Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Trent Wray]

His telling you that you have built a strawman argument isn't part of a conversation?

Why do you want to know?

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about positions I hold and statements I have made. I see no advantage to anybody for me to defend positions I do not hold and statements I have not made.

If you want to have a conversation with me about my position, then a good place to start would be to address my position.

Okay we'll try this again, but I'll summarize and cut to the chase:

You said this:

It's an old saying, but it's true - if God really did create all life on Earth, then the best you can say about him is that he's lazy and has a distinct lack of imagination.

To which the crux of one of my points about that comment was this:

I don't understand this argument either .... which basically says, that if god is anything like us then he/she/it sucks.

To which you said, that no it doesn't.

The basis for my point, applies to those who think that (subjectively) life displays an array of variety and wonder, and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth .... but then turn around and say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying.

I never said that you fit that description (the one directly above), so put your own straw down and address my point if you like. My description was a hypothetical one about a "generic somebody" who might fit that description, to illustrate my point which was influenced by something I quoted you saying. See? I took something you said, and applied it generically to "anyperson." My questions aimed at you, were more about stressing my point than getting your actual opinions on the universe' beauty or what have you.

But it appears as though you thought I was putting words in your mouth. And I can see that, but it's not what I was actually trying to do. I was trying to stress a point, and have you see it and comment on it. So I'll discuss the crux of my point, but if you want to run down rabbit holes I didn't build, I'll probably just watch and not participate. Cool?

 

[John Jones]

Why do you want to know?

I'm nosey.

 

[John Jones]

Okay we'll try this again, but I'll summarize and cut to the chase:

You said this:



To which the crux of one of my points about that comment was this:



To which you said, that no it doesn't.

The basis for my point, applies to those who think that (subjectively) life displays an array of variety and wonder, and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth .... but then turn around and say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying.

I never said that you fit that description (the one directly above), so put your own straw down and address my point if you like. My description was a hypothetical one about a "generic somebody" who might fit that description, to illustrate my point which was influenced by something I quoted you saying. See? I took something you said, and applied it generically to "anyperson." My questions aimed at you, were more about stressing my point than getting your actual opinions on the universe' beauty or what have you.

But it appears as though you thought I was putting words in your mouth. And I can see that, but it's not what I was actually trying to do. I was trying to stress a point, and have you see it and comment on it. So I'll discuss the crux of my point, but if you want to run down rabbit holes I didn't build, I'll probably just watch and not participate. Cool?

tl;dr

 

[Trent Wray]

Removed breach of Rule 12 and Rule 0.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You said this:

Yes I did.

To which the crux of one of my points about that comment was this:

Yes it was.

To which you said, that no it doesn't.

Yes I did, because it doesn't.

The basis for my point, applies to those who think that (subjectively) life displays an array of variety and wonder, and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth .... but then turn around and say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying.

And I do think that life displays an array of variety and wonder and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth, and I did say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying. And your response still has nothing to do with any position I hold or anything I've said. That's why it's a straw man. You've taken the point I made, said that it says something that it doesn't say, then argued against that rather than what it actually does say, even when it's been pointed out to you that your interpretation of the statement isn't correct.

 

[randman]

Re-read the OP. This topic is about God.

But the argument addressed was about science.

 

[randman]

I was being facetious

oops....sorry

You tell me - do bear in mind that 'realism' as used by physicists is not the same as the 'realism' of metaphysics.

Yes. Why I used local realism. Realism? Not really sure what means in metaphysics, btw.

But there are definitely implications from quantum physics to our worldview, metaphysics, etc,....

On the rest as far as the comments on death and so forth, not sure if this thread is the best spot for it but the idea is a strong case can be made from the Bible that the universe once existed without death. That would, of course, mean the entire time-line, all of space-time, would not have death in it. The principle would not be active. Reality would be significantly different.

Maybe it would help to think of the multiverse concept. Imagine an alternative universe without death. Now, imagine you lived there and were told of a universe that could and would have death if you chose it.

That's was Adam's choice.

The difference is they don't both exist, just as possibles. Another analogy would be a computer program that is producing a virtual world but you can program it to run with certain properties and features or leave them out. The program from beginning to end would either have those features or not.

So God didn't create the world with mass extinction events. He created the world without that, but that world is gone once death entered in to space-time. The past itself was changed. The entire program run was changed. So it was man's choice to choose that alternate universe/earth/world with death and suffering in it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But the argument addressed was about science.

If that's true, then it's you who was being off-topic.

But that's incidental as your statement isn't true, as anyone who follows the quote trail back can see for themselves.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

On the rest as far as the comments on death and so forth, not sure if this thread is the best spot for it but the idea is a strong case can be made from the Bible that the universe once existed without death.

Yes, but a strong case can be made from the Bible that Pi is exactly 3, so I'm not sure that its credentials as a scientific text book are exactly superlative.

 

[marplots]

Yes, but a strong case can be made from the Bible that Pi is exactly 3, so I'm not sure that its credentials as a scientific text book are exactly superlative.

I have often wondered why the Pi=3 objection isn't met with the fact that the surface of the earth is a positively curved, non-euclidean space. At some diameter on this surface, Pi does equal 3. This also holds for a locally convex floor plan in a temple.

I am disappointed that Apologists are not well versed enough in mathematics to make the case that only a Deity could invoke Riemann style geometries at the time that was written. I should work for the other team.

 

[Trent Wray]

Yes I did.



Yes it was.



Yes I did, because it doesn't.



And I do think that life displays an array of variety and wonder and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth, and I did say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying. And your response still has nothing to do with any position I hold or anything I've said. That's why it's a straw man. You've taken the point I made, said that it says something that it doesn't say, then argued against that rather than what it actually does say, even when it's been pointed out to you that your interpretation of the statement isn't correct.

And you are doing exactly the same, as I can say the same about you:

You've taken the point I made, said that it says something that it doesn't say, then argued against that rather than what it actually does say, even when it's been pointed out to you that your interpretation of the statement isn't correct.

So is there now a point to this? It's why I realized there was no point in continuing further with anything of substance, because it appears you don't want to have a conversation. You misunderstood the nature of my communicating, but apparently don't see how and it appears you are unwilling to see how ... and so in return you build a strawman yourself. Two people building a nice strawman.

The JREF posturing is unnecessary. You either understand where I was coming from and my point or you don't. It has to do with my point, not your comment specifically. I was cherrypicking from you and formulating a hypothetical separate from you. If you want to focus on my overall point ... go ahead. If you don't agree, explain why you don't. Otherwise ... let's just drop it. I have no problem racking it up as a "failure to communicate" and I hold nothing against you, but arguing over which straw to use isn't my idea of a conversation . And I'm not trying to be confrontational ... honestly

We can probably have a conversation, if we start from here now:

And I do think that life displays an array of variety and wonder and that the universe is amazing, etc and so forth, and I did say something along the lines of what I quoted you saying. And your response still has nothing to do with any position I hold or anything I've said. That's why it's a straw man.

But as I've said, you'd have to understand that my response isn't talking about you in particular, it's talking about my opinion which you just may happen to fall under or not. But that's hardly relevant to my point as it stands on it's own. Like I said ... we can drop it if you like, since I don't even really care all that much about it anymore anyway lol But it's up to you ...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But as I've said, you'd have to understand that my response isn't talking about you in particular, it's talking about my opinion which you just may happen to fall under or not.

But I do fit the description you posted, as I pointed out. It's just that the argument that I made is one you've misrepresented. You've said that it implies things that it doesn't, regardless of whether you're using it as a jumping-off point in order to make a general point or not.

And I'm not really sure what the point is in making a "general point" about a group of people that may or may not exist, but who don't appear to be people either posting in or even reading this thread.

 

[dlorde]

..the idea is a strong case can be made from the Bible that the universe once existed without death.

Well there wouldn't have been death until life appeared, I'll grant you. But you don't need the bible to tell you that.

That would, of course, mean the entire time-line, all of space-time, would not have death in it.

It would mean all of space time up to the point life appeared wouldn't have death in it.

BTW, I'm assuming that by 'death' you mean the termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism ?

Reality would be significantly different.

There wouldn't be life.

Maybe it would help to think of the multiverse concept. Imagine an alternative universe without death. Now, imagine you lived there and were told of a universe that could and would have death if you chose it.

That's was Adam's choice.

Who says so, and based on what? (quote the biblical passage if you must)

So God didn't create the world with mass extinction events. He created the world without that, but that world is gone once death entered in to space-time.

I guess you can't have mass extinction events without lots of species, i.e. life...

The past itself was changed. The entire program run was changed. So it was man's choice to choose that alternate universe/earth/world with death and suffering in it.

That sounds more like amateur Science-Fantasy than a plausible hypothesis. Where's the evidence? how can we test it? what does it predict? how is it useful?

 

[Dinwar]

So God didn't create the world with mass extinction events. He created the world without that, but that world is gone once death entered in to space-time. The past itself was changed. The entire program run was changed. So it was man's choice to choose that alternate universe/earth/world with death and suffering in it.

Failed attempt at logic or Dadaist prose?

 

[Trent Wray]

But I do fit the description you posted, as I pointed out. It's just that the argument that I made is one you've misrepresented. You've said that it implies things that it doesn't, regardless of whether you're using it as a jumping-off point in order to make a general point or not.

And I'm not really sure what the point is in making a "general point" about a group of people that may or may not exist, but who don't appear to be people either posting in or even reading this thread.

You're not really sure what the point is in making a general point about something that may or may not exist --- in the R/P section? This is a weak attempt at something, although I'm not sure what it is, considering we are talking about fictional entities anyway.

Listen ... I'm trying to be polite. This is simple: do you want to actually discuss this or not? If so ... we'll "pretend" from a blank slate. I'll state my point one more time, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might still want to participate (although I'm not even that interested in my point anymore, as it was a couple of days ago I made it lol). In fact ... I won't even reference anything you've said previously (on purpose), and we can go from there. I'll put it in quotes to set apart, you can ignore it if you like:

What I don't get, is when someone finds humanity or the universe and the like, for example --- beautiful in design and function, a fine display of variety, fascinating, etc --- yet will claim that if there was a god who designed it, then that god is unoriginal and lazy and boring and designed something flawed. I'm using general opinions such a person might have ... and so if you get the gist of what I'm saying then fine, if not .... don't worry about it ... but it seems like a contradiction to me, based more on personal ideas of what that god should be like, rather than what the "creation" itself is actually like.

It is like finding a piece of artwork wonderful, but then finding out it was designed by your ex-wife whom you loathe ... and then you now loathe the artwork. It is entirely subjective, and I don't see why an atheists response to "creation is perfect" would be "god is unoriginal and boring" if that same atheist happens to find existence fascinating and varied. It seems more of a bias against a personal POV of what a "god" should be assumes a lot. And I'm not arguing for the existence of anything, I'm just pointing out the contradiction.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're not really sure what the point is in making a general point about something that may or may not exist --- in the R/P section? This is a weak attempt at something, although I'm not sure what it is, considering we are talking about fictional entities anyway.

So, because this section is about religion our points don't have to have anything to do with reality? And you call my post a "weak attempt at something"?

Listen ... I'm trying to be polite. This is simple: do you want to actually discuss this or not? If so ... we'll "pretend" from a blank slate. I'll state my point one more time, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might still want to participate (although I'm not even that interested in my point anymore, as it was a couple of days ago I made it lol). In fact ... I won't even reference anything you've said previously (on purpose), and we can go from there. I'll put it in quotes to set apart, you can ignore it if you like:

Okay, then, you're presenting a false dichotomy, while talking about a group of people of which I've seen no evidence that they exist at all.

 

[randman]

Trent, I have not found sceptic interested in discussion or understanding where the other person is coming from.

 

[dlorde]

Trent, I have not found sceptic interested in discussion or understanding where the other person is coming from.

Dang! there goes another irony meter...

 

[Trent Wray]

So, because this section is about religion our points don't have to have anything to do with reality? And you call my post a "weak attempt at something"?

Okay, then, you're presenting a false dichotomy, while talking about a group of people of which I've seen no evidence that they exist at all.

Well then a discussion with me about it really wouldn't apply to you then would it? So .... let it respectfully go as I've given you many outs.

I understand the way some JREF'ers "feed" by running arguments into the ground with each other in some sort of competition. I'm not one of those who participates in those types of competitions. If neither one of us is learning, or laughing, or benefiting somehow ... I see no point in talking. That is the point that reached a few posts (and a day) ago ...

 

[Trent Wray]

Trent, I have not found sceptic interested in discussion or understanding where the other person is coming from.

That's not always true .... it's just the annoying/irrational ones will always stick out the worst. Like the erratic driver in traffic. It doesn't mean all the drivers are idiots just because one is behaving like an idiot.

A punch from a bully leaves a bruise that lasts for days, where as a compliment from a passerby goes unnoticed for the most part ...

But in this forum? It's just words and emotions mostly. Trying to throw an unwarranted punch at someone with words when you could just as easily walk away just shows cowardice more than anything else . This forum is a great resource to try out ideas, and find a congregation of knowledgable individuals. The R/P forum is more open to debate and galvanized speech, because of the subjective nature of imagination and opinions, so you're more likely to find those who disagree with you. You just have to learn to separate out those who genuinely want to discuss something with you, from those who just want to be heard for whatever reason ...