Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Leumas]

The decay of any individual atom is, to the best of our knowledge, entirely random, but the half-life of a larger sample is deterministic enough to be used as a very precise clock.

Well, the point was that while decay of individual atoms appear completely random, the resultant decay rate is deterministic enough so we can use it to measure time.

Yes.

Yes what?

We can measure time in +/- decades and centuries accuracy? If that is your yes then yes your yes is ok.

But "deterministic enough" is not by any rationality "deterministic" or a "very precise clock"... is it now???

Uncertainty = not deterministic... anything that has a +/- level of uncertainty due to the randomness of the process (e.g. radioactive decay) is by any rational reasoning indeterministic.

Saying "deterministic enough" is deterministic is like saying that in a game of black jack getting 19 is close enough for the dealer to consider me the winner when he has a 20.... see if any dealer will do that.

 

[acbytesla]

Insisting on the contrary to science determinism of the universe is all about the determiner and for many who deny randomness whatsoever they are doing that because they think that their god does not play dice.

This is one of those times where right is a matter of degrees. Precision is a subjective term. There is an element that take 19 quintillion years to decay and another that takes 22 minutes.

This whole discussion started when Psion argued that we needed to prove that random forces exist. The point is what happens to every different atom or particle seems totally random but what happens on more of a macro level is quite predictable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Option 1: Some form of true, inherent "randomness" exists in the universe.
Option 2: "Randomness" is a just a useful term to describe unpredictable complexity in systems that we don't have a way of getting all the information from so things are "random" on a functional, day to day level.

Maybe some inherent quirk of the universe means the coin toss that opens the Super Bowl really is random, maybe we just have no way of measuring every possible force acting on the coin in real time enough to predict the outcome. Same results either way.

Either way there's no space to put a god.

 

[Leumas]

This is one of those times where right is a matter of degrees. Precision is a subjective term. There is an element that take 19 quintillion years to decay and another that takes 22 minutes.

Yes... it is a RANDOM process.

This whole discussion started when Psion argued that we needed to prove that random forces exist.

Yes... thanks... you have just done so above.

The point is what happens to every different atom or particle seems totally random

It does not "seem"... it is... which then again you have just proven randomness... so yes

but what happens on more of a macro level is quite predictable.

Psion denies randomness... and predictable does not mean deterministic... it means probability... i.e. randomness.

Having a normal distribution for the randomness of a process in individual items as a collective is part and parcel of the randomness of things.

Thus denying randomness because we can GUESS at the overall result of random events is ... to say the least... irrational.

And saying something is predictable with a +/- uncertainty is saying it is random and thus not deterministic.

So yet again you have just proven randomness... so again... yes

 

[acbytesla]

Option 1: Some form of true, inherent "randomness" exists in the universe.
Option 2: "Randomness" is a just a useful term to describe unpredictable complexity in systems that we don't have a way of getting all the information from so things are "random" on a functional, day to day level.

Maybe some inherent quirk of the universe means the coin toss that opens the Super Bowl really is random, maybe we just have no way of measuring every possible force acting on the coin in real time enough to predict the outcome. Same results either way.

Either way there's no space to put a god.

There are hypotheses that argue that everything that has happened and everything that will hapoened was inevitable. That if we could load all the data in the most powerful supercomputer our reality would be what it is. But even if that were true, it would not necessarily mean that reality is the product of a sentient being.

And certainly not one that cares about how one species of billions of species on one of trillion billion planets has sex.

 

[Leumas]

Option 1: Some form of true, inherent "randomness" exists in the universe.
Option 2: "Randomness" is a just a useful term to describe unpredictable complexity in systems that we don't have a way of getting all the information from so things are "random" on a functional, day to day level.

Maybe some inherent quirk of the universe means the coin toss that opens the Super Bowl really is random, maybe we just have no way of measuring every possible force acting on the coin in real time enough to predict the outcome. Same results either way.

Either way there's no space to put a god.

And that is the point... that is where their GOD comes in... he has all the information and can determine with 100% certainty all things.

And that is the reason behind the tenacious clenching onto determinism and denying randomness... because if things are random and indeterministic then their god cannot determine with 100% certainty anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah that's just "God of the Gaps" again. Not a new concept.

