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.
Atheistic creationism is a weird faith based belief system.
Most of us avoid starting up a conversation with the old guy walking around on the street talking to himself. Just a recommendation...you can do as you wish.Actually no. You should maybe listen to him sometimes.
He is not the "nothing is something" guy, he is the:
"If I say nothing, I mean with that X, Y and Z"-guy.
Which is the honest thing to do, if you use words, that can have different usages.
It's not like f.e. creationists do: Not defining their terms at all, so that they will always be able to back-paddle, and say "nonono, that's not what I've ment".
Beyond the fact that this statement is littered with false ideas, how is it any weirder than a belief system in which a god sacrifices himself to himself to save us all from himself?
Right, when Krauss says "nothing" he really means "something".
Thus the universe and everything in it is the product of nothing, which is something.
Or the appearance of design is simply perception.You are correct it might not be a multiverse or designer. It could be naturalistic or designer however.
The appearance of design resulting from the fine tuning of the universe has two possible causes and those two are naturalistic or design. The appearance of design must be explained by either of these explanations. We can ask what is the more reasonable cause for something to appear designed? It would seem much more reasonable for the cause of an appearance of design to be design. It supports more cohesively the possibility of design than for a naturalistic possibility when there is no goal or purpose behind a naturalistic universe.
Depends on what your faith based belief system is, doesn't it?
The appearance of design...
No. He means nothing. And he explains very well what he means by that.
This is the dishonest hypocracy you ALWAYS get from the creationists or the apologists! You NEVER hear ANY of them complaining, when I point to an empty box and say "Look. It's empty. There is nothing in it." You NEVER hear anybody complain: "Ohhhh, that's not true! There is air in it! And space! And time!"
So, on a certain level, even the apologists understand that words (like "nothing") have different meaning depending on how they are used... and YET, when Krauss uses it in a certain way, and even EXPLAINS SPECIFICLY WHAT HE MEANS... it suddenly becomes a problem! Why? Because he disagrees with their favorit fable!
It's dishonest, and it's childish.
@justlookinla
Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.
You know what: Take Krauss' argument. Take the word "nothing" and replace it with "Suggibuluta" or any other gibberish...
Ohhhhhhhhh!!!! Looooooooooook!!!!!
Suddenly Krauss' argument points to a god!!!!!
...
...
Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
Because the word he uses to describe doesn't make a shred of difference to the concept he explains!
Ok, so he wasn't talking about "nothing" (because you only use nothing in one way, right? Or are you a hypocrit who sometimes also uses different meanings for that word? I hope not, you're making baby Jebus cry otherwise), he was talking about Suggibuluta. It's the same concept he described before using the term "nothing", but he just names it differently.
It changes literally NOTHING about his argument.
Because all you are doing here is playing semantics.
I guess the last resort for apologists, who don't have any place anymore to hide their god in.
No, actually the idea that a god has to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can forgive his creation... Well, that's pretty much insane, no matter what else you believe.
Or, your perception of design is simply a case of apophenia, seeing that no one has demonstrated that there is a "goal" or "purpose" to this universe.You are correct it might not be a multiverse or designer. It could be naturalistic or designer however.
The appearance of design resulting from the fine tuning of the universe has two possible causes and those two are naturalistic or design. The appearance of design must be explained by either of these explanations. We can ask what is the more reasonable cause for something to appear designed? It would seem much more reasonable for the cause of an appearance of design to be design. It supports more cohesively the possibility of design than for a naturalistic possibility when there is no goal or purpose behind a naturalistic universe.
Or, your perception of design is simply a case of apophenia, seeing that no one has demonstrated that there is a "goal" or "purpose" to this universe.
Apophenia: the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Apophenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So the universe does not appear to be designed to you?I have no perception of design in accordance with the universe. I can't see the values that permit life to evolve.
What tuning? Your perception of tuning? Your presumption of tuning?Your misinformed idea of what the fine tuning observation really is seems to be your biggest problem.
It may be that over the years she has forgotten what her actual point was.
Can you leap a little farther with your assumptions?
Not really. Evidence for design = Support for design.
The simple appearence of design is a nothing. Especially since this just seems to be a matter of opinion.
"Hey, I see design here!" Well, great! I can just knock this argument over by saying: "I don't".
Unless you can actually demonstrate design, this is simply a matter of opinion with no weight.
Woooooow, that seems to be a huge assumtion!
Heck, we don't even know yet if there are other universes, and you already make claims about how rare a certain configuration for a universe is?
Could you show the math for that, please?
According to that reasoning, the random pond permitting frogs to survive is evidence that the pond was "fine tuned" for frogs.
Teleological fallacies are not a good way to argue.
You should really stop with the teleogolical fallacy....
It was funny at first, but now it's just annoying.
Your entire argument is based on the false premise that the universe is the way it is so that we could exist.
It's like saying that it's cold at the poles so that ice would be there.
It's as backwards as it gets. We are here because the universe is the way it is, not the other way round.
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?