Page 3 of 29 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 281

Thread: Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,512
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    ...Using this heuristic, we can surmise that mathematics and the hard sciences - physics, chemistry, biology - are likely a good reflection of reality;
    Coherent laws of physics, mathematics, logic, etc. which frame reality are, themselves, primary facie evidence which suggests a Higher Order, design, teleology....


  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,652
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,237
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    ...Using this heuristic, we can surmise that mathematics and the hard sciences - physics, chemistry, biology - are likely a good reflection of reality;
    Coherent laws of physics, mathematics, logic, etc. which frame reality are, themselves, primary facie evidence which suggests a Higher Order, design, teleology....

    I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.

    Also, the existence of rules also need not be evidence of intention for those rules. The fact is that we don’t know why those rules exist anymore than we would know why a putative god responsible for creating those rules would exist.

    And as for the Sagan quote, spirituality is not the same thing as religion or theism, and I would be surprised if Carl intended that quote to be interpreted as such.

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member Tigers!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    On the wing waiting for a kick.
    Posts
    2,285
    Archived
    2,558
    Total Posts
    4,843
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.
    Do you have some examples of such systems?
    NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,652
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,237
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.
    Do you have some examples of such systems?
    Other than the universe itself and all the various systems in it?

    I came to this conclusion first when learning about Langton’s Ant.

    Atomic structure has fairly simple rules of electric attraction and quantized eigen states and yet all of chemistry basically arises from this.

    Hydrodynamics has only a couple of basic equations governing it but the number of phenomena that arise are quite numerous and varied.

    Many chaotic systems arise from simple formulae.

    I guess what I’m saying is that I find it completely palatable that complex behaviors are emergent properties of simple rules and that obviates the need of a creator that needs to be more complex than the entities it created.

    Langton’s Ant was the final step on my journey to an intellectually honest atheism.

  5. Top | #25
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,364
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,340
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigers! View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.
    Do you have some examples of such systems?
    I would be damned hard pressed to think of an example where a system does not exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them.

    One example: The motion of every planet, moon, asteroid, dust grain, comet, etc. in the solar system is governed by only the law of gravitation and F=dp/dt. But the motions of each and every thing in the solar system is quite a complex system since the motion of every single thing is continually being gravitationally influenced by everything else.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,512
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Why did our universe begin?
    WOW. NEVER HEARD THAT QUESTION BEFORE. I'M STUMPED. TIME TO BECOME A THEIST I GUESS.
    Its not about whether you have ever heard a 'why' question before.
    Its about whether you've ever answered a 'why' question.

  7. Top | #27
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,343
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,820
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Why did our universe begin?
    WOW. NEVER HEARD THAT QUESTION BEFORE. I'M STUMPED. TIME TO BECOME A THEIST I GUESS.
    Its not about whether you have ever heard a 'why' question before.
    Its about whether you've ever answered a 'why' question.
    Really? Why?

  8. Top | #28
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,343
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,820
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    ...Using this heuristic, we can surmise that mathematics and the hard sciences - physics, chemistry, biology - are likely a good reflection of reality;
    Coherent laws of physics, mathematics, logic, etc. which frame reality are, themselves, primary facie evidence which suggests a Higher Order, design, teleology....

    I disagree. Systems can exhibit behaviors more complex than the rules that govern them. Therefore there need not be foreseen design intended to explain apparent design.

    Also, the existence of rules also need not be evidence of intention for those rules. The fact is that we don’t know why those rules exist anymore than we would know why a putative god responsible for creating those rules would exist.

    And as for the Sagan quote, spirituality is not the same thing as religion or theism, and I would be surprised if Carl intended that quote to be interpreted as such.
    And frankly, it doesn't matter.

    Lion constantly confuses his faith in powerful people and institutions for a natural law, and reaches the false conclusion that atheists and rationalists will be more easily swayed by arguments that come from people like Sagan, or Dawkins, who Lion has identified as 'leading atheists'. But like most reasoning, this is yet another example of religion getting causality backwards.

    Theists give more weight to utterances from authorities. Atheists give more authority to individuals based on their utterances.

    The pope is right because he's the leader. Sagan is a leader because he's right - and like anyone else, when he's wrong (and nobody's infallible), rational people will discard his erroneous statements just as they would no matter who uttered them.

    Lion seems incapable of grasping this, which is a sad indictment of the power of theistic indoctrination at an early age. His ability to reason was deliberately and cruelly stunted by his upbringing, which falsely made a virtue of loyalty and respect for authority.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,793
    Archived
    20,351
    Total Posts
    24,144
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Why did our universe begin?
    WOW. NEVER HEARD THAT QUESTION BEFORE. I'M STUMPED. TIME TO BECOME A THEIST I GUESS.
    Its not about whether you have ever heard a 'why' question before.
    Its about whether you've ever answered a 'why' question.
    Shouldn't I not care about why questions because I'm just a dirty evil atheist?

  10. Top | #30
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,390
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,603
    Rep Power
    64
    Why questions are linked to how questions and how questions demand empirical response. I'm not sure a dirty, little, evil, atheist disqualifies one from caring nor answering why questions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •