Atheists are right...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

How so?

Thinking about what it could be is not lazy.

There are top minds in physics who have proposed a designer correct? Peer reviewed papers on simulated reality?

We can insert memories into animals correct? I believe a mouse.

Could we create an ape to have language memories and advance the species?


It's not unreasonable to think a designer is a possibility for our reality.

it is premature to conclude an intelligent cause for our reality. it is professional to investigate all possibilities with utmost rigor and acuity.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The benifit is your understanding and quest for it. What is reality? If the strong force was different would stars never form? Is there a design? A code?

There is no magic potions or salvation.

For me it's just how I feel based on my current knowledge. Hopefully I continue to think and learn and change.

The participatory Anthropic principle makes sense to me.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure. But it's a just possibility. You just assume I am arguing this is the only conclusion.

a reply to: luthier

So the benefit is the pursuit of truth?

That's my position too.

I suppose then this boils down to what we deem compelling evidence.

Tangental to the current discussion, i'm curious as to the nature of your pandeism.

Traditionally deism, and largely pantheism, holds little or no bearing on our lives on Earth. There is little to no direct involvement outside whatever 'natural' mechanism were set in place from the onset from 'god'.

You explained your reasoning behind believing 'god is a necessary being'. Do you have reasoning behind believing that god doesn't necessarily intervene in our affairs?

a reply to: luthier

You just assume I am arguing this is the only conclusion.

When you say it's a necessary being it comes across as a conclusion.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sure. But it's a just possibility. You just assume I am arguing this is the only conclusion.

never said that was your position (though lucid lunacy makes a fair point in the post above ) but it is a popular position on these forums. getting back to my original point, i think it would be cool to throwback to the gods/goddesses of old. yahweh and allah (or their followers rather) are attempting a monopoly on spirituality and i don't agree with that. for example, hinduism is currently one of the longest running religions in the history of mankind. where is the shiva club? anyone? kinda sad if you ask me. reading old greek sagas makes me wish that people were a lil more open to classic mythologies sans all the human sacrifice and barbaric practices that violate civil rights. and then there is egyptian theology, celtic, etruscan, aztec, finnish, African, native american, the list goes on. not a word about those pantheons. disappointing.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Ahh ok..

Yes I conclude it's not necessary for god as well.

We can have a multiverse where the possibilities of random chance lead to life and fine tuning observations can be explained.

When I say a necessary being it's a reference to AQUINAS. Something existing outside of time and space that creates time and space isn't nearly the same view as God made dinosaur bones to fool non believers.

a reply to: TzarChasm

My degree is in philosophy with an emphasis in religion. I rather enjoy studying all of them. Granted, I take an anti-religious side in regards to my position towards their worth, but I do give them thought! They have not been forgotten! I will always remember them as a mixture of beautiful, sometimes illuminating, and ultimately not very helpful tales.

...although I don't think that's the point you've been driving at.

Are you asking theists to reflect on the contrast between the fantasies of old and the shiny ones of new?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Hindus have amazing similar cosmology to some modern observations. Just more loose metaphor.

The cosmic egg in Hinduism is pretty interesting.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: TzarChasm

My degree is in philosophy with an emphasis in religion. I rather enjoy studying all of them. Granted, I take an anti-religious side in regards to my position towards their worth, but I do give them thought! They have not been forgotten! I will always remember them as a mixture of beautiful, sometimes illuminating, and ultimately not very helpful tales.

...although I don't think that's the point you've been driving at.

Are you asking theists to reflect on the contrast between the fantasies of old and the shiny ones of new?

My degree is in philosophy but dabbled in cultural anthropology as well.

I think it's entirely possible god was the logical process to create philosphy and science as we created a social contract.

I don't think banging rocks to see what happens to Newton was an option as far as psychological evolution went.

a reply to: luthier

We can have a multiverse where the possibilities of random chance lead to life and fine tuning observations can be explained.

Sans the debate on 'random chance' and 'fine-tuning', why does it have to be a multiverse? Why not the possibility our known universe is eternal as I postulated as a hypothetical before? Why is it not a possibility that our Universe is eternal via some naturalistic means that doesn't require intelligent direction? Should we remove that card from the table?

When I say a necessary being it's a reference to AQUINAS.

Who would never support your position Since he was a Christian theist.

Something existing outside of time and space that creates time and space isn't nearly the same view as God made dinosaur bones to fool non believers.

Right. It's still supernatural though. By definition. Anything that exists outside of nature is supernatural. To posit something exists outside it is to say it's supernatural. That's all I meant. It wasn't an attempt to look down on the idea. It's just an important distinction.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Very good!

Yes I misused some words and frankly don't often have to be on point falacy is so readily available.

What is this natural cause?

How does it relate to modern astrophysics and cosmology and philosphy?

Are you saying the big bang doesn't exist? Or the squeeze?

The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers? This is more a thought expirment then some rigid belief.

My human weak Anthropic cosmic perspective sees no purpose in a cosmos without observation as a possibility.

a reply to: luthier

I'm not saying anything about what is or isn't as my personal belief. I'm questioning those in this thread that allude we have answers to big questions. The purpose of my questions were only to flesh out the positions.

The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers?

Which comes back to the idea that science supports the idea consciousness begets reality. You apparently believe the science supports it. I am curious as to your thoughts on why then that's not yet the scientific consensus.

On a pragmatic level, you never replied to my scenario of the 'last puppy standing' on the prior page.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

I'm not saying anything about what is or isn't as my personal belief. I'm questioning those in this thread that allude we have answers to big questions. The purpose of my questions were only to flesh out the positions.

The biggest issue for me is how can something exist without observers?

Which comes back to the idea that science supports the idea consciousness begets reality. You apparently believe the science supports it. I am curious as to your thoughts on why then that's not yet the scientific consensus.

On a pragmatic level, you never replied to my scenario of the 'last puppy standing' on the prior page.

i guess the first 10+ billion years of the universe are myth. because no observers.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

The last pappy standing? If zero conscious observers exist reality no longer exists. Period. Reality is a construct of consciousness. Anything outside consiousness as you say "is super natural'

What of the Anthropic priciple. In any of its forms pick weak to start.

Also explain a natural mechanism for creating the appearance of fine tuning within our known concept of the cosmos or modern philosphy.

What of the double slit test your calling "new age"?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Can you prove there were no observers or designers?

Your not in a simulation?

a reply to: luthier

If zero conscious observers exist reality no longer exists. Period.

For the sake of conversation let's say conscious life only exists on Earth (as unlikely as that is).

The Sun for some unknown reason explodes tomorrow and thus the Earth and all conscious life is annihilated.

What you're saying is that the entire Universe, all of the other planets and stars, would cease to exist.

Why?

Did reality not exist prior to the evolution of animals who gained the ability to be conscious??

It seems to me what you're suggesting is that evolution is not real. Or you're suggesting conscious beings were on Earth (or another planet) right from the onset.

There is no science to support either of that.

Anything outside consiousness as you say "is super natural'

Not what I said.

I said anything outside the known physical Universe.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can you prove there were no observers or designers?

Your not in a simulation?

can you prove there were? pointless line of questioning. dead end. its not like one day scientists discover the human species was engineered by aliens or earth is a giant petri dish abandoned millennia ago by those guys from the Prometheus movie by ridley Scott and suddenly your life means something in the vast cosmic scope. nope, we are all still the tiniest insignificant blip in the backwoods of a hick galaxy. enjoy it while you got it buddy, even though not a damn soul will remember you or the rest of us in a thousand years. futile it may be, thats no reason to not make the most of it. no need to make up some elaborate hypothesis about being special or designed or having a purpose. make your own.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If zero consiousness exists where would it come from?

Can you create a number from zero other than zero?

What is the purpose? Consiousness is hardly required for survival or adaptation.

Evolution has no bearing on this concept what so ever.


So far you haven't supported your argument or provided a mechanism to explain fine tuning with out a multiverse.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can you prove there were no observers or designers?

Your not in a simulation?

luthier,

Your confusing Quantum Theory with Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Theory says that it 'appears' that an observer is required for quantum interaction, given the double slit experiments.

But we are still in our early early infant stage of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

Ask anyone who studies theoretical physics if this saying is correct:

'Anyone who says they understand quantum physics, doesnt understand quantum physics.'

So using the observer example is asinine and a good example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Coomba98