this?
He posts three specific points there. There was much more than that which he needs to cover in order to refute the arguments.
Without offering an argument for the existence of a multiverse?
You got some specific parts here? I have this crazy thing called a life outside CF, and I don't have time to read through a 76 page PDF (in the first instance) and who knows how long the other sources are. Please post relevant parts.
I love this. You go to all this trouble to explain it all in naturalistic terms, while apparently forgetting the fact that if we are really dealing with an entity that can create whole universes, he could simply make it the way he wanted without needing to create something that would eventually develop into what we see.
According to your definition that you just said? I can't, because I don't believe it is true.
There are things in this universe which are completely random, and no matter how much we know about them, we will never be able to predict them.
An example of this:
I give you a block of radioactive material which contains 100 atoms of Element X. This material has a half life of 1 minute. So, after one minute, 50 atoms will have decayed into element Y. No matter how much you know about the atoms, you will NEVER be able to say for sure which 50 atoms are going to decay in that minute.
You are right. it obeys quantum mechanical laws instead. And you'll have a hard tme getting anyone to believe that quantum mechanics is wrong.
Yes. You of all people get to claim whatever you want and are, for some reason, above the need to actually justify your claims.
Did you even bother to read that? Your own source contradicts your claim that there is no such thing as randomness.
Way to miss my point.
You claim the universe was created. In what way is that NOT creationism of some sort?
And there could be several different reasons why we have that particular outcome.
What you say is fully of important sounding words, but has very little actual meaning.
You making an unsupported claim is not actually showing something.
Yeah, I didn't say that. The fact that you conclude I meant a particular thing does not mean I meant it. Read what I am actually saying instead of what you wish I was saying, okay?
Source please?
Do you have any qualifications in any of these subjects?
Where did I talk about a universe-creating machine?
Now you are contradicting yourself. How can there be probabilities if there is no randomness? If everything could be predicted as you claim, then we can say that any possibility is either 100% or 0% Nothing in between. And therefore we don't have to figure out how probable something is.
Then please tell me what "spawn-like effects" are. An effect similar to spawning?
You seem to be confusing "tuning" with "producing ordered results." There is a difference which you do not seem to be aware of.
No. If you had said that the universe contains conditions which life as we know it needs, then I would agree with you. But when you claimed they are fine tuned, you are assuming that that there is fine tuning in order to show that there is fine tuning. And that is the very definition of "begging the question."
"APPEARS to..."
"APPEAR fine tuned..."
And for some reason you seem surprised that you are not observing a universe which does not contain fundamentals that can support life?
This does not mean it is fine tuned. It simply says that it is something that we need to work out. An admission of ignorance does not mean god did it.
Yes. A universe that is "almost always deadly" and is only on "rare occasions, perfectly lovely" was obviously designed for the purpose of housing humanity.
And there are other explanations than random chance and intelligent design.
Again, he is simply saying that the answer remains unknown. How you conclude this means it MUST have been designed is beyond me, because he never said anything in support of that.
He's just stating what we can see. He's not saying anything that needs an explanation.
Gues what? You seem to be unable to do your own research and simply just cut and paste large sections of it from other websites. In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature
Since your argument seems to be cutting and pasting from websites who give conclusions you agree with rather than actually studying and understanding the things you are talking about, I;d say your conclusion is wishful thinking.
According to quantum mechanics, you can have uncaused effects. Not all events necessarily have causes - Iron Chariots Wiki
Again, citations please.
I was mimicking your argument. So if my argument appears stupid, you have just discovered something about yours.
What? That doesn't even make sense. Are you suggesting that we can do exactly as God does? Wouldn't that make us gods? In which case, wouldn't this entire conversation be pointless because we'd already know everything?
Going by what you said earlier, then there is no need to create humans at all. He knows them already.
In what way? I'm not seeing the connection here?
I'm wary of people making strong claims that they "know" what consciousness is.
That's not the way your premise reads. I advise that you re-read it, and consider its implications for your argument. It bodes ill for your conclusions.
No, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Randomness implies that there is some property which varies randomly. Nothingness cannot vary because there is nothing to vary, randomly or otherwise.
But you're a dualist, and the quantum world is part of the physical world, so you don't really believe that anyway, do you? Besides which, didn't God create the quantum world? If so, any explanation you come up with that is based on the quantum scale wouldn't apply, would it?
Which brings us back to square one: how could God decide to create if he is in a state of timelessness?
So creatio ex deo? I haven't seen many apologists argue for that.
...
God knows our actions but that doesn't change the fact that they were our actions (or that they will be) our actions. ...
Citations about what? Was the matter appeared out of nowhere or it was distributed?
Was there distribution of matter yes or no?
Yes that's what i am suggesting but not that we are born like Gods but that we are born with the option to be like God. We choose to behave like God by following the Teachings of Christ which are Universal aka love, forgiveness, mercy, equality, humility, patience and so on...These teachings shape a society that is open to knowledge. The State of Law which means Public Schools , Public Libraries , Public Hospitals, Public Funds , Public Buildings, abolish of slavery and women rights was created when Emperor Justinian based the Laws of the State on Christian Equality. Someone that does Science to be a good Scientist must also follow these teachings, he must be humble, he must have patience, he must focus on it and so on..
Neil deGrasse Tyson said:Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Were not afraid to admit what we dont know. Theres no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers.
God knows our actions but that doesn't change the fact that they were our actions (or that they will be) our actions. If God didn't had to create us because he knew the final result we would experience now only goodness because if this world was a projection of God there would be no evil because in the Mind of God there is no evil so this creation is real, we exist because God created us and we have free will to be good or evil.
If God didn't create us in His image why atheists or other religious scientists can equally understand the Universe? We are equal in understanding with God that's what the image means. Likeness goes in Jesus Teachings, we must behave as Jesus said because that's what benevolent means.
If consciousness exists then it is separate from the brain.
I have. It never states that this law is Eternal.
This property to behave randomly must not caused. It must escape Determinism as a whole.
I never said that Consciousness is composed by quantum correlations. I was talking about decisions which demand information.
Even this article by Hameroff says
"A review and update of a controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness claims that consciousness derives from deeper level, finer scale activities inside brain neurons."
It says derives not that it is composed by quantum woo.
Lets say that you want tot communicate with a Chinese man. To get the message you must translate your message in Chinese so he can take the message, the translation to the Chinese is quantum correlations.
He created Time and Space first.
Creation out of Himself because God is Everything.
Citations for your claim that God could create a universe occupied solely by black holes and nothing else.
Yes, and if the matter were uniformly distributed gravity could not act to coalesce that matter into stars and, eventually, black holes. That is why the designer fine tuned the universe to be ever so slightly non-uniform - so that he could have black holes.
I agree with the spirit of what you've written. I've specifically highlighted "open to knowledge" because I feel that, to be open to knowledge, you have to have epistemic humility and accept that, on certain matters, you are ignorant. Not you specifically, but all of us. No one knows how the universe came to be.
In your previous posts, you seemed to argue that God need not create black holes, even if he were fascinated by them, because he already knew everything about them, due to his omniscience. The same applies to human beings, and thus undercuts your own argument for design. Indeed, it undercuts every argument for design because God need not create anything at all.
I'm still not seeing the connection you are trying to draw.
My ongoing training is in neuropsychology. Studying the brain and its functions is what I've dedicated myself to for the past 6 years. I haven't yet seen a compelling case for the claim that consciousness is something separate from the workings of the brain.
Disruptions at the neural level, such as in epileptic seizures, produce perturbations in consciousness. These perturbations appear to clinicians as signs and symptoms that can, with some degree of precision, disclose what is likely happening in the brain, thus opening the door for therapeutic interventions.
The separation of mind and brain seems to me untenable.
What remains is the mystery of how the brain is able to do the wondrous things that it does. Along with cosmogony, this is another matter on which we are still mostly ignorant.
It doesn't specify that it is temporal either, nor does it specify that there are exceptions for supernatural causes.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'll simply reiterate that randomness is not equivalent to nothingness because to behave 'randomly' means that there is some property that varies in a random way.
How does that answer the question of how God can decide to create if he is timeless? Your response here doesn't even mention time as a consideration. Further, are suggesting that God is subject to these principles?
How? He was in a timeless state, so how could he decide to create anything?
This sounds like pantheism.
Some things doesn't need explanation. Science works with Determinism, if something behaves Randomly it doesn't mean that it defies nature. That's wishful randomness. How can an atheist like you believe empirical Science and demand something to be uncaused and random???? That's not Science THAT'S MAGIC!!! Before 1000 years clouds seemed random, today they are not.
Yes okay....from the article
<<snip>>
If the result is predictable how do you expect something to be truly random?
No, everything you described demand physics.
The definition is far more complicated. The Universe was created but indirectly not directly by God.
And? What do you mean by that? How does this prove that you are a cosmic mistake without purpose?
That's your view.
Okay prove me that the Fine Tuning doesn't exist.
Prove me that all these things are not wishful thinking and they exist.
Are you blind? Super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a cosmic landscape of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.
Super String Theory is the reason you talk about Multiverses now and it doesn't provide enough probabilities to have Universe just like that by chance. The number is too small.
I don't have to to rub in your face that your 17th Century Cosmology is wrong.
Paragraph 3
Multiverse demands a hypothetical Mother Universe that creates Universes. Don't you know that?
Probabilities are not Randomness. Prove me that they are. Something that determines probabilities by definition is a deterministic event.
No an effect similar on its cause.
How can order exists without consciousness?
Universe exists, the Universe is a structure that is determined by its laws. That is Tuning because it needed to be determined by something outside of it. We have 3 options, the Fine Tuning is due to chance physical necessity or intention, it is not due to chance or physical necessity therefor it is due to intention. If we change the Hubble constant there would be no Universe at all!
Where in the world do you get the nonsensical idea that I am claiming that "random" = "defies nature"? I have never claimed that. My position is that something is random if it can not be predicted. If I get a bunch of little balls and paint numbers on them, then put them in a barrel that has a mechanism to mix them up and then pick one, is that able to be predicted? No, of course not.
It is predicting that the result will be random, as it said quite clearly in what you cut and pasted.
Please, do try to actually read what you are posting, mkay?
You obviously don't understand how an analogy is meant to work...
So your solution is to muddy the waters so as to make things so complicated that whenever you get caught out you can just turn around and say, "I can see why you;d think that, because it's really complicated, but the truth is actually this other thing." In short, you are hiding behind technobabble.
Show me where I said that I am a cosmic mistake without purpose and I'll answer the question.
Until then, I'll thank you not to try to put words in my mouth. That's a good way to get your fingers bitten.
And you were posting your view on something, and I doubt you are qualified to pass judgement on it (unless you have studied string theory?). Perhaps you can cite the original paper which supports your claim that: "the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a cosmic landscape of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature" (from post 682).
Way to shift the burden of proof. You are making the claim that there must have been fine tuning, it falls on you to support your own claim.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was telling you not to put words in my mouth. You are misrepresenting my position. If you can't argue against what I am actually saying, then don't argue with me at all.
And I am asking you to provide a source for this claim. It may have escaped your attention, but you making a claim is not actually providing a source for that claim.
And where am I saying that 17th century cosmology is providing my point of view? Did they have quantum mechanics back then?
Of what?
Source please.
How are you incapable of this level of misunderstanding? I was stating that CERTAINTIES must be either 100% certain or 0% certain.Please try to pay attention. I was not talking about randomness there.
An effect similar to what on its cause?
You ever notice how you always get crumbs at the bottom of the cereal box? WHy is this? Why is the cereal sorted by size? WHy do we always find the largest pieces at the top and the smallest at the bottom? This sorting by size is quite clearly ordered, and yet it is not the result of any conscious interaction.
It comes from the fact that the vibrations open up gaps between the pieces that smaller crumbs can get through more easily. And there you go, a highly ordered result that requires no consciousness to achieve it.
Care to support your claim that the fundamentals of the universe MUST be determined by something exterior to the universe?
So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.
This should be on the wikipedia page of "false dichotomies".
What a load!!
Nobody needs to be able to explain anything about anything in order to reject a proposed explanation for anything.
Just because I can't explain the origins of the universe, doesn't mean that whatever you happen to believe is correct or acceptable by default.
It's ridiculous.
You are making a HUGE argument from ignorance and then try to present it in the form of a false dichotomy.
This should be on the wikipedia page of "false dichotomies".
How exactly is what he said a false dichotomy?
And your logic is terrible, you are basically saying a reasoned response is not preferable. By this logic i can reject evolution without solid grounds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?