 

[Leumas]

There are hypotheses that argue that everything that has happened and everything that will hapoened was inevitable. That if we could load all the data in the most powerful supercomputer our reality would be what it is. But even if that were true,

It is not true because of the universe being indeterministic and things are at the fundamental bases of the universe random... AS PROVEN BY SCIENCE.

Denying randomness is like denying evolution.

it would not necessarily mean that reality is the product of a sentient being.

Ah... but therein lies the rub... it leaves open the probability for one... albeit with a 99.9999% uncertainty... no?

And certainly not one that cares about how one species of billions of species on one of trillion billion planets has sex.

How much certainty? Is there a random chance of you being wrong?

 

[Leumas]

Yeah that's just "God of the Gaps" again. Not a new concept.

Of course... any gap would do... even if they have to chip away incessantly at science and logic and rationality and reality and even the words of the language to create any gap for their creator.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, that is how it works. So what are you disagreeing with?

That is not what you said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why does everybody assume that if I am not channeling Leumas then I must be a die hard religious nut who is secretly trying to convert everybody?

You know very well that there is no test for "intelligent" forces. That doesn't mean that we have to throw existing theories out of the window. It just means that we can't prove them and have to be prepared for newer, better theories to come along.

This is also not what I said.

Just which theories or parts of the theory of evolution do you think don't meet the standard of scientific fact*?

As for Leumas' POV, I don't know exactly what that is but I do know your posts in general support a god believing POV. Is that wrong?



*In science, facts are not proven as they can change. Except for math science is not about "proving" anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Proof is for whiskey. As to reality I'll just settle for evidence." - Someone I heard once, paraphrased.

 

[acbytesla]

And saying something is predictable with a +/- uncertainty is saying it is random and thus not deterministic.

This is one of those subjects where definitions mean everything. Sadly, dictionaries aren’t authorities. They track usages. And generally, they confirm your usage. But not completely. I prefer your usage because it is more precise.

Deterministic means just that, determined by conscious choice. So predictable does not equal deterministic. And since random means without method or conscious decision, then yes there are random forces.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again getting dragged down into splitting the hairs of how academia versus street usage uses terms like theory, hypothesis, fact, proof is fine and all but it matters not once iota when the other side's total sum of everything they are bringing to the table is "nothing."

Wherever the line between fact and theory sits god is nowhere near it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What are you laughing about? The statement was true and it's easy to give simple examples.

Building a casino is non random but some of the games that are part of said casino if they aren't fixed have random components.

A rich man might not be a random thing but who he meets in his lifetime that he chooses to have children with thereby passing on genes might come from random encounters.


Edited to add my examples are simple compared to the scientific versions others have posted.

 

[acbytesla]

Denying randomness is like denying evolution.

Ah... but therein lies the rub... it leaves open the probability for one... albeit with a 99.9999% uncertainty... no?

How much certainty? Is there a random chance of you being wrong?

There is always a chance. Or is there?

Can we be 100 percent sure of anything?

I'll settle for 99.9999% every time.

 

[Leumas]

This is one of those subjects where definitions mean everything. Sadly, dictionaries aren’t authorities. They track usages. And generally, they confirm your usage. But not completely. I prefer your usage because it is more precise.

Deterministic means just that, determined by conscious choice. So predictable does not equal deterministic. And since random means without method or conscious decision, then yes there are random forces.

Yes...

 

[Leumas]

What are you laughing about? The statement was true ...

It is the same kind of laughing evolution deniers do when when one tells them that monkeys and humans share the same ancestral origins.

I have seen one with my own eyes guffaw and chortle when I tried to explain to him how the egg came before the chicken.

 

[psionl0]

Quantum particles and electrons are random forces that are predictable at the same time.

We know that decay rate of uranium but we do not know specifically when a particular atom will decay. Is that good enough for you? We are surrounded by random forces.

How does that prove that the forces are truly random? All you have said is that we don't know which atom decays next. That doesn't mean that it is purely a random selection process.

 

[psionl0]

Well the thread really ended when psionl0 conceded their point about an afterlife and atheism was incorrect.

I didn't think that you would give a truthful representation of my post.

I said that others disagreed with me and there was nothing further to discuss